Planning Perspectives, 23 (January 2008) 128

Friedrichstrae, 1987: neo-historical urban design

in the German Democratic Republic
FLORIAN URBAN*
Center for Metropolitan Studies, Technische Universitt Berlin, Ernst-Reuter-Platz 7, 10587 Berlin,
Germany (e-mail: florian.urban@metropolitanstudies.de)
Planning
10.1080/02665430701737950
RPPE_A_273738.sgm
0266-5433
Original
Taylor
402007
23
florian.urban@metropolitanstudies.de
FLORIANURBAN
00000January
and
& Article
Perspectives
Francis
(print)/1466-4518
Francis
2007 (online)

In East Berlin, the turn towards the historic city had its peak in 1987 with the celebration of Berlins
750th anniversary. Only two years before the unforeseen fall of the Berlin Wall, the socialist leaders
planned to reconstruct a glitzy shopping and entertainment district unheard of under the real existing
socialism, which was to be designed with garish references to the historic appearance. The redesign of
the central boulevard Friedrichstrae and the adjacent Platz der Akademie (Gendarmenmarkt) square,
of which only a small portion was carried out, was the most ambitious among several prestige projects
for the 750th anniversary celebrations.
This article will demonstrate how the state-sponsored neo-historical design of the Friedrichstrae
area adapted international architectural and planning models in its own particular way, promoting
individual consumption rather than collective production and aiming at a particular form of subjective
experience (Erlebnis). It will also demonstrate how the new design guidelines were based on an
increasing acceptance of social inequality present within the socialist state. Thus it will show that the
urban design policy before and after the German reunification was more similar than is usually
conceded.

Introduction

In the last years of its existence the socialist regime in the German Democratic Republic
promoted a peculiar form of neo-historical urban design. Shortly before the unexpected fall
of the Berlin Wall, the East German leaders took Berlins 750th anniversary in 1987 as an
opportunity to redesign their capital city in a way that had little to do with the modernist
tower blocks that had been the textbook image of architecture under socialism since the late
1950s (Fig. 1). Initiating several showcase projects in the city centre, the languishing regime
aimed at boosting its reputation vis--vis both the East German citizens and the arch-rivals
in the West. The East German regime, which despite all efforts was unable to achieve full
sovereignty under international law, had always used architecture and urban design as a

* Florian Urban is a guest professor of architectural and urban history at the Center for Metropolitan Studies,
Technische Universitt Berlin. He was born and raised in Munich, Germany, and has lived in Berlin since 1988. In
2001, he received his MA in urban planning from UCLA and, in 2006, his PhD in history and theory of
architecture from MIT. He is the author of Berlin/DDR, neo-historisch [Neo-historical East Berlin] (Berlin: Gebr.
Mann Verlag, 2007). He is currently working on a comparative history of the perception of high rise housing in
different countries (Tower and Slab, to be published by Princeton Architectural Press in 2009).

Planning Perspectives
ISSN 0266-5433 print/ISSN 1466-4518 online 2008 Taylor & Francis
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
DOI: 10.1080/02665430701737950
2 Urban

Figure 1. Friedrichstadt Arcades, model, 1987 (photograph: Ehrhardt Gike (ed.), Berlin
Friedrichstrae, Otto-Grotewohl-Strae gestern und heute. East Berlin: Bauinformation, 1987 p.35).

vehicle to convey claims for superiority. But in contrast to the modernist showcase projects
of the 1960s and early 1970s, the new East Berlin was to be dense and functionally mixed,
displaying a garish design that made ample use of historic references. The most ambitious
project was planned on the central boulevard Friedrichstrae and on the adjacent Platz der
Akademie (Gendarmenmarkt) square. Here, the socialist leaders intended to reconstruct a
glitzy shopping and entertainment boulevard unheard of under the real existing socialism.
From the very beginning the development surpassed the capacities of the flagging East
German economy. Over the course of the 1980s, the budget was repeatedly cut down, and
the project remained largely under construction when the German Democratic Republic
ceased to exist in 1990. Many of the unfinished shells were subsequently taken down, and
the area was redesigned by West German and international architects.
This article will demonstrate how this state-sponsored neo-historical city evolved from a
Figure 1. Friedrichstadt Arcades, model, 1987 (photograph: Ehrhardt Gike (ed.), Berlin Friedrichstrae, Otto-Grotewohl-Strae gestern und heute. East Berlin: Bauinformation, 1987 p.35).

particular adaptation of international architectural and planning models. It will show how
the new developments in East Berlin promoted individual consumption rather than collec-
tive production and aimed at fostering subjective experience (Erlebnis). It will also demon-
strate how the new design was based on an increasing acceptance of social inequality present
within the socialist state. In contemporary Berlin as in many other European and North
American cities the once-scorned inner city districts with buildings from the late nineteenth
century have become increasingly popular among well-to-do residents and tourists. The
changed image of these historic neighbourhoods has mostly been analysed in the context of
the introduction of the market economy throughout Berlin after the reunification of the city.
Challenging this standard view, the article will show that the reinterpretation of the historic
urban fabric had already begun under socialism, and that the underlying principles were
quite similar to those that would later prevail in reunified Berlin. Although after 1990 East
German planners, politicians and architects were largely excluded from the decision-making
process, urban design policy before and after German reunification was more similar than is
usually conceded.
The Friedrichstrae area, where the once-despised slanted roofs, bay windows and
backyards were reintroduced, was not the only neo-historical prestige project for the 750th
anniversary. The site of Berlins medieval nucleus, the Nikolaiviertel (Nikolai Quarter) was
simultaneously reconstructed as a prefabricated concrete slab version of a historic old town.
In the working class district Prenzlauer Berg, the Husemannstrae was remodelled as an
open-air museum for the living conditions of around 1900. Two blocks of late nineteenth
century tenements were renovated and fitted out with period shops and restaurants and a
Friedrichstrae, 1987 3

museum that documented the life of past inhabitants. On the historic Sophienstrae, which
like the Friedrichstrae area and the Nikolaiviertel is situated in the central Mitte district,
various quaint buildings from the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were refur-
bished to form a piece of Old Berlin. As on Husemannstrae, old-style bars and cafs were
opened to cater to both locals and tourists. The Friedrichstrae development therefore has
to be seen as part of a comprehensive effort to display the impression of historicity in the
architecture of Berlins central districts.
The neo-historical projects of the 1980s were not the first adaptation of historical architec-
ture in East Germany. Pressured by a Soviet government that at the time considered Stalinist
neo-classicism the only appropriate expression of socialist ideology, East German architects
already in the early 1950s initiated numerous neo-classical construction projects. This archi-
tecture was propagated under the motto national form, socialist content and used formal
references to eighteenth and nineteenth century architects, such as Carl von Gontard or Karl
Friedrich Schinkel, to build palaces with spacious apartments, column-flanked entrances
and ornamented faades for deserving members of the working class. The most famous exam-
ple was the Eastern portion of the representative boulevard Stalinallee (now Karl-Marx-
Allee), which was built in East Berlins Friedrichshain district from 1951 to 1958. In the West,
the street was soon censored as a despicable example of Zuckerbckerstil (wedding cake
style) and as an outcome of totalitarian repression [1]. At the urban scale, the Stalinist devel-
opments followed the Sixteen Principles of Urban Design, which were passed by the Polit-
buro in 1950, shortly after a delegation of East German architects had returned from a visit
to Moscow [2]. They were based on a block perimeter structure with commercial use on the
ground floors, and they continued the nineteenth-century distinction of broad representative
boulevards and small-scale neighbourhoods. They nevertheless did not integrate existing
buildings and sometimes even required their demolition. After Stalins death in 1953, the
national tradition was abandoned rapidly in favour of a Bauhaus-inspired functionalism,
which many East German architects had already practised in the late 1940s before Stalinist
neo-classicism came to be mandated by the authorities. In the following decades, historical
references never fully disappeared. In the 1960s, famous neo-historical projects were, for
example, carried out on the boulevard Unter den Linden, where the destroyed baroque Prin-
zessinnenpalais (Princesss Palace, 19634) and Kronprinzenpalais (Crown Princes Palace,
19689) were rebuilt with strong formal references to their prewar aspect [3]. In both theory
and practice, however, pre-modernist architecture took a backseat. Existing historical build-
ings, particularly those from the nineteenth century, were neglected and frequently demol-
ished in favour of new construction. Functionalist design was used for all architectural
prestige projects, most famously for the western portion of Stalinallee, which was built from
195965 as a series of free-standing eleven-storey apartment blocks, and for the redesign of
East Berlins centre around Alexanderplatz, which was completed in 1969, featuring the
Centrum department store (now Kaufhof), the 36-storey Hotel Stadt Berlin (now Park Inn),
several apartment blocks, and the Television Tower, which measures 368 m and, to date,
remains Germanys tallest building. Modernist architecture was similarly employed for the
large-scale developments of prefabricated concrete slab blocks, which were built in the 1970s
as a part of the ambitious Housing Program. In 1971, Erich Honecker became Head of State,
replacing Walter Ulbricht. In contrast to his predecessor who had considered himself an
architectural talent, Honecker showed little personal interest in questions of design and
4 Urban

tended to approve what his inferiors worked out for him [4]. Thus, over the course of the
1970s, he allowed for an increasing use of neo-historical forms for East Berlins showcase
projects. This changed the face of the Capital of the German Democratic Republic signifi-
cantly, and is palpable in contemporary Berlin to date.

Berlins central boulevard

When the Politburo in 1976 decided to redesign the Friedrichstrae into a showpiece of
historic revival [5], the boulevard could look back on a 300-year-long history. It was laid out
in the late seventeenth century under elector Friedrich III, for whom it was later named.
Together with the surrounding Friedrichstadt (Friedrich City) it was part of a baroque city
extension. It is a straight northsouth axis of 3.3 km in length (Fig. 2). The street now inter-
sects at right angles the Spree River, the elevated central train line and the major boulevards,
Unter den Linden and Leipziger Strae. At the turn of the twentieth century, the Friedrich-
strae was the first commercial and above all entertainment street of the city with lavish
hotels and banks, music venues, beer halls and pleasure domes [6]. Most illustrious buildings
were destroyed in the Second World War. The division of Berlin reinforced the decay, since
it split the Friedrichstrae into a large northern portion that belonged to East Berlin and a
smaller southern portion that belonged to West Berlin. The once central boulevard was thus
relegated to a peripheral position. With regard to East Berlins significance as the showcase
of the Eastern bloc, the Friedrichstrae was nevertheless crucial. For most Western visitors
it was the first street they would experience in the Capital of the German Democratic Repub-
lic, because the two most popular crossing points between West and East Berlin were the
Friedrichstrae train station and the Allied Checkpoint Friedrichstrae, which is known
better as Checkpoint Charlie. Despite the proximity to the Berlin Wall, the East German
government always considered the areas around the Friedrichstrae the centre of their capital
city, and the importance of an adequate design was never questioned. Newspaper articles
from the 1950s and 1960s nevertheless referred to the street as the forgotten city centre and
a dead area [7]. At the time, the authorities in both East and West Berlin planned to broaden
the Friedrichstrae from 22 m (c. 60) to 66 m (c. 200), thus converting it from a two-lane
street into a six-lane-thoroughfare and tearing down almost all remaining prewar buildings
[8]. The plans were not carried out and eventually dismissed in the 1970s. The 1976 plan for
the rebuilding of the Friedrichstrae and the surrounding areas was very different from the
East German urban design projects of the 1960s. The Politburo decided to recreate the
Friedrichstrae as similar as possible to its prewar aspect without building an exact copy [9].
The remaining old buildings were to be preserved. New buildings were to repeat the historic
backyards, building heights and block perimeters. At the same time, they were to be designed
as a free interpretation of the ornamented faades from the late nineteenth century.
Figure 2. Friedrichstrae in the centre of East Berlin and close to the Wall.

A glamorous shopping and entertainment district

The East German leaders envisaged a glamorous entertainment district [10]. Its heart was
the Passagen Friedrichstadt [Friedrichstadt Arcades] an alluring shopping centre on the
Friedrichstrae, 1987 5

Figure 2. Friedrichstrae in the centre of East Berlin and close to the Wall.

eastern side of the boulevard between Franzsische Strae and Mohrenstrae (Figs 1 and 3).
The project was developed by a working group at the Ministry of Construction of the GDR
and scheduled for completion by 1992 [11]. The Friedrichstadt Arcades were to stretch over
three blocks. The descriptions and drawings bear a stronger resemblance to a flashy capital-
ist shopping centre rather than a supply store in a consumer-reticent socialist country. They
show a four-storey shopping area covered by a glass dome. It included a palm-tree house, a
restaurant area, and an atrium-like department store [12]. The visitor was invited to
6 Urban

Figure 3. The shell of the Friedrichstadt Arcades shortly before its demolition (photograph:
Landesarchiv Berlin/ Edmund Kasperski, 1991).

wander through the building on transparent catwalks, stairs and bridges that provided
carefully designed vistas. All interior spaces were to be air-conditioned, which was a novelty
in East Germany. The Friedrichstadt Arcades were to comprise the bulk of the 105 shops,
four department stores, and 44 (!) restaurants that were planned on Friedrichstrae [13].
Above the shopping and entertainment zone, the Friedrichstadt Arcades were to contain
luxurious apartments stretching over two storeys and facing green backyards and winter
gardens. The architects pointed out that this was to support the unity of living and working
and the connection of both with different public spaces [14]. Nevertheless, they did not
mention how the inhabitants of those luxurious spaces were to be selected among the
70 000 East German citizens who at the time were applying for an apartment and who had
been on the waiting lists for years [15]. The official practice at the time can be read from the
regulations passed in the 1960s and 1970s. It was mandated that new apartments were
allocated preferentially to certain groups of the socialist society, such as decorated workers,
officers of the State Security Service or high-ranking party officials [16].
With its steel and glass faade the building resembled an urban version of an American
Figure 3. The shell of the Friedrichstadt Arcades shortly before its demolition (photograph: Landesarchiv Berlin/ Edmund Kasperski, 1991).

mall. The design nevertheless abounded with references to the historic architecture of the
area. Height and block perimeter were modelled after the prewar buildings on Friedrich-
strae. The slanted roof and the fenestration echoed the rhythm of the remaining old
buildings. Also the arcade type was presented as a specific reference to the heyday of
Friedrichstrae, 1987 7

Friedrichstrae at the turn of the twentieth century, when the aristocrats of the imperial
capital shopped in the boulevards fashionable covered passages [17].

Beer halls and revue theatres

The Passagen Friedrichstadt was not the only entertainment building planned on Friedrich-
strae (Fig. 4). The adjacent Block 204 was to include a two-storey bar and discothque.
On the opposite side of the street two blocks south between Kronenstrae and Leipziger
Strae, a House of Entertainment was foreseen, with beer halls, wine bars and ballrooms
that could accommodate more than 1400 patrons [18]. On the block north of the Passagen
Friedrichstadt another mixed-use complex was planned. It was to contain a hotel for young
tourists, a parking garage, shops, restaurants and a number of upscale penthouse apart-
ments [19]. The architects Peter Baumbach and Arndt Zintler proposed to integrate the
three extant prewar buildings into a block perimeter complex with a steel-and-glass faade,
bay windows, slanted roofs and covered passages in the inner parts of the block [20]. The
whole design was an explicit attempt for a synthesis with the existing historic buildings
[21]. The parking garage was to become a masterpiece of prefabricated concrete slab histor-
icism. Protruding concrete elements were to imitate a row of arched windows whose rhythm
was to continue the fenestration of the adjacent nineteenth century building. South of the
train station, the movie theatre Wintergarten was planned. It was to become East Germanys
most significant venue for premires. The name was a reference to a famous variety theatre
that had been destroyed in the war. Aesthetically, the building matched the Passagen
Friedrichstadt. The models show the new Wintergarten as a three- to four-storey building
with a slanted roof, balconies, an ornamented faade and large divided arched windows. It
also was to contain a tourist attraction of a different sort. The building was to serve as a
new checkpoint, where visitors from the West, after having undergone the lengthy control
procedures, would be led directly into the heart of the new entertainment district [22].
While these venues remained plans, a few other buildings were actually carried out.
Figure 4. Friedrichstrae redesign (year dates in parentheses indicate the beginning of construction).

Across the street from the Passagen Friedrichstadt, the House of Soviet Science and Culture
was designed with a concert hall and a Russian language library with 40 000 volumes [23].
It opened in 1984. On the northern bank of the Spree River the restaurant complex Spreeter-
rassen (Spree Terraces) was built between 1985 and 1987 to accommodate 550 guests
(design: Karl-Ernst Swora with Gunter Derdau, Dora Immerschied and Alexander Stephan).
On top of the restaurants there were 118 apartments on eight floors [24]. Next to these new
buildings, the most popular entertainment venue in the area had survived from the prewar
era. The Friedrichstadtpalast (Friedrichstadt Palace) was a century-old revue theatre, whose
variety shows were broadcast on TV to the most remote corners of the Eastern bloc, from
the coast of the Baltic Sea to the Siberian taiga. Due to substantial constructive damage, the
East German leaders decided that the theatre had to be recreated. In 1980, the building was
demolished and rebuilt 600 feet from its old location, following a design by Manfred
Prasser. The new building, which was now situated directly on Friedrichstrae rather than
one block away, was an East German version of PoMo. Clad with decorated precast
concrete slabs it impressed the visitors with its protruding glass-covered entrance loggia and
its longitudinal partitioned windows that end in cloud-shaped ornaments under the roof
8 Urban

Figure 4. Friedrichstrae redesign (year dates in parentheses indicate the beginning of construction).
Friedrichstrae, 1987 9

Figure 5. The new revue theatre Friedrichstadt Palace on Friedrichstrae, built 19814 after a design
by Manfred Prasser, Walter Schwarz and Dieter Bankert (photograph: archive of the Institut fr
Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung, Erkner).

(Fig. 5). With its high-tech stage that could be converted into a circus arena, a water pool, a
dancefloor, or an ice rink, the new Friedrichstadt Palace exceeded all other entertainment
venues in the German Democratic Republic. Like the other entertainment buildings on
Friedrichstrae, the Friedrichstadt Palace was also presented as the official design proposal
put it as a continuation of the good tradition of the revue theatres of the 1920s [25]. Ever
since its re-opening in 1984, it has been one of Berlins most popular musical and revue
theatres. Unlike other socialist entertainment venues its fame and relentless popularity was
unscathed by the end of the GDR and it continued to flourish under capitalism.
Figure 5. The new revue theatre Friedrichstadt Palace on Friedrichstrae, built 19814 after a design by Manfred Prasser, Walter Schwarz and Dieter Bankert (photograph: archive of the Institut fr Regionalentwicklung und Strukturplanung, Erkner).

The reinvented Gendarmenmarkt square

Another hotspot of the new historic city in East Berlin can still be admired one block east of
Friedrichstrae (Fig. 6). Music lovers who today, after a concert at Schinkels Concert
House, head down the majestic outside staircase and overlook the Gendarmenmarkt square
hardly think of socialist historic awareness. On the right and on the left they see baroque
churches with gold-adorned domes, in the right corner beckons the luxurious Hotel Hilton
with its lavish ornaments, and on the left they behold a row of richly decorated residential
buildings with swanky cafs on the ground floor. In reunified Berlin, the Gendarmenmarkt
square is hardly ever connected with the late socialist regime under which it was built and, at
the same time, accepted without reservation by both locals and visitors. It is cherished as a
representative location for government receptions and open-air concerts. Tourist guides and
10 Urban

Figure 6. The reconstructed Platz der Akademie/Gendarmenmark). Right, the Playhouse by Karl
Friedrich Schinkel, built in 1819, destroyed 1944, rebuilt as Concert House 197984; left, the German
Church, built 1701, destroyed 19445, rebuilt 198496 (photograph: K. Kofahl, 2006).

coffee table books frequently call it the citys most beautiful square [26] and this does not
appear to be exclusively a statement on the aesthetic qualities of other Berlin quarters. The
Gendarmenmarkt was the only major portion of the Friedrichstrae redevelopment that was
nearly completed under the socialist government. What made this square so successful, to
the extent that in the reunified Berlin its connection with the unloved regime that commis-
sioned it was completely forgotten?
The popularity of the Gendarmenmarkt square seems to be the result of a particular
Figure 6. The reconstructed Platz der Akademie/Gendarmenmark). Right, the Playhouse by Karl Friedrich Schinkel, built in 1819, destroyed 1944, rebuilt as Concert House 197984; left, the German Church, built 1701, destroyed 19445, rebuilt 198496 (photograph: K. Kofahl, 2006).

design that is at the same time historic and a-historic, referencing the old and simultaneously
expressing contemporary desires. The appearance of the square, which was renamed Platz
der Akademie in 1950 and, since 1991, again bears its old name, is indeed impressive. It
boasts three monumental free-standing buildings: on the edges the Franzsische Kirche
(French Church, begun in 1699) and the Deutsche Kirche (German Church, begun in 1701),
in the middle the Schauspielhaus (Playhouse, begun in 1817 after a design by Karl Friedrich
Schinkel), which is now known as Konzerthaus (Concert House) and used for musical
performances. The two churches are similar in their exterior design and are topped with
widely visible golden statues, that of the French Church symbolizing the Triumphant
Religion and that of the German Church the Triumphant Virtue. The richly decorated
Friedrichstrae, 1987 11

residential buildings from the eighteenth century that once surrounded the square had
already largely disappeared by the turn of the twentieth century and the three public build-
ings on the square were destroyed or heavily damaged in the Second World War [27]. In
addition, most surrounding buildings from the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries were
destroyed, including the famous wine store and restaurant Lutter und Wegner on the north-
west corner of the square. The churches and Playhouse were heavily damaged during the
Second World War. As one of the few prewar buildings, the former Prussian State Bank
from 1901 on Markgrafenstrae on the eastern side of the square had survived the bomb-
ings. Since 1950 it has housed the Academy of Sciences of the GDR and thus gave the square
the name it would bear during most of the socialist era. In the 1950s and 1960s, the Gendar-
menmarkt/Platz der Akademie was firmly anchored in the peoples memory, as Chief
Architect Roland Korn put it, and its imminent rebuilding according to the old beauty at
least as far as the faades were concerned was never doubted [28]. In practice, however,
the square was neglected for decades. Historian Laurenz Demps, who taught at East Berlins
Humboldt University during the times of the GDR, blamed the East German authorities
hatred for their own history for the failure to rebuild the square [29]. According to
Demps, until the 1980s Schinkel was reviled as a Frstenknecht (henchman of the nobility)
in East Germany and further discredited for being the favourite architect of Nazi planner
Albert Speer [30]. The eventual rebuilding of the square, according to Demps, was therefore
accompanied by continuous struggle and took a cunning roundabout way [31]. For
decades, Schinkel was poorly recognized by the East German authorities. In 1962, even the
remains of one of his most famous buildings were removed, despite protests from both East
and West Germany: the Bauakademie (Building Academy) from 1832, which was situated
on the bank of the Spree River south of the boulevard Unter den Linden. The building had
been severely damaged in the Second World War, but according to many specialists could
have been restored. In the 1970s, this perception changed fundamentally. Schinkels 200th
birthday in 1981 was celebrated with a big exhibition that became extremely popular
among both architects and a general audience and subsequently was even shown in West
Germany [32]. Schinkels Friedrichswerder Church, situated only a few metres from the
Building Academy and also damaged in the war, was rebuilt and reopened as a Schinkel
Museum in 1984.

Redesigning Schinkel

In 1976, the Platz der Akademie was officially included in the plans for the Friedrichstrae
redesign. The Politburo decided to rebuild the square according to the historical form at
the same meeting at which it also initiated several other neo-historical projects, including the
rebuilding of other Friedrichstrae buildings and the remodelling of the Sophienstrae
neighbourhood [33]. Subsequently Manfred Prasser was appointed leading architect for the
reconstruction. Prasser was chosen by his mentor Ehrhardt Gike, the head of the influential
government agency Abteilung Sondervorhaben (Department of Special Projects). Gikes
office was subordinated directly to the Ministry of Construction. It supervised the most
prestigious architectural projects in the German Democratic Republic and had considerable
decision-making power with regard to architectural design. Prasser, at the time in his forties
12 Urban

and approaching the peak of his career, had gained Gikes favour when he worked on the
interior design of the combined parliament and entertainment building, the Palace of the
Republic, which opened in 1976 [34]. His design proposals for the Palace of the Republic
could be deemed modern rather than neo-historic. Subsequently, however, Prasser collabo-
rated on a number of design projects with ample historic references, most prominently on
the brash Friedrichstadt Palace, already mentioned. On Platz der Akademie, Prasser led a
team of sixty employees; together with his colleagues he eventually guided the reconstruc-
tion of numerous mixed-use buildings on the square and, most prominently, of Schinkels
Playhouse [35].
Next to Gike and Prasser, East Berlins First Secretary of the ruling Socialist Unity Party
Konrad Naumann strongly promoted neo-historical urban design. Naumann was one of
East Berlins most influential party officials. He was also the driving force behind the
stretches of period cafs and gift shops along reconstructed Husemannstrae and Sophien-
strae, which were both initiated at the same time and completed for the 750th anniversary
[36]. For him, historicizing design contained both an aesthetic and a programmatic quality.
Two months after the 1976 Politburo decision, Naumann announced the reconstruction of
the three public buildings on the Platz der Akademie according to their historical form [37].
Beginning in 1979 the French Church and the Playhouse and, in 1984, the German Church
were rebuilt according to their historic forms. The Playhouse, which had been damaged
much more heavily than the two churches, was revived as a more or less exact copy of
Schinkels original design at least from the outside (Fig. 6) [38]. The cladding of the walls
with stone elements, which had been planned by Schinkel and carried out after his death,
was restored. Most sculptures, including the Apollo statue on the gable, were rebuilt, refer-
encing historic postcards. Hence the whole pictorial programme of the faades was restored
[39]. For the interior design, the case was trickier. A reconstruction of the prewar design was
impossible because a concert hall required different spatial arrangements from a theatre,
particularly with regard to stage and audience room. Consequently, numerous high-ranking
officials propagated a modern interior, which they thought to be more authentic than a
historically inaccurate re-invention in an old style. However, the proponents of a historiciz-
ing design were eventually able to assert themselves. They sought to provide a unified
impression of interior and exterior, and their arguments eventually prevailed over the calls
for historic accuracy [40]. The new old design by Manfred Prasser was inspired by
Schinkels Kleiner Konzertsaal (Small Concert Hall), which had been a part of the original
building and whose decorations were enlarged maintaining the old proportions. It was
nevertheless substantially different from Schinkels. The auditorium was almost twice as big
and, instead of Schinkels second auditorium, the Kings Hall, in the left wing and his
administrative offices in the right wing, Prasser chose to build two large foyers. Construc-
tion began in 1979. The Playhouse was inaugurated on 1 October 1984, under presence of
Head of State Erich Honecker [41]. For his design Prasser received the National Prize of the
German Democratic Republic.
The French Church was inaugurated on 17 April 1983. The project for the rebuilding of
the church was authored by Manfred Prasser, Roland Steiger, Uwe Karl and Silva
Dumanjan [42]. The interior, however, was changed. The main room was split in two
storeys. The lower room now housed offices and the upper space the church room proper.
To reach the church room, an exterior staircase had to be added [43]. The rebuilding of
Friedrichstrae, 1987 13

the tower was begun afterwards, designed to house on the one hand a museum on the
history of the Huguenot immigrants since the seventeenth century and, on the other hand,
a small wine hall [44]. The reconstruction of the German Church had begun in 1984; in
the same year the dome was put on the building [45]. The church, in which the eighteenth-
century architect Wenzeslaus von Knobelsdorff and his contemporary, the court painter
Antoine Pesne are buried, was to be converted into an art exhibition hall [46]. It was still
under construction in 1989 and only reopened in 1996. The building is now used for
changing exhibits.

Columns, pediments and arbors as a backdrop

The monumental buildings on Platz der Akademie were only one part of the ambitious
reconstruction project. The construction of the surrounding buildings on the square started
with the two arbor buildings, Charlottenstrae numbers 502 and Charlottenstrae
numbers 534, between 1980 and 1983 (Fig. 7). Both buildings have the same height as the
rest of the square despite their seven storeys. Charlottenstrae numbers 502 is a white
seven-storey building clad with historicizing concrete elements. It served as a rooming house
for the Akademie fr Gesellschaftswissenschaften [Academy of Social Sciences], an institu-
tion of the Central Committee of the Socialist Unity Party. Club rooms and other functional
spaces are grouped around a winter garden; on the ground floor there was the restaurant
Arkade [47]. The adjacent buildings to the south were rebuilt between 1980 and 1984, using

Figure 7. Platz der Akademie/Gendarmenmarkt, west side the arbor buildings on

Charlottenstrae 534 (left) and 502, built 19803 (photograph: the author, 2005).
14 Urban

steel frame construction clad with precast concrete elements. The faades were adorned with
columns and pediments. The corner building on Charlottenstrae, numbers 55 and 56, was
built from 19808 and housed the Hanns Eisler School of Music, with classrooms, sound
studios and a concert hall (Fig. 8). Its pilasters were modelled to continue the rhythm of the
faade of Schinkels Playhouse across the street.
Opposite these buildings, on the western side of the square, Manfred Prasser and his
Figure 8.
7. The
PlatzConcert
der Akademie/Gendarmenmarkt,
House (left, original design
west
by K.
sideF.Schinkel,
the arbor1819,
buildings
rebuilton
197984)
Charlottenstrae
and the School
534 (left)
of Music
and 502,
Hannsbuilt
Eisler
19803
on the(photograph:
right (c. 19847),
the author,
whose2005).
faade took on the rhythm of Schinkels design (photograph: K. Kofahl, 2006).

colleague Matthias Borner designed an eight-storey residential building with 114 apart-
ments, situated on Wilhelm-Klz-Strae numbers 3941 (now Markgrafenstrae, see Fig.
9). They were built in the famous prefabricated concrete slab system WBS 70, which was
the raw material for the largest tower block developments in the GDR [48]. The ground
floor included a representative restaurant and a caf [49]. The two subterranean floors
were in steel frame construction, the top floors with prefabricated concrete slabs of type
WBS 70. Also with these buildings, Prasser defied critical voices that deemed it inappropri-
ate for a socialist society to construct different buildings with distinguishable faades on
the same block [50]. Prasser nevertheless wanted to optically subordinate the residential
buildings to the Playhouse and the two churches and therefore designed several different
faades. On the southern side of the square the Dom-Hotel (now Hilton, see Fig. 10) was
erected between 1989 and 1990 following a design by Bernd Seidel. With its two-storey

Figure 8. The Concert House (left, original design by K. F. Schinkel, 1819, rebuilt 197984) and the
School of Music Hanns Eisler on the right (c. 19847), whose faade took on the rhythm of Schinkels
design (photograph: K. Kofahl, 2006).
Friedrichstrae, 1987 15

Figure 9. Platz der Akademie/Gendarmenmarkt, east side mixed-use buildings on

Markgrafenstrae, built 19837 (photograph: K. Kofahl, 2006).

arched windows on the ground floor, its curving pilasters and its jagged roof with
ornamented dormers, protruding balconies and a semi-circular skylight over the entrance,
it is the freest interpretation of the historic theme on Platz der Akademie. In the eyes of
contemporary visitors the reconstructed Platz der Akademie by the late 1980s once
again presented itself as one of the most beautiful squares in Europe [51] and a pearl of
architecture [52].
The new programme of the square, which prominently featured entertainment and
Figure 10.
9. Platz
Platzder
derAkademie/Gendarmenmarkt,
Akademie/Gendarmenmarkt,east
south
sideside
mixed-use
Dom Hotel,
buildings
now Hilton,
on Markgrafenstrae,
built 198990 after
builta19837
design (photograph:
by Bernd Seidel
K. Kofahl,
(photograph:
2006).K. Kofahl, 2006).

gastronomy, was part of the neo-historical reconstruction from the very beginning. Already
in 1976 party secretary Konrad Naumann had called for a reconstruction of the famous
eateries Caf Bauer and Lutter und Wegner as historically valuable places [53]. The Caf
Bauer used to be situated not directly on the square, but rather one block west on the south-
east corner of the intersection Unter den Linden and Friedrichstrae. At the turn of the
century it was a meeting point for Berlins high society. Lutter und Wegner, on the north-
west corner of the square, had been the favourite drinking place of early nineteenth-century
author E. T. A. Hoffmann and the setting of Jacques Offenbachs 1881 opera The Tales of
Hoffmann. Both caf-restaurants were destroyed in the Second World War. The former was
revived in 1987 only by its name as a hotel bar in the newly constructed Grand Hotel, while
the latter was reinvented one block south of its historic location on Gendarmenmarkt a few
years after the German Reunification.
16 Urban

Figure 10. Platz der Akademie/Gendarmenmarkt, south side Dom Hotel, now Hilton, built
198990 after a design by Bernd Seidel (photograph: K. Kofahl, 2006).

The intricacies of the historical form

The numerous contradictions that were inherent in the guideline reconstruction according
to the historical form did not go unnoticed. The discussion over the interior of the new
Playhouse/Concert House already pointed at the shortcomings of any reconstruction that
claims to be historical, and the matter stirred both architects and construction officials. The
director of the East Berlin Historic Preservation Authority, Peter Goralczyk, who had writ-
ten his doctoral dissertation on the Playhouse, pointed out that the interior design has to be
seen as neo-historical architecture, not as a reconstruction of a historical building. He criti-
cized the rebuilding as a confusing juxtaposition, an irritating mixture of preservationist
reconstruction, that is, rebuilding of buildings that in fact once existed in their historic form,
and a historicizing new construction and disapproved of the blurry border between recon-
struction and historicizing new invention [54]. At the same time, he commended the rebuild-
ing as such and stressed that the harmony of interior and exterior design was accepted by
the audience [55]. Thus, he indirectly accepted the designers choice of a neo-historical inte-
rior that was adapted to the new function, and hence a design that necessarily took consider-
able liberties with the historical model. Goralczyks approach is typical of the attitude of
many East German intellectuals at the time. It oscillated between a pragmatic acceptance of
both economic limitations and popular taste on the one hand and a desire for historical
accuracy in the reproduction of the destroyed city on the other. Goralczyk did not condemn
eclecticism as long as it was upfront and not deceptive. His goal, however, was the
Friedrichstrae, 1987 17

rebuilding of destroyed monuments as closely as possible to the historic model. In this

respect, his concern was for accurate historic appearance rather than historicity.
When it came to the buildings on the edges of the Platz der Akademie, rebuilding accord-
ing to the historical form, as mandated in the 1976 Politburo meeting and propagated by
preservationists such as Goralczyk, became even more problematic. For the two churches and
the Playhouse, which had not undergone substantial changes since their construction, at least
the exterior form was easy to determine. For the other buildings on the square, which over the
course of two centuries were repeatedly demolished and rebuilt, the case was far more
complex. Consequently, the right historical form became the subject of a lasting debate. In
1976, it was proposed to reconstruct the surrounding buildings on Platz der Akademie
according to the state of 1848 [56]. In that year, those who had died in an uprising against
the Prussian nobility were put to lie in state on the square and publicly honored. Even king
Friedrich Wilhelm IV was forced to assist [57]. The revolution of 1848, despite the fact that
it eventually failed, played an important role in the Marxist narrative of historical progress,
and some East German leaders therefore considered the date persuasive to inspire an author-
itative historic reconstruction. Others thought it too narrow and called for a freer interpreta-
tion, while a third group generally accepted the date of 1848 as significant, but stressed that
most buildings that stood on the square in that year had been constructed much earlier and
therefore logically displayed very different architectural styles. The difficulty in agreeing on
one single historic model eventually favoured the advocates of an eclectic historicism. In most
cases the clear distinctions between accurate reconstruction and free invention, for which
preservationist Peter Goralczyk had so vigorously advocated, blurred in practice. Among the
most prolific interpretative re-inventors was architect Manfred Prasser, who already in 1976
had authored a study on the square that proposed eclectic faades loosely reflecting models
from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries [58]. Prassers proposal abounded with pedi-
ments, pilasters, columns and other faade decorations. He also suggested the use of arbors
to provide a spatial connection of the square with the surrounding buildings. Most buildings
on the square were rebuilt under Prassers direction and reflected his interpretative approach.
They were executed with prefabricated concrete slabs, yet according to the proportions of
eighteenth and nineteenth century buildings.
With their pediments, pilasters and columns, their perimeter blocks and standardized
building heights, the new architecture, to any visitor, clearly alluded to the squares historic
aspect. Upon closer observation, however, it was difficult to classify the buildings as belong-
ing to a specific period. Some observers detected a reference in the apartment buildings on the
eastern side of the Platz der Akademie to Otto Wagners Jugendstil faades on the
Naschmarkt square in Vienna [59]. Others saw a similarity to the designs of postmodern
architect Ricardo Bofill in Paris, where Manfred Prasser had travelled with special permission
from the government to get inspiration for the Friedrichstadt Palace design [60]. Prasser, in
retrospect, denied such influences [61]. His superior Ehrhardt Gike, who had guided the
Paris trip, merely remembered intensive discussions on the faade design [62]. Strongly influ-
enced by Gikes politics, the Platz der Akademie eventually evolved as a series of buildings
that displayed a generic historicity [63]. Randomly quoting from eighteenth, nineteenth and
early twentieth century styles and featuring pre-modernist, functionally mixed buildings, the
design of the square precisely inhibited an experience of the urban fabric in its historical
continuity. In this sense, the Platz der Akademie was profoundly a-historic.
18 Urban

Valuta-Hotels

To a certain extent the Friedrichstrae and Platz der Akademie reconstruction was an
image-marketing project directed to Western observers and visitors. This is supported by the
fact that the Politburo during the same meeting at which it resolved the Friedrichstrae
project also decided on the construction of two so-called Valuta-Hotels in Berlins Mitte
district [64]. Valuta-Hotels, also known as Interhotels, were restricted to guests from West-
ern countries who had to pay with freely convertible currency (Valuta) such as West German
marks. The Valuta-Hotels offered a level of comfort that was significantly superior to that of
hotels open to East German citizens. The 36-storey Hotel Stadt Berlin (now Park Inn) on
Alexanderplatz even contained a casino where the capitalist guests were allowed to support
the socialist state with their gambling losses of course to be paid in capitalist currency.
Designed to profit from Western visitors and thus eventually serve the socialist cause, the
Valuta-Hotels nevertheless reinforced the impression held by many East Germans that they
were second-class citizens in their own country.
The Friedrichstrae rebuilding comprised two Valuta-Hotels. The first has already been
mentioned the Dom Hotel (now Hilton) on Platz der Akademie. The second one was the
Grand Hotel (now Westin Grand Hotel), built between 1985 and 1987 as a collaboration of
the Japanese Kajima Corporation, the Swedish company SIAB and a number of state-
operated East German firms [65]. In a 1985 Politburo meeting, the project was referred to as
Hotel Adlon, which was another proof of the socialist leaders attempt to reconnect to the
glamour of early twentieth century Berlin. The Adlon was one of the most famous hotels in
prewar Berlin, situated opposite the Brandenburg Gate. It burned down at the end of World
War II, and was re-erected only after German reunification. At the time of the proposal for
the Grand Hotel, the old Adlon was a ruin [66]. When the Grand Hotel opened in 1987, it
reflected some of the old Adlons glamour. The faade was structured by arches and pilasters
in the style of the late nineteenth century. The centrepiece of the building was an eight-storey
high octagonal lobby with ornamented balconies, false marble columns and a skylight. Also
the opulent interior rooms contained numerous quotations from the nineteenth century. In
order to increase the number of rooms, while at the same time maintaining the historic
building dimensions, the height of each storey was reduced significantly. The designers
attempted to create a homogeneous appearance along the whole block. Thus, an adjacent
apartment building a modernist steel and glass creation from the late 1960s was clad
with a historicizing stone faade and visually integrated into the Grand Hotel. Like other
buildings on Friedrichstrae, the Grand Hotel was promoted with references to the glamour
of the prewar period. The rhetoric of cultural life in the vanished Caf Bauer across the
street was part of it. The new hotel bar Caf Bauer was, of course, restricted to patrons who
were able to pay with West German currency.

Characteristic lighting design

The characteristic atmosphere of Friedrichstrae was to be reinforced by a particular

lighting design. A 1985 proposal elaborated by the Ministry of Construction provided a
detailed conception of streetlights, shop signs and billboards [67]. If realized, the proposal
Friedrichstrae, 1987 19

would have topped everything known so far in the Eastern bloc. A comprehensive impres-
sion was to be created through a special light dramaturgy, using lamps with high aesthetic
and visual value and futuristic design [68]. This was to include large slide projections, time-
controlled lighting effects, illuminated moving elements and combined visual-acoustic special
effects [69]. Illuminated commercials were to hang over the street; neon signs were to stretch
over entire buildings. Artistic elements were planned to adorn the floor. Cascades and water
fountains were to be set up on the sidewalks, bathed in fluorescent light. Spots were to stress
architectural highlights. The Grand Hotel was to be illuminated by historic Karl-Friedrich
Schinkel lamps on the sidewalks. The conception was to be carried out with lighting in differ-
ent colours and intensities. A spectacular newly-to-be-developed laser system the so-called
Laser City Program was to project laser beams along the street, providing information on
time, temperature, humidity and air pressure [70]. The distinctive element of the proposal
was the conscious use of light and sound to create atmosphere: Friedrichstrae was to be
minutely staged as a gesamtkunstwerk that combined shopping and entertainment facilities
with a flood of visual, acoustic and dramatic elements blended together.
The contrast between the Delirious East Berlin outlined in the Friedrichstrae proposals
and the centre of the real socialist capital city could have hardly been more extreme. One has
to assess the scope of the Friedrichstrae project against the background of a country that
notoriously lacked both consumer goods and entertainment options. East German shop
windows were generally bleak and unwelcoming. Every weekend prospective guests formed
long lines at the doors of the few bars and dance halls. Like many East Berlin boulevards,
the Friedrichstrae was also not particularly inviting. It was grey and abounded with crum-
bling faades. Motorized traffic was minimal and the pedestrians appeared lost among the
numerous empty lots. If anything, its charm was one of melancholy and incompleteness.
At the same time, the socialist leaders were, of course, hesitant to admit that they were hard
pressed to keep their consumerist promises. When the economic situation further deteriorated
in the late 1980s, it became more and more apparent that the East German economy was not
strong enough to guarantee the supply of all projected commercial spaces [71]. Project after
project was cancelled, including the Friedrichstadt Arcades, which were to be replaced by a
significantly less spectacular commercial and apartment building. At the same time, construc-
tion on all Friedrichstrae sites was delayed due to constant shortages of materials and
labour. In 1985, Erich Honecker tried to speed up the project at all costs. He declared the
Friedrichstrae a special initiative of the socialist youth organization Freie Deutsche Jugend
[Free German Youth] and thus used the structures of that organization to send young
construction workers from different parts of the GDR to East Berlin [72]. These workers were
suspended from employment in their hometowns, with the effect that the decay of East
German provincial towns increased further. Despite these efforts, however, the situation on
Friedrichstrae remained precarious. The completion of the project was delayed further and
further and eventually came to a halt after the collapse of the socialist regime in 1989.

Erlebnis space

In 1984, the Politburo ordered that Friedrichstrae become the most important commercial
street with diverse experience areas [73]. The neologism experience area Erlebnisbereich
20 Urban

in German was emblematic of a new urban design approach. Erlebnis is an evocative term
that translates into experience, event or adventure. As an urban design concept,
Erlebnis preceded the Friedrichstrae project. As early as 1973, a study issued by the East
German Building Academy mandated high-ranking construction officials to judge East
German master plans according to whether or not they were able to create impressive
Erlebnis areas [74]. In the proposals for the Friedrichstrae, the term Erlebnis was used
extensively. According to the architects conception, the connection between building and
boulevard was supposed to create a large spectrum of Erlebnisse [75]. The interior spaces
were to present an Erlebnis world [76]. Shopping and entertainment was to be done in
Erlebnis zones [77]. The lighting design was to convert Friedrichstrae into an Erlebnis
street [78], on which individually designed lamps were to stress Erlebnis highlights, such
as the entrances to arcades, dance halls or restaurants [79]. The authors of the Friedrich-
strae proposal and the socialist leaders who commissioned and approved it thus apparently
had no qualms about dismissing one of the foundations of Marxism, according to which
the production of value lies exclusively in the fabrication of material goods and not in the
creation of ideas or experiences. By propagating the creation of Erlebnis they redirected the
focus of their policy from collective action to individual experience and, at the same time,
they implied that such experience could be generated and moulded by physical design.
The term Erlebnis has a long and complex history. It was a fundamental concept in
German hermeneutics around 1900. Most prominently, the psychologist and philosopher
Wilhelm Dilthey used it to theorize a method of cognition through empathy [80]. His
approach stood in opposition to the methods associated with the natural sciences, which at
the time had been applied widely in both science and the humanities. He propagated his
method for the Geisteswissenschaften (human sciences), which he clearly distinguished
from the natural sciences. For Dilthey, the understanding of someone elses utterance was
based on the ability to re-live his or her feelings and mental conditions, which he saw as
being rooted in a common human nature. According to Dilthey, Erlebnis as a form of
empathy enables interaction on an everyday level in the same way as it facilitates the under-
standing of a foreign culture or the reception of a work of art. After Dilthey, philosophers
such as Hans-Georg Gadamer or Jrgen Habermas rejected Erlebnis as being too subjective
for hermeneutic understanding [81]. Of course, neither Dilthey nor Gadamer or Habermas
thought of the manufactured Erlebnis in a mall or entertainment centre, where the under-
standing process is reduced to the re-living of the stimuli provided by the store designer. A
parallel can nevertheless be drawn on a different level. In a way, the modernist urban devel-
opments of the 1960s were an outcome of the scientific method and the allegedly exact
assessment of peoples needs and desires. The Erlebnis spaces of the 1980s, however, were
based on a method of subjective experience. Both environments sought to exert a high
degree of control over their users. In the case of the Erlebnis spaces, this control was aimed
decidedly at the assumed ability of different individuals to experience certain stimuli in the
same way. The Erlebnis spaces thus attempted to propel their visitors into a different form
of collectivity than modernist spaces had sought to achieve, a forced collectivity that was
based on the illusion of subjective agency. The coercive potential of this approach made the
mall effective under both capitalist and socialist regimes of the 1980s, where power was less
and less exerted through regulating mass behaviour than through channelling individual
perceptions and experiences.
Friedrichstrae, 1987 21

In the East German architectural debate at the time, such reflections remain conspicuously
absent. If architecture as a stimulator of individual experience is ever mentioned, it is in a
critical way, and in reference to the evolution of postmodernism in capitalist countries. East
Germanys most vociferous architectural theorists, including critical thinkers such as Bruno
Flierl, were unanimous in condemning postmodern design. They censored it as a ploy by
which capitalist architects used aesthetic means, including historic references, to mask the
social injustice that capitalism, by definition, is unable to resolve [82]. Hence, they fail to
explain why under their own socialist system such postmodern forms are employed in a
similar way. Their silence with regard to the official East German construction policy is, of
course, explicable open criticism would have carried the risk of repression. However, it is
less understandable why they persistently construe postmodernism as a specific outcome of a
capitalist market economy, an interpretation, which lasts way into the 1990s when the East
German regime has long ceased to exist [83].

The new historic city

With the Friedrichstrae redesign, the socialist government pursued a policy that in a pecu-
liar way paralleled international development in capitalist countries. Several characteristics
of the Eastern half of reunified Berlin had, in fact, already been anticipated by the socialist
regime of the 1980s: the reinterpretation of the historic city, the increasing acceptance of
social inequality in urban design and the commercialization of public space. East Berlin
urban designers thus actively contributed to shaping a trend that at the time was only
starting to come about in the Western half of the city.
By the 1980s, East German designers and construction officials construed the past in a
different way than in the decades before. Before 1980, the late nineteenth century architec-
ture on Friedrichstrae and elsewhere had represented the social conditions that modernism
especially in its socialist version tried to overcome. In the 1980s, late nineteenth century
buildings were not conceived as belonging to the current era any more. This change in
perception was not accidental. In the East Germany of the 1980s, private businesses had
largely disappeared, the building industry was successfully industrialized and a new gener-
ation had grown up with no memories of monarchy, the Weimar Republic or the Nazi era.
In addition, in accordance with the Soviet doctrine of peaceful co-existence, socialist leaders
started to pursue the establishment of an independent East German nation and therefore
reclaimed pre-socialist periods as part of the GDRs national heritage. In the 1970s and
1980s, the East German regime thus increasingly commemorated historical events and char-
acters that had been deemed incompatible with the socialist cause. This included Prussian
king Friedrich II, whose equestrian statue was re-erected on the boulevard Unter den Linden
in 1981 after having been removed for political reasons in the 1950s and, most significantly,
Karl Friedrich Schinkel. The temporal distance facilitated the reinterpretation of the once-
despised buildings. Ornamented faades were no longer seen as a camouflage of capitalist
exploitation but as an adornment of public spaces. Density was no longer connected with
misery and overcrowding but with community and familiarity. And the existence of
buildings from different periods on the same block was no longer seen as a sign of underde-
velopment, but of evolution and historical continuity.
22 Urban

In the new urban design, the conception of Erlebnis played a role on two levels. On the
one hand, it inspired a design method for the neo-historical developments and, on the other
hand, it determined their programmatic strategy. With regard to the first level, Manfred
Prasser and his fellow architects proposed that neo-historic design be nachempfunden, that
is, re-felt through empathy toward the historic model. Unusual as this method might
appear, neither Prasser nor his colleagues gave precise instructions as to how to carry it out.
They nevertheless insinuated that a work of art, such as a historic building, might be under-
stood through an individual empathic approach and therefore through a method similar to
that propagated by Dilthey when he proposed Erlebnis (subjective experience) as the key to
art appreciation. Transferred to architecture, Diltheys ideas imply that any important piece
of architecture contains a trans-historic quality communicating immediately to the observer,
even after centuries of historic distance, and therefore enables an equally immediate under-
standing of this work of art, which might be reproduced in a new design. Prasser and his
colleagues developed their design within this conceptual framework indebted to the method-
ology that Dilthey proposed for the humanities. In contrast to this Nachempfinden (re-
feeling), the exact copy of a historic model corresponds to a scientific approach, making use
of observation, measuring and comparison. Only on a few occasions, such as with the
reconstruction of the French and German Churches and Schinkels Concert House on
Gendarmenmarkt, was this method used. The protagonists of neo-historical urban design in
East Berlin rarely discussed the differences between both methods. At the same time they
reveal the dilemma with which any city is confronted when entire historic neighbourhoods
are destroyed. In East Berlin, the proponents of empathy mostly prevailed over the measur-
ers and copiers. The normative authority of the historic form that earlier historicist move-
ments had frequently posited was thus pushed back in favour of a greater subjectivity. Of
course, economic and pragmatic aspects played an important role historically accurate
design almost always requires extensive research and costly workmanship. However, the
new design was not merely a simplification of historic styles but rather a modification
indebted to the new developments different uses and new symbolic significance. The neo-
historical developments became a new urban environment that in its own peculiar way
responded to the needs of its designers and projected users.
With regard to the second level, Erlebnis became a programmatic strategy. Unlike the
modernist buildings in the decades before, which were designed to respond to the material
needs of the city dwellers, the new urban ensembles were to foster subjective experience. The
declared belief in Erlebnis shows that in their political practice East German leaders increas-
ingly abandoned Marxist positions. Rather they began to rely on the socio-political
significance of staged individual experiences to stabilize their power. The plans for proto-
commercial Erlebnis zones in East Berlin show that the East German regime, though nomi-
nally still socialist, in the last decade of its existence underwent a gradual transformation
and increasingly aimed at integrating capitalist principles.
The East German desire to build a shopping and entertainment centre nevertheless
appears bizarre in every respect. In America, malls were an outcome of suburbanization.
The combination of retail, entertainment and leisure under one roof was contingent upon a
car-orientated society moving further and further away from the inner cities. The
meticulously designed atmosphere of the interior spaces catered to the interest of business
owners, who wanted to increase their sales rates while at the same time exclude undesired
Friedrichstrae, 1987 23

individuals. This article is far from claiming that this was an effective solution of the social
challenges of the 1970s and 1980s. Rather, the awkwardness of transplanting a specifically
capitalist model of urban control into a socialist planned economy should be pointed out. In
a country with minimal suburbanization, low rates of car ownership and a completely state-
controlled market, a mall was as incongruous as a ski lift in the desert. Why would East
German leaders want to create a large shopping centre while the existing small shops were
alive and well? And why would they try to increase consumption through staged experiences
while they were already hard-pressed to satisfy the basic needs of their citizens? There are
two possible answers. One is that in the 1980s the notion of a city characterized by individ-
ual Erlebnis was similarly appealing in capitalist and socialist countries. It did not originate
in the commercial strategies of capitalist retailers but was a genuine reaction to the monot-
ony of the mass-produced modernist residential buildings. It attempted to produce neigh-
bourhoods that were as manufactured and artificial as the modernist spaces, but at least full
of colour, diversity and imagination. The other answer is that the new focus on Erlebnis
responded to the unsatisfied desire shared by many East Germans, including many members
of the ruling class. Erlebnis, the subjective, uncontrolled and possibly extreme experience
was precisely what was missing in restrictive East German society, where collective work,
collective leisure and collective political activity were mandated by the ruling ideology and
where everyday life was performed with stifling routine. The East German rulers seem to
have acknowledged this shortcoming, but were at the same time unwilling to loosen the
regulative power over their citizens. Thus, for them the mall would be the perfect match. It
would give an illusion of indeterminacy and chance while at the same time guaranteeing
careful control. It would feign unrestrained experience in a prefabricated environment. And
it would provide emotion without the danger of destabilization. If the socialist system had,
in fact, been able to produce all the goods and services necessary to make the Friedrichstrae
development work, the outcome would have been ambiguous. The Friedrichstrae could
have become a consumerist heterotopia that satisfied all the desires left unfulfilled under the
real existing socialism. A place where emotional excess and visual excitement could happen
within the secure boundaries of monitored spaces. A protected zone where one could enjoy
the pleasures of excessive consumption without the inconveniences and risks of a capitalist
society. It could also have become a step towards a postmodern version of the Orwellian
nightmare, in which the dictatorial system would not only have controlled thought and
action but individual emotion and experience.
After German reunification, the Friedrichstrae continued to be a focus of urban design
activity. Most state-owned parcels were quickly sold to private investors, who commis-
sioned a number of internationally renowned architects to design shops and offices. The
plans from the socialist period were reworked. The unfinished shell of the Friedrichstadt
Arcades was demolished to make space for three new developments designed by Jean
Nouvel, I. M. Pei and Oswald Mathias Ungers. Many East Germans perceived the demoli-
tion as a conscious humiliating gesture of the triumphant Western capitalists over the
defeated East German state and its citizens [84]. They saw the new projects as another piece
of evidence that German reunification had, in fact, been an act of colonization and subjuga-
tion by the capitalist ruling class. The criticism, to some extent, was justified, since the rede-
sign was almost exclusively guided by politicians and planners from West Germany and the
wholesale dismissal of all plans from the socialist period can be explained only as politically
24 Urban

motivated. The critics from both East and West Germany nevertheless failed to notice that
the capitalist conception for the Friedrichstrae was not that different from the one the
socialist leaders had envisaged. If there ever was such a thing as colonization in East
Germany, the citizens of the German Democratic Republic had been colonized by their own
leaders long before the Berlin Wall came down.
Unlike the East German design projects from the 1960s and 1970s, the Friedrichstrae
was designed for a new social and political elite. Even prior to these proposals it had been
a privilege to be assigned an apartment in a newly constructed building. However, the poli-
cies of the 1960s and 1970s were intended to provide similar standards of living for every-
one. In the 1980s, East German authorities were more and more blatant in revealing that
the new comfortable apartments were designed for selected citizens. Had the spacious pent-
house apartments under the roofs of Friedrichstrae ever been finished they would have
perfectly matched the surrounding Valuta-Hotels to which the average East German had
no access, and the state-operated Intershops where privileged citizens who had West
German currency could buy everything the socialist economy was unable to produce.
Although social differences in the GDR were much smaller than in most capitalist societies,
the plans for the Friedrichstrae did not attempt to level them out. On the contrary, they
accepted social polarization and made it explicit in the design of the buildings. Under the
conditions of a nominally socialist system, the East German rulers supported a develop-
ment which, at the time, could be observed in many capitalist cities: the fitting out of the
city centre for the privileged classes based on the commodification of a real and imagined
history.

Notes and references

1. For a review of the National Tradition in the context of the beginning of the Cold War, see, for
example, Francesca Rogier, The monumentality of rhetoric. The will to rebuild in postwar Berlin,
in Sarah Williams Goldhagen and Rjean Legault (eds) Anxious Modernisms. Cambridge, Mass.
and Montreal: MIT Press and Centre Canadien dArchitecture, 2000, pp.16590.
2. Simone Hain, Reise nach Moskau. Wie Deutschland sozialistisch bauen lernte. Bauwelt 83, 45
(1992) 25462561. On the Sixteen Principles of Urban Design and the new town of Stalinstadt
(now Eisenhttenstadt) that was built in the 1950s according to these principles, see Ruth May,
Planned city Stalinstadt: a manifesto of the early German Democratic Republic. Planning
Perspectives 18 (2003) 4778.
3. Joachim Palutzki, Architektur in der DDR. Berlin: Reimer, 2000, p.318.
4. This judgement was shared by numerous interview partners, most significantly by two of the few
former high-ranking officials who are still alive: Gnter Schabowski, the former First Party
Secretary of East Berlin and member of the Politburo, and Gerhard Trlitzsch, the former director
of the Department of Construction at the Central Committee and one of the three most influential
people in East German construction under the Honecker administration. The other two were
Minister of Construction Wolfgang Junker and chief planner Gnter Mittag. Gerhard Trlitzsch,
interview by author, Berlin, 11 May 2004, and Gnter Schabowski, interview by author, Berlin,
26 April 2004. The estimation that Mittag, Trlitzsch, and Junker were the most powerful people
in East German construction after Erich Honecker was also confirmed by several interview part-
ners. For example, Manfred Zache, interview by author, Hohen Neuendorf (Brandenburg), 13
August 2003, Gnter Stahn, interview by author, Schildow, 14 August 2003, Gerd Zimmermann,
Friedrichstrae, 1987 25

interview by author, Weimar, 2 September 2003, and Dorothea Tscheschner, interview by author,
Berlin, 27 August 2003.
5. Directive Aufgaben zur Entwicklung der Hauptstadt der DDR, Berlin [Tasks for the develop-
ment of Berlin, Capital of the GDR], minutes of the Politburo meeting on 3 February 1976, final
copy, Bundesarchiv Berlin [Berlin Federal Archive] DY 30/J IV 2/2 1602. There are two minutes
of every Politburo meeting: the Arbeitsprotokoll work copy and the Reinschrift final copy.
The work copy often contains more detailed information, such as the names of the officials who
prepared certain proposals. All translations are by the author.
6. Rainer Eisenschmidt (ed.), Baedeker Guide Berlin, Ostfildern: Baedeker, 11th edn., 1997,
pp.1312.
7. Dieter Dose, Vergessene City. Telegraf (23 December 1960). Anonymous, Die Friedrichstrae
bleibt sonntags geschlossen. Der Tagesspiegel (28 October 1956).
8. Ibid.
9. After the 1976 decision, the design of the Friedrichstrae was concretized during three other Polit-
buro meetings. See minutes of the Politburo meeting on 17 January 1984, final copy, Bundesar-
chiv Berlin DY 30/J IV 2/2 2037; on 22 January 1985, final copy, Bundesarchiv Berlin DY 30/J IV
2/2 2095; and on 5 February 1985 Bundesarchiv Berlin DY 30/J IV 2/2 2097. See also decree
issued by the Politburo in January 1984 that mandates the preservation of the characteristic city
structure. Bundesarchiv Berlin DY 30/J IV 2/2 2037, p.166.
10. Draft for the Politburo Information zur weiteren Durchfhrung des Investitionskomplexes
Friedrichstrae/Otto-Grotewohl-Strae in der Hauptstadt Berlin, insbesondere fr den Zeitraum
bis 1990 dated 18 August 1988, authored by a working group of the Ministry of Construction
under the direction of undersecretary Karl-Heinz Martini, Bundesarchiv Berlin DY 30/2847
pp.17087.
11. Ibid., p.176.
12. Design proposal commissioned by the Ministry of Construction in June 1986 and authored by the
state-owned construction company Ingenieurhochbau Berlin, Bundesarchiv Berlin DH 1/36355
p.5.
13. Op. cit. [10], p.176.
14. Op. cit. [12], p.14.
15. The number refers to the amount of apartments applied for in 1989. Institut fr Soziologie und
Sozialpolitik der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR (ed.), Sozialreport Ost-Berlin. East
Berlin, 1990, p.125 and Hannsjrg Buck, Wohnungsversorgung, Stadtgestaltung und Stadtverfall,
in Eberhard Kuhrt (ed.) Am Ende des Realen Sozialismus, Vol. 2 Die wirtschaftliche und kolo-
gische Situation der DDR in den 80er Jahren. Opladen: Leske und Budrich, 1996, p.75.
16. This practice was sanctioned officially in article 11 of the Wohnraumlenkungsverordnung
(directive for the distribution of living space); ibid. p. 76. This directive was introduced on
14 September 1967. See analysis of the housing problems by the Ministerrat (council of minis-
ters), 1972, Bundesarchiv Berlin DC 20/17247, p.57.
17. Ibid., p.9.
18. A letter by minister of construction Wolfgang Junker to top economist Gnter Mittag, dated 15
December 1988, specifies the use. Next to the beer hall and the wine restaurant, the letter
mentions a ballroom with two bars, two discothques, a pool room and a leisure space with
sauna and solarium. Junker mentions only that the proposals effectuated by commercial
institutions to put up slot machines were rejected. Op. cit. [10], p.262.
19. Ibid., p. 23.
20. Bundesarchiv Berlin DH 1/36357.
21. Ibid., p. 7.
22. Peter Grtner, Es wird eine Freude sein, dort zu bummeln. Volksblatt Berlin (4 December 1986).
26 Urban

23. Volker Wagner, Materialien zur Informationsfahrt Berlin. Berlin: Presse und Informationsamt des
Landes Berlin, 1994, p.100.
24. Adalbert Behr, Bauen in Berlin 1973 bis 1987. Leipzig: Koehler und Amelang, 1987, p.193.
25. Official design proposal, Bundesarchiv Berlin DH 1/36373, p.2.
26. R. Eisenschmidt (ed.), op. cit. [6], p.136.
27. V. Wagner, op. cit. [23], p.110.
28. Roland Korn, interview by author, Dannenreich (Brandenburg), 20 April 2004.
29. Laurenz Demps, Der schnste Platz Berlins: Der Gendarmenmarkt in Geschichte und Gegenwart.
Berlin: Henschel, 1993, p.120.
30. Ibid., p.20.
31. Ibid., p. 120.
32. The exhibit took place between October 1980 and March 1981 at the Altes Museum, one of
Schinkels most famous works. It was seen by approximately 200 000 visitors and subsequently
shipped to Hamburg. See catalogue Staatliche Museen zu Berlin (ed.), Karl Friedrich Schinkel
17811841. East Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 1980. Also head preservationist Peter
Goralczyk pointed out that the exhibit triggered an unprecedented fascination for historic
architecture in the GDR. Peter Goralczyk, interview by author, Berlin, 7 April 2004.
33. Minutes of the Politburo, 3 February, op. cit. [5].
34. Following a lengthy debate, the Palace of the Republic was demolished in spring of 2007 to make
way for the rebuilding of Berlins historical Royal Palace which had been damaged in the Second
World War and taken down for political reasons in 1950.
35. Manfred Prasser, interview by author, Zehlendorf (Brandenburg), 20 May 2004.
36. For the neo-historical developments that were built in the context of the 750th anniversary
celebrations, see for example Simone Hain, Zwischen Arkonaplatz und Nikolaiviertel, in
Thorsten Scheer, Josef Paul Kleihues and Paul Kahlfeldt (eds) Stadt der Architektur Architektur
der Stadt. Berlin 19002000. Berlin: Nicolai, 2000, pp.33747.
37. Konrad Naumann, Bericht der Bezirksleitung Berlin der SED an die XII. Bezirksdelegiertenkonfer-
enz on 26/27 March 1976, p. 443. Bundesarchiv Berlin DY 30/2850. See also design proposal
from the late 1970s, op. cit. [20], p.23.
38. On 14 May 1979 director of the plan commission Gerhard Schrer sent a proposal for the recon-
struction of the Platz der Akademie to top economist Gnter Mittag. The proposal, which was
probably worked out by Manfred Prasser under the responsibility of Ehrhardt Gike, suggested the
rebuilding of the churches and the Playhouse. A week later, on 22 May 1979, Schrer asked Honecker
for his approval of the plan, which was granted. Bundesarchiv Berlin DY 30/2850, pp.623.
39. Peter Goralczyk, Der Platz der Akademie in Berlin. East Berlin: Verlag fr Bauwesen, 1987,
pp.1878.
40. P. Goralczyk, interview, op. cit. [32] and M. Prasser, interview, op. cit. [35]. Next to Prasser, chief
architect Roland Korn also favoured a historicizing interior. R. Korn, interview, op. cit. [28].
41. Bundesarchiv Berlin DH 1/36305.
42. A. Behr, op. cit. [24], p.172.
43. P. Goralczyk, op. cit. [39], pp.1923 [revised version of Goralczyks dissertation].
44. Ehrhardt Gike, Bauen, mein Leben. East Berlin: Dietz, 1987, p.142.
45. Peter Mugay, Vom Gendarmenmarkt zum Platz der Akademie. East Berlin: Berlin-Information,
1987, p.37.
46. Ibid., p.39.
47. Next to Prasser, Ernst Wallis, Wolfgang Sebastian and Dieter Bankert collaborated on the design.
A. Behr, op. cit. [24], p.172.
48. The acronym stands for Wohnungsbauserie (residential construction series). E. Gike, op. cit.
[44], p.146.
Friedrichstrae, 1987 27

49. Ibid., p.173.

50. M. Prasser, interview, op. cit. [35].
51. P. Mugay, op. cit. [45], p.47.
52. E. Gike, op. cit. [44], p.147.
53. K. Naumann, op. cit. [37], p.443.
54. P. Goralczyk, op. cit. [39], p.12.
55. Ibid., pp.191, 196.
56. L. Demps, op. cit. [29], p.121.
57. Ibid., p.99.
58. Magistrat von Berlin, Abteilung Kultur [local East Berlin government, Department of Cultural
Affairs] (ed.), Studie Platz der Akademie. East Berlin, 1976.
59. V. Wagner, op. cit. [23], p.111.
60. S. Hain, op. cit. [36], p.344.
61. M. Prasser, interview, op. cit. [35]
62. E. Gike, op. cit. [44], pp.1414.
63. Gikes strong influence was stressed by architect Manfred Prasser (M. Prasser, interview, op. cit.
[35]).
64. Minutes of the Politburo, 3 February, op. cit. [5].
65. E. Gike, op. cit. [44], p.170.
66. The slightly modified original Hotel Adlon was rebuilt in 1995 next to the Brandenburg Gate by
a West German investor after a design by the firm Patzschke & Klotz.
67. See proposal authored by Mr Herrmann, the director of the Abteilung Vorhaben Industrie und
Stadttechnik [Department of Projects for Industrial and Urban Technology] at the Ministry of
Construction, dated November 1985 Bundesarchiv Berlin DH 1/35504, p.1.
68. Ibid., p.4.
69. Ibid., p.4.
70. A letter by Mr Herrmann to undersecretary Karl-Heinz Martini dated 6 November 1986
announced a large scale experiment, scheduled for November 1985 on Friedrichstrae to test the
laser beamers developed by the firm Carl Zeiss Jena. Ibid., p. 4.
71. Gerhard Trlitzsch, one of East Germanys three most powerful construction officials next to the
minister of construction Wolfgang Junker and top economist Gnter Mittag, remembered a
meeting in 1988 at which the Minister of Commerce communicated that he could not guarantee
the supply of the Friedrichstadt Arcades with goods. G. Trlitzsch, interview, op. cit. [4].
72. Directive Manahmen und Vorbereitung zur 750-Jahrfeier Berlin [measures and preparation of
the 750th anniversary celebration], minutes of the Politburo, 22 January op. cit. [9].
73. Minutes of the Politburo, 17 January op. cit. [9], pp.1667.
74. Bauakademie der DDR (ed.), Forschungsvorhaben Sozialistischer Stdtebau, Programm zur
Begutachtung von Generalbebauungsplnen ausgewhlter Stdte. East Berlin, 1973 [to be found
in Bundesarchiv Berlin DH 1/25247 p.17].
75. Bundesarchiv Berlin DH 1/36355 p.5. The proposal was commissioned by the Ministry of
Construction on 27 June 1986.
76. Ibid., p.6.
77. Ibid., p.8.
78. The proposal was authored by Mr Herrmann. Bundesarchiv Berlin DH 1/35504 p.1.
79. Ibid., p.4.
80. Dilthey used the term frequently in his 1877 essay on Goethe, which was republished in 1905 in
Wilhelm Dilthey, Das Erlebnis und die Dichtung. Leipzig: Teubner, 1906, translated as Rudolf A.
Makkreel and Frithjof Rodi (eds), Poetry and Experience. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
1985.
28 Urban

81. See Hans-Georg Gadamer, Truth and Method. Translated by Joel Weinsheimer and Donald G.
Marshall. New York: Continuum, 2nd revised edn, 1993, p.67. On the controversies between
Gadamer and his former student Habermas, see Allan How, The HabermasGadamer Debate
and the Nature of the Social. Brookfield, Vermont: Ashgate, 1995.
82. See, for example, Bruno Flierl, Die Postmoderne in der Architektur, in Bruno Flierl and Heinz
Hirdina, Postmoderne und Funktionalismus. East Berlin: Verein bildender Knstler, 1985, or
Bruno Flierl, Streit um Architekturstrmungen. Wissenschaftliche Zeitschrift der Hochschule fr
Architektur und Bauwesen Weimar 29, 56 (1983) 36972.
83. See, for example, Bruno Flierl, Gebaute DDR. ber Stadtplaner, Architekten und die Macht.
Berlin: Verlag fr Bauwesen, 1998, in particular p.62, or S. Hain, op. cit. [36], pp.33747. In both
articles, there is no explanation of the formal similarities between postmodernism in capitalist
countries and the neo-historical projects in East Germany.
84. R. Korn, interview, op. cit. [28]; M. Prasser, interview, op. cit. [35].