No Space for Free Space

Berlin is bursting at the seams, attracting people of different generations, cultures and lifestyles. It is home to a wide variety of social, political and economic connections. However, this wealth of opportunities is at odds with the tense housing market. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to settle down and establish oneself. The rental market is shrinking in favour of privately owned flats. Rental properties are being sacrificed to new investment and speculation projects, which are being snapped up by remote investors and high earners. Politicians want to combat displacement, speculation and overpricing by increasing the construction of new housing, but not by introducing the necessary legislation and implementing the successful referendum on the socialisation of large rental housing stocks. That's why we need land for construction! In a city-state, however, only limited possibilities exist. This has consequences for urban space and thus also for art in public space.

Public Space and Democracy

City life does not only take place between four walls and in enclosed facilities. Public space, its openness and unlimited accessibility are essential components of a vibrant urban culture. They are repositories and refuges for communication and inspiration. For art and culture, the existence of free spaces is a prerequisite for artistic and cultural dialogue, not only within one's own profession, but also across disciplines and with the general public. Public space is therefore also a place of impact, and without such an environment, contemporary art in particular will find it difficult to develop and present itself. But public space is nothing without openness and tolerance towards artistic expression. In authoritarian and state-controlled public spaces, art can only be practised and communicated to a very limited extent.

Where public space is controlled by analogue or digital ‘guardians’, public art can only be an aside. It is not without reason that the concept of art in public space often arose in social democratic societies and communities, with the claim of ‘culture for all’ and an emancipatory understanding of education. The classic, traditional city could only offer art in public space decorative locations or drag it onto political stages. This left it with only two choices: contemplative decoration in a bourgeois environment on the one hand, or participation in repressive demonstrations of power within domineering urban structures on the other.

Art in public space, in the sense of critically questioning the public sphere and societal and political structures, requires a pluralistic and open society, in which urban space is no longer taboo and all spaces and places can be addressed and used artistically. Free space is both the working basis and the lifeblood for art in public space.

Urban space after the destruction

Berlin's diffuse open spaces were, ironically, a consequence of National Socialism, which ended in the destruction of the city. The Nazi regime left behind a landscape of ruins. And where only a few stones remained standing, urban planners were able to build from scratch. Once the rubble had been cleared away, the model of modern urban development developed in the 1920s as a light and airy city could become a reality. The loosened row construction made even the city centre appear suburban. This is still evident today in the Otto Suhr estate near Moritzplatz and the Ernst Reuter estate at Gesundbrunnen, the well known Hansaviertel and the western section of Karl-Marx-Allee. Open urban spaces and flowing spatial structures transformed the formerly stone-clad city into a green urban landscape. People coming to Berlin from Paris, Madrid or Rome are often surprised by the amount of open public space.

The end of urban wastelands

Even in the old city districts that had remained reasonably intact, there were gaps left by bomb strikes, which survived the post-war decades as wastelands and were often used spontaneously as car parks or gardens due to unclear ownership issues.

But this tranquillity was lost in the 1990s. The wastelands were cleared and put to new economic use, i.e. built on. In some places, this happened very quickly, while in others, these processes are still ongoing today, with resistance lasting longer, for example at the famous Kunsthaus Tacheles, whose site was redeveloped until 2023 and today bears testament to a regrettable utilisation monotony. The new development, comprising office and commercial space as well as 275 apartments, conjures up the myth of Berlin and buries it at the same time. The last artists had to vacate their studios in 2012, and a privately-run exhibition space seeks to lend the complex a cultural touch. A 250-square-metre penthouse was offered for ten million euros, reportedly the most expensive flat in Berlin.

Comparable fates befell other artistic temporary uses of inner-city brownfield sites. Where the KUNSTrePUBLIK group operated a ‘sculpture park’ on open spaces of the former Berlin Wall strip between Kommandantenstraße and Neuer Grünstraße from 2006 to 2010, which was even used as a venue for the Berlin Biennale in 2008, privately owned condominiums in closed peripheral developments now fill the former open spaces. In 2014, street artists painted over the large murals on the Cuvry brownfield site between Schlesischer Straße and the banks of the Spree in protest against the commercialisation of the site and the instrumentalisation of the artistic works. The former Cuvry site is now a campus for today's app economy. The riverside terrace offers a selfie-friendly view of the Oberbaum Bridge.

Yet Berlin after 1990 is not and never was a boom town. Rather, the recent investments served primarily to temporarily park cheap loans from the European Central Bank and convert them into concrete gold. The accompanying loss of open urban spaces had no impact on the market, as the rental housing situation continued to worsen, because the majority of the new developments were owner-occupied complexes.

Redensification

Against the backdrop of increasing homelessness and a lack of living space, housing construction is an important demand that takes precedence over everything else, such as the value of natural spaces and the habitats of fauna and flora. The construction of housing estates on the outskirts of cities on large areas of land, some of which is still used for agriculture, is in line with the urban development of the 1960s and 1970s, a well-established practice of conventional urban development.

What is new, however, is the further development of inner-city areas and additional construction. Densification and redensification are the keywords here, even in neighbourhoods that already have the highest population densities. The fluid, open public spaces of modern and post-modern urban development from the 1950s to the 1970s are ideal for this purpose. They often have spaces that are large enough to accommodate additional building blocks.

The continued construction of a city is a fundamentally reasonable development instead of the often practised complete demolition and subsequent new construction, as was planned in 1993 for Alexanderplatz, with the infamous Kollhoff Plan. This competition in particular treated Alexanderplatz as an undeveloped wasteland. But it is the continued construction of a city in different building eras that gives a place its historicity.

The destruction of deliberately designed urban structures is met with justified protest from residents. For example, the residents of Ossietzkystraße in Pankow cannot understand why the green residential courtyards of all places are to be crammed with new blocks of flats. Similarly, tenants in Berlin-Hellersdorf are surprised that additional apartment blocks are to be built in the residential courtyards there, which will also compromise the ventilation of apartments and courtyards. Politicians are obviously hoping to encounter less protest in the urban peripheries.

Displacement of multifunctional use

When new housing construction is given priority, cities and urban spaces lose their multifunctionality. If the only option is to live there, but there are no longer any opportunities for leisure activities nearby, monofunctionality arises, and as a result, the entire city becomes a dormitory town. Integrated home offices make leaving the house unnecessary. Social isolation and loneliness are the result.

The sports and recreation centre (SEZ), which opened in 1981 on the perimeter of Volkspark Friedrichshain, demonstrated the potential for a diverse and vibrant urban neighbourhood, offering leisure activities in the midst of densely built-up districts. Like the Palace of the Republic, the SEZ embodied a multifunctional concept of rich offerings that blended society, sport and culture. Of course, the SEZ was also a flagship project intended to demonstrate the socio-political achievements of the GDR government to the population. The building was part of the functionalist architecture of the 1970s and thus was developed with an international perspective. Accordingly, Western planning and technology were used for the construction: curiously, the building design was primarily the work of architect Günter Reiß, who had left the GDR only a few years earlier and was now designing in West Berlin for East Berlin. After 1990, the SEZ was run into the ground by cost-cutting measures, and its tale degradation culminated in privatisation at the symbolic price of one euro. It was not until 2023 that the SEZ was re-municipalised. But instead of making this special building accessible and usable to the public again, politicians and administrators are pushing for its complete demolition in order to build up to 500 apartments on the site. The building's considerable need for renovation serves as an excuse for the desired demolition.

The argument of a housing shortage could be used to question many places and buildings. What is particularly controversial, however, is that the planned demolition of the SEZ would once again destroy GDR history and a place that had evoked special memories for many people. This raises the suspicion that the aim is to devalue the GDR state and the people who lived in it. After the destruction of the Palace of the Republic, the city of Berlin had the opportunity to learn from its mistakes when developing the SEZ. It is to be feared that the city will miss this opportunity.

New city districts

To alleviate the housing shortage, the state of Berlin is developing new city districts. The focus is on mass construction, including residential towers. These new city districts include public spaces, which have so far been viewed solely as a landscaping development rather than as an opportunity to create art in architecture and art in public space. Neither conceptually nor individually has the inclusion of professional visual arts and corresponding calls for tenders for art been planned. The complete absence of art testifies to the haste with which the task is being carried out. Both state-owned housing associations and private investor groups are entrusted with these planning and construction tasks by means of urban development contracts. The involvement of private investors in particular encourages the circumvention of the ‘Anweisung Bau’ [Building instructions] regarding art in architecture. Of the various plans for the new city districts, only one has become known so far in which art in architecture was planned in accordance with the ‘Anweisung Bau’ for Otto-Weidt-Platz in the centre of the newly built ‘Europacity’ on Heidestraße. However, the calculation of the art in architecture funds resulted in only a low five-figure amount. Whether these funds will be used for artistic purposes remains to be seen. In 2017, the Art Advisory Committee recommended honouring the square's namesake, Otto Weidt, who hid victims of Nazi persecution in the workshop for the blind he ran in the early 1940s. The planning of art in architecture and art in public space in the new city districts is therefore still an open demand. Above all, art must be made mandatory in urban development contracts that are finalised.

The potential of peripheral districts

With the disappearance of inner-city brownfield sites, a previously little-noticed public space is taking on new significance: open spaces, ordinary green spaces, low-profile squares. These are also public spaces, but are rarely recognised as such and perceived as an opportunity. These are less prestigious areas, often located in less prestigious urban districts, frequently on the outskirts of the city. Some of these areas are partially neglected and have not yet found their significance for urban society. But they have potential for artistic activities. This was proven by the temporary art projects carried out in 2022 on Prerower Platz in Hohenschönhausen, which is awaiting further development. The temporary art projects were able to address its potential for social use for nine months.

In Treptow-Köpenick, the Berlin-wide call for temporary art projects as part of the Draußenstadt-BESD programme in 2023 offered two previously neglected green spaces in the districts of Grünau and Spindlersfeld as venues for artistic activities. They were selected in close consultation with the district's parks department. The call for proposals took into account the need to protect plants and animals. Given the considerable tree population in both green spaces, not everything was possible; the ground could not be dug up and no installations could be made within the trees and tree crowns. Nevertheless, both green spaces offered sufficient options for action to those participating in the call for proposals. Accordingly, Wouter Osterholt addressed the life of insects in the big city for his project ‘A City for All’ in Grünau. Silke Nowak's project ‘Anders Wohnen’ (Living Differently) in Spindlersfeld focused on precarious housing in contrast to the comfortable residential complexes on the banks of the Spree.

This call for proposals also demonstrated the potential of urban spaces in Berlin for artistic interventions. There are areas and spaces that are not zoned for specific uses and therefore offer opportunities for artistic activity. Many of these are natural spaces, sometimes even ‘protected green areas,’ which means that certain conditions must be observed. Many artists are committed to treating the environment in a sustainable and caring manner.

Engaging with fragmented public urban spaces can open artists' and art's eyes to peripheral districts. Artistic communication with a diverse population is also possible beyond the inner-city districts of Kreuzberg, Neukölln, Mitte, Prenzlauer Berg and Friedrichshain. Decentralised activities encourage people to move beyond their own milieu and raise awareness of the diversity of Berlin's urban society.

However, the development and utilisation of the residual and marginal areas of public space also requires openness on the part of the authorities to the accessibility and availability of these previously overlooked urban spaces. They illustrate that art in public space can find a variety of points of contact, especially in Berlin's local neighbourhoods. This is countered by the continuing lack of financial resources allocated to Berlin's districts for art in public spaces. It is a city-wide concern and requires adequate funding from the state of Berlin.