Wednesday, June 1, 2011

Architecture Final



My Berlin:

Attempting to Rediscover the Route I Commute

On the first bus ride from Tegel airport to the apartments at Kulmerstraße 47, I was immediately struck by the newness of Berlin. In Prague, the history of the city was visible in the Soviet panalaks that stood in the suburbs like giant dominoes and cast giant shadows across the nature park and the road into town. It was visible in the black sandstone, the shrines to martyrs, and the buildings whose renaissance facades were falling away to reveal gothic skeletons. I was jostled by tourists and bounced over cobblestones, and the narrow streets could either be intimate or suffocating depending on the weather. Berlin invoked none of these feelings. I arrived expecting them, and instead I felt the newness (comparatively) of the buildings and the enormous scale of the city.

Driving away from Tegel, we crossed highways and busy roadways that indicated, by my understanding, that we were outside the city center. I would later learn that this actually just meant we were between neighborhoods. Berlin the city-state currently includes neighborhoods that used to be their own small cities, and the regions between these areas have their city-limit feel still even though they cris-cross the city. In wandering these regions, one finds highways, railways, construction sites, and massive stores such as IKEA or Bauhaus. In a city where the center became the outskirts, refocused in the center and is now moving east, it seems appropriate that these areas of stitching between the old cities patched together are present all throughout the city.

As we drove farther into the city, I noticed residential areas in which apartments were clustered around courtyards or playgrounds. Still farther in the city, the apartment buildings would have their own courtyards, but here the buildings surrounded patches of green or of cement that were visible from the street and accessible via open pathways, albeit small ones. The buildings had their balconies and doors and occasional decorative trim facing the courtyards; that their backs were to the road was evidenced by the small windows, plain walls, fences, piping, and trees between me and them. I would think of these buildings often as a reference when looking at the re-settled tenement buildings I encountered near school.

Kulmerstraße 47 occupies a triangular plot of land and is one construct segmented into three buildings. Two of the buildings are attached, estranging the third which shares its ground floor with a Korean restaurant and opens onto a gated driveway. The buildings form a crescent around a small parking lot and an island of trees and plants. The wrapping shape gives the building an inside that faces away from both of the main roads that define the triangle. My room is situated on an inside corner, which means that I get sun all morning but shade all evening. It also means that neighbors across the courtyard can see into my windows unless I draw the shades, which was the realization that first prompted me to think about privacy or lack of in this building.

Previously, I’d always lived in shared apartments with no private space due to my 3 or 4 room-mates. Here, I assumed that having a single would afford me more privacy. To some extent this has been true; I don’t have to share my kitchen or my entrance hall with anyone. That said, I know that friends and acquaintances walking across the courtyard look up to my windows to check if I am home and what I am up to. As it has gotten warmer, I’ve opened the windows to let in the sun and to cool the fan-less apartment. Doing so, I have realized that the curve of our building traps scent and magnifies sound. I can smell the sausage or curry cooking on someone else’s stovetop. I can hear music from my neighbors’ radios, as well as their televisions and their telephone conversations in all different languages. This means, of course, they can hear mine as well, so I try to live quietly as possible.

The final side of the triangle surrounding our building is a street that doesn’t allow cars more than half-way down it. Its other end opens up to a public toilet, that always stinks to walk past, and a series of confusingly crossing bike-lanes on a large patch of sidewalk. To walk to three of the Bahnhofs that are closes, one has to cross these bike-lanes, and the experience can be a stressful one because they were laid down with no thought of leaving a place for a footpath.

The high buildings on this road effectively close off the open side of our building. They are mostly residential buildings, but the few that are closest to our building are industrial commercial buildings, which make that area dark at night and unwelcoming to walk past the rest of the time due to the high truck traffic. Inside it are an Indian food distributer, a Korean karaoke bar, a gym, and a Turkish bath. I think this is pretty indicative of the community living around us.

In the area immediately surrounding us, there is one street that I frequent on Saturday mornings. After exiting our building and passing the public toilet and bike lane labyrinth, one crosses Goebenstraße. The street is wide, which is nice because it allows for breathing room. At the same time, the traffic lights are timed such that crossing always means being stranded at the center island for one cycle of the lights. From the island are visible a tattoo parlor, a smokers’ pub, a hookah restaurant, and an excellent baklava shop. Down the road to the left are two S-Bahn stations, a famous döner stand, and a bus stop. The bridges of the S-Bahns block anything farther down the road from sight. In the other direction are smokers’ pubs, a second-hand shop, a discount clothing store, and a few Turkish groceries. Though the street continues, from the island in Goebenstraße one can only see four blocks before an apartment building bridges the road and blocks the horizon from view. As a final note, looking down one notices that there have recently been tulips blooming on the island, which adds color and makes it more enjoyable to be stuck there.

When the light finally changes, I walk down the left-hand sidewalk. This is because the right side of the street is constantly under construction and so there is scaffolding up. I don’t usually mind walking under scaffolding, but here it seems that there is always a bicyclist trying to go the other direction when I attempt it. Walking on the other side of the street, I pass a playground first and then a squat. There are always people on the sidewalk here, sitting and talking to each other about all kinds of things. The reason I come this way on Saturdays is because those are the days when there is a market at the end of the street. There is no thru-traffic; the road opens onto the wide end of a trapezoidal square. On market days, there are people everywhere. This is not like the Winterfeld market; here there are men yelling in thick accents and there are old women selling vegetables or buying headscarves. No cute handmade soaps or bath salts to be found, here are only olives and grape leaves between the vegetable and cloth stands.

With all of its scents and colors and sounds, the market can almost provoke some kind of sensory overload. Two sides of the square are lined with tall buildings, and the other side feels walled-off by the elevated S-Bahn tracks. In reality, there is a tunnel under the tracks in which the bike lanes and the footpaths become interchangeable. Frequently on market days, the tunnel smells like bread or fruit, and a few people are standing off to the side selling used things of all sorts. On the other side is a road that eventually leads into Victoria Park. Immediately on the other side of the tunnel, however, one finds an equally interesting area.

To the left is a playground that could never exist in the US. Rising out of the shadows of the S-Bahn tracks, a giant structure of bright blue nylon roping and plastic pipes invites children to climb on, under, and through it. This is the only thing in the entire playground, but the groups of children seem to pick different areas of it for themselves. On a quiet day, the place at the top is the most private place to sit. There, everyone can see you, but no one can hear a word you’re saying. From the top, one can also watch see into the yard of the building next door and into the yard of the grave-maker across the street. Behind the playground is a shaded area with “exercise machines” painted in different colors and not actually using any weights. Children run around this area and climb on these machines, but they usually prefer to chase a soccerball than do pull-ups.

Across the street are a church, a grave-maker’s shop, and a cemetery. I personally enjoy walking through the cemetery because it is a living space. An archway over the gated entrance completes the wall that sets the cemetery off from the rest of the city. Just inside, there is a small café and flower shop to the left. A rack of watering cans, a water pump, and a compost bin stand to the right. Part of the reason I enjoy cemeteries is because I enjoy wondering about the personal histories of those buried there. Also, though, the different designs of headstones and different materials used interest me because they color how a person is remembered. The fact that many graves have candles and fresh flowers at them enchants me, because this is not common in most parts of the U.S. The mix of old and new graves, trees and mausoleums is also something that I do not see so much at home, and this variety gives a texture to the cemetery that helps keep it feeling alive. I frequently see many other visitors walking through when I visit. Peaceful as it is, I always laugh to notice that I am still able to hear the merchants from the market yelling, despite the fact that they are outside the high walls and across the S-Bahn tracks.

Commuting to school, we take the U2 from Bülowstraße station. Walking to the station, I cross an intersection where the timing of the cross-walk lights always leaves me stranded on the middle island at some point. I then walk along the patch of land owned by the American church. Most of the land is covered in trees and grass, and the church doesn’t care for it so there is also constantly litter. People hang out in this area and on the church steps, frequently with their beers and their dogs. Sometimes there are old people lined up on the church steps. I feel uncomfortable that it is the “American” church, even though I am not familiar with its mission… or perhaps because of this. The building is missing the turret to one of its towers, and behind the structure hides a small courtyard park with a lake that belongs to some modern-looking apartments. The road to the church’s east leads to this park and ends. The road to the west is the one I walk along. It intersects Potsdamer Straße and becomes an open and busy area as it approaches Nollendorf Platz. Usually, though, I turn to get on the U-Bahn before that happens.

The train towards Pankow passes the American church and the park behind it. It then takes a bridge over a bunch of other rail-lines, the outskirts area where Schöneberg—its own small city until the 1920s—ends. It also passes the “beach park” and construction work near Mendelssohn-Batholdy Park. In the beginning of the semester, the constant cranes and dirt-piles visible from this stretch of tracks made me wonder what they were building. I realize now that Berlin is constantly building and re-building all over. I don’t know what they aim to do in this place and for now it looks to be a wasteland. I watch people exploring and wonder if the situation is the same as at Tempelhof and Grimmstraße, where the people intent on “planning” the park don’t realize that the people of the city have claimed the places already as their parks and don’t need it changed or officially segregated from the city through naming.

I usually read on the rest of the commute, pausing to notice the tile illustrations of old trams at Klosterstraße and the crowds at Alexanderplatz. Last semester, the commute to school was silent by social decree, and I stood the whole time because one always left the seats for the many old people commuting into town. This semester, I have noticed that people stare openly (unlike in New York) and speak if they are with people (unlike in Prague). The beggars and paper-sellers and musicians also caught me by surprise after last semester. I’ve seen that in the US but I wasn’t expecting it in Berlin. As a final note, I happen to love dogs but I always wonder when I see them on public transit. I think about people with severe allergies who share these enclosed spaces with the animals for the whole time of their commute, and I wonder whether they mind.

The train goes above ground at Senefelderplatz. If the day is nice and I am early for class, I can get off here and walk past the walls of the Jewish cemetery and under the construction scaffolding that is always there. Usually, however, I walk from Eberswalder Straße. This means crossing a precarious 8-way intersection and nodding greetings to other NYU students. I pass signs of the history of Prenzlauerberg and signs of its current gentrification. The first week walking this route, I noticed different things every day. Initially, I noticed chic steak house, the bright green absinth bar, the hot pink bicycle shop, a trendy hair salon and men’s brief store. Later I would notice Konnopke, the Alexanderplatz needle on the horizon, the two stumble stones, and the plaque to the “anti-fascist” who lived on this street. In my mental awareness as I walk this way now are also the watertower that was apparently used as a Nazi interrogation center, the squat across from Prater, the widened streets and the Mauerpark flea market.

Arriving at the Kulturbrauerei, I pass REWE and the two beggars who sit outside the door day after day. I always wonder what the appearance of the NYU students as neighbors has done to the nature of the business. Do they speak more English? Make more small sales? Collect more bottles? Sell more cigarettes? I don’t actually know. I pass the grocery store and turn into the complex to go to the school building. Recently walking this way with a friend who is on crutches made me realize just how many steps there are between the street and the academic center, and they start here. The outdoor dance floor at FRANZ lights up when the sun goes down and looks eerie when there is rain, but I have never seen people on it. The night guards have said that the place can get very rowdy in the evenings because of all the bars. Usually I pass through while the bars and clubs are still empty. I also usually go in this same entrance to the complex, though there are two others. Walking this route, though, I see people grocery shopping, delivery trucks passing through, tourists exploring on bicycles, a group of indignant artists standing by the door of the dance studio, and a group of NYU kids smoking on the steps outside our building. These groups are always present, even though the faces change, and they make the interior of the complex feel like a very public place. There is always traffic to dodge, and sometimes there are stares to dodge as well. Getting inside the door to the school always feels like a bit of a relief because it means entering a space where the traffic patterns are predictable and the stares come from people I can communicate with. Though soon enough I want to leave again, for a brief moment each day this bubble of English-speakers is a welcome sanctuary.

Our building really is difficult to find and not particularly welcoming for outsiders. Between a travel agency and a kitchen shop, the NYU door hardly looks like it belongs to a university. One opens the doors and immediately sees the underside of a set of stairs that almost seems to suggest turning around and leaving again. After a flight of stairs, the door into the center itself looks to be high security, but it is usually unlocked and facing an empty security guard desk. For us, this is no problem. However, when the school has sponsored events to which they invite non-NYU guests, they always seem to have a hard time finding their way in. Part of this could be that we’re tucked away, but I suspect that some of these factors scare away even those who are heading in the right direction. Should they get into the academic center, they then would have to figure out that we actually all congregate and have events on the second floor.

Part of the reason we congregate there is that the gaps between classes are too short for us to go home and return with the length of our commute. Another part of the reason is that the limited amount of internet we get at our apartments is slow and not good for watching videos or skyping. This becomes tricky because there really are no private spaces in the academic center in which one can skype uninterrupted. The empty reading room has class walls, the big room is filled with people, the classrooms are all used, and the one little corner that has no use is across from the computer closet so it isn’t very quiet. With the time difference, Skyping home is really most convenient for them went it is late at night for us. That’s generally speaking, because we’re from all over different time zones, but most people I talk to say they Skype when it is night here. Considering that the center closes around 11 p.m. and is a half-hour commute from home, staying to Skype is really not convenient or sometimes possible.

Maybe this doesn’t seem like a relevant architectural description, but it is a factor of the place that defines how we students use it. The school announced recently that they intend to install wireless in our apartments, and I found myself with mixed reactions. On one hand, it will be nice to be able to Skype from my apartment…though I’ll keep the windows closed so as not to disturb my neighbors. On the other hand, I like that people congregate at the academic center because we all disappear into our own boxes when we are at the apartments. The fact that people stayed at the center meant that there were always friends around or excuses to talk to people who weren’t necessarily friends yet. I feel like the dynamic of the place will change once there is internet at the apartments as well, although there will always be a group of us who don’t have time to go home between classes and hang out for that reason instead.

The white of the center and the plain walls are somewhat cold, but I feel comfortable there in all rooms except the small corner classroom on the first floor. I have two of my largest and longest classes in there, and it is just too small for the number of people and chairs it is expected to accommodate. It got stuffy and dark in the winter, and we are still never sure of where to set the projector because it is always blocking someone and projecting behind someone else. That room is also a little oddly placed. The plan for the building seems to be composed of loops: the art room loop and the office loop (plus that one classroom) on the first floor, and the two open loops of the ‘reading room’ and the student space on the second floor. The classrooms on the second floor could be part of a third narrow loop that also includes the kitchen and bathroom, but it is hard to say because I only ever have class in the rooms off the left wing of the hall.

Overall I’ve noticed that Berlin is neighborhood-focused, somewhat empty, and constantly under construction. I have explored extensively beyond the commuter route described in this paper, but this route was one of the first I travelled and will probably be one of the last as well. It is how I was introduced to the city, and so it is the route that colored my awareness. Some students have complained about living so far away from the academic center, but I like the neighborhood we live in. I would not want to live in Prenzlauerburg or Mitte because I already spend time there for school. When Berlin is composed of distinct and diverse neighborhoods, and my ability to ‘belong’ somewhere in the city is linked with either my place of work or my place of study, I want those to be two different places so I can belong in two different neighborhoods. I want to feel the difference between Mauerpark and Victoria Park, and I am glad to have been given the opportunity to do so.

Cities, Communities, Urban Life Final



A Growing Solution: The Purposes of Berlin’s Parks

In the beginning, planned green spaces appeared in the form of vegetable gardens and pastures—albeit open ones—for domesticated animals. I couldn’t tell you when this happened, but my history teachers through the years seem to agree that this was what allowed people to settle into semi-permanent communities and begin accumulating object wealth…two things they continue to do today. To proceed with a brief history of the role of planned green spaces in settled areas, gardens went on to develop in different forms depending on their purpose. They became calm places for meditation, open places for entertaining, curated places for communicating social status, or private places for conversations.

The first kind of park was likely a memorial park, in the form of a cemetery. Public parks in the 19th century were developed by governments and aristocrats looking to develop the culture of the middle and lower class. In the United States, tycoons and millionaires like DuPont and Rockefeller developed parks to boost their public reputation and contribute to their (hoped-for) immortality. Later, their families would find that expansive properties strained their budgets, and those places would become parks as well, though usually carefully landscaped ones visitors must pay to visit. Visitors may or may not also pay to enter Nature parks or “preserves.” These were not planned or cultivated spaces like other parks; they really were (and are) preserved places. They are, however, set aside as planned green spaces to be protected and visited. These untended spaces are something of an anomaly, but they are quite popular in Berlin and are a topic I will return to later.

More recently, ‘city parks’ and ‘urban gardens’ have become quite popular. Recognition of the value of incorporating trees, foliage, and open space into city planning is one reason that these spaces appeared in early cities. Increasingly, however, the idea of the community garden as a place to develop relationships and agriculture education within a community has become very trendy. In New York, some “urban farmers” bring the vegetables they grown in their community gardens to the farmers’ markets to sell. Others partner up with schools to teach children about sustainable small-space farming. Frequently these gardens spring up on neglected lots, usually thanks to the initiative of a couple people or neighborhood organization. They recycle and revitalize what would otherwise be considered “dead space” so that it becomes useful for the community. And this is one of the philosophies I have found most exploring the green spaces in Berlin.

For numerous historical reasons, Berlin is a city with a lot of space. It has the gardens and hunting grounds associated with old capital cities, the tracts of land cleared by governments for projects that weren’t realized, the areas cleared by war destruction, and the areas that used to be occupied by the dividing wall. Also important is Berlin’s status as a city-state. This allowed it to expand, particularly in the 1920s, to include the small cities and towns surrounding it. The result has been that there is a lot of room for people to spread out across, and that the places between these sites develop later as annexed spaces. Finally, as with many other cities, the development of roadways and rail lines has cut through otherwise usable spaces and turned them into “dead spaces” that are really too small to be used as anything other than parks.

Examples of each of the afore mentioned types of planned green spaces exist in Berlin, and they all receive high visitor traffic. Our group’s analysis of how these spaces illustrate the city’s relationship with nature focused on a few specific sites, and here I will do the same.

The most striking example, in my opinion, of a memorial park in Berlin is the Soviet Memorial at Treptower Park that we visited as a class. Of course, there are many other such memorial parks around the city, and one may even be able to argue to include the south-east Tiergarten on that list. The problem these kinds of places raise in Berlin is that of the whole city as a memorial. Most if not all of the city could be memorialized, if one was rigorous about doing so, and this puts Berliners in a difficult situation. By memorializing everything, they would drain the life from their city, making it a testament to past ages without room to grow. At the same time, they must memorialize some things, and some things have memorialized themselves. As an example of the former, to not mark any of the places where the wall was would be considered an attempt to avoid that piece of history. As a result, places like Mauer Park have to be developed for PR reasons. As an example of the latter, things that memorialize themselves, this is where buildings designed by the Prussian, Nazi, or Soviet leaders to stand as testaments of their greatness outlast the regimes. They are too historically significant, and frequently too expensive, to destroy; however, what can be done with Schinkel’s monument to the victories of Frederick William III, with the site currently known as the “Topography of Terror,” or with Speer’s gigantic Tempelhof airport? Since making active decisions about these sites would require the city government to indirectly make a statement about which pieces of the city’s history they feel are most important, they have a tendency to take the passive route: declare these places to be parks.

I say that this is a passive route for the government to take because most of the places they set aside in this manner become preserves rather than curated parks. Sure, Berlin still has acculturation-focused parks, such as the Gardens of the World, Britzer Park, or the Botanical Gardens. These are the places people go to experience aesthetically pleasing landscape architecture, similar to the parks left by US tycoons, and they are carefully designed and maintained. Otherwise, most of the city’s gardens and parks are minimally landscaped. Trees that sprouted from post-war rubble still stand by Libeskind’s Jewish Museum annex and the Topography of Terror site. The hilltop of Görlitzer Park and shores of Wannsee are only maintained in that the walking paths are kept free of vegetation.

As this has happened in the historic sites that are left to the jurisdiction of the city government, so has it happened to the spaces between the old town centers. Berlin has several large Volksparks that belonged to towns that were annexed. Now they are neighborhood parks, with petting zoos and soccer fields but also with large areas that have been left to grow naturally. Much of the Sans Souci Park in Potsdam is naturally forested, and Grunewald has also been mostly left to Mother Nature. Even the area around the Spandau citadel, complete with industrial contamination of the stream and the major road running towards the center o f Berlin nearby, is a designated “nature preserve” and left mostly as wooded land.

Interestingly, the parks and gardens that are cared for and cultivated are usually those left, intentionally or unintentionally, at the hands of the people. Cemeteries, for instance, frequently have open-top family grave plots in which people plant small trees, perennials, or sometimes even annuals. Kleine Gärten communities can usually be found in the places between housing complexes and transportation routes. These are areas that would otherwise become neglected and that the city does not want to spend resources on. Instead, families and individuals take responsibility for them, building outdoor kitchens and tending herb gardens and planting rows of tulips. Since these are privately cared for, the garden plots themselves are not open to the public. That said, the ally-ways between the plots are open for the public to wander through, and so it happens that people revitalize a space abandoned by urban planning and by the city government.

All this leads up to the two places that I found to be the most interesting: Prinzessinnengärten off Moritzplatz and Südgelände Park off Priesterweg. Both were previously marginal areas, and they are two very different case studies in ways the city government recognized the efforts of the city people towards reclaiming and revitalizing wasted space.

Prinzessinnengärten, the Moritzplatz site in Kreuzberg, used to be just another intersection, and one marginalized by the presence of the Berlin wall at that. Their website explains that it was a “wasteland for over half a century.” Then in 2009, Robert Shaw and Marco Clausen decided that the place had potential. Robert wanted to recreate the kind of urban garden he had seen in Cuba. He noticed that people gathered in the gardens there, not just to grow food but also to visit with and learn from each other. The gardens were community centers, where people met and intercultural exchange happened. He wanted to see such a garden in Kreuzberg, so the two men put together the non-profit Nomadisch Grün and began to lease the site. They didn’t know much about gardening when they started, but they knew they wanted three things: to build a community, to create a place of learning, and to keep the garden sustainable. That means planting tomatoes in burlap sacks and creating rain-collection units out of modified milk cartons.

When I visited, the whole site was busy. Even though their open season has not yet officially begun, there were volunteers in the garden, flyers for a seminar on cooking potatoes, and a very diverse crowd gathered around the bar/café listening to two local musicians. Later in the evening another group gathered to put on a short play that was half in Spanish. I would say that Robert and Marco are achieving their goals and have transformed their space with the help of the community.

At the very different Südgelände site, remnants of its days as Tempelhof marshalling yard. As a result of the division of the city, the site closed in 1952 and was left alone until 1980, when it was proposed to re-build and re-open the marshalling yard. A group of neighbors banded together in protest, and in 1995 the land was transferred from Deutsches Bahn to the city of Berlin. In 1996 it was designated a Nature Park, and in 2000 it was opened to visitors. The motto of the park seems to be “Die Kunst ist der nachste Nachbar der Wildnis," and the affirmations of this philosophy can be found throughout the park…though only in certain areas. On the southern side of the park, one finds relics that have been aged by nature and re-purposed by artists. This is really how I was expecting most of the site to be. Instead, the middle of the park boasts a sculpture garden, a large building that is currently an artists’ workshop, the old water tower, a carefully preserved steam engine, and directions to the southern trails. These northern trails have a completely different feel from the southern ones. They fan out through the nature preserve area, and so visitors stay on raised paths that are reminiscent of rail lines. Sculptures and information boards appear periodically along the path, but the sculptures looked to be all from the same studio (“Odious” they’re called) and inspired by, if not commissioned for, their particular locations.

The evolution of both these places suggests a new idea about the purpose of a park. My research introduced me to the word Landescerschonerung, referring to the German idea that the economic and cultural use of land contributes to its beauty. The idea is old, but I would say that changing ideas about what is worthwhile economically and culturally are partially responsible for the variety of designated green spaces in Berlin’s landscape, particularly the variety of parks and gardens. Economically, both clearing off land and developing it are expensive endeavors…especially in the current ‘crisis’ and in the ever-rebuilding city of Berlin. Culturally, there is always contention about how to treat places of historical importance. Another cultural condition is that currently studies announcing an increase in urbanization have been greeted with efforts to create stronger communities in cities and educate these communities about how to live sustainably. The hope is to avoid regressing to the industrial-age city even though the urban populations are again growing in size. These factors together are what result in spaces such as Prinzessinnengärten and Südgelände.

To illustrate, the Prinzessinnengärten is run by a non-profit; however, this past season their rent was raised to a point where they almost could not afford to keep leasing their space. The Berlin government supported them by stepping in and giving them funds so that they could stay. What has happened is that, as the city fretted over what to do with some of the more historically burdened sites, the people of the city moved to revitalize these sites themselves. Recognizing that supporting these efforts would be good PR, a way to repurpose otherwise wasted space, and a comparatively cheap way to outsource the work of the actual transformation, the government has handed these projects over to the interested communities. The communities then establish multi-purpose spaces that meet their needs, and for the most part everyone wins. Sometimes it feels as if this is a cop-out for the city: the easiest thing is to declare an overgrown area to be a nature preserve and post a few signs around it to say so.

I do wonder if there will ever be a day when the demand for land reaches a point where the development of the city parks becomes a topic of discussion. Considering, however, the amount of pride that Berliners take in their identity as a green city and the success of all of the parks I visited—meaning the use they receive from the local communities—I would say that such discussions would not lead to any serious changes in land-use patterns in Berlin. The system they have, though barely a system by some definitions, works for them. I wonder if it would work in other cities, but not many cities have enough open spaces to even consider things like an airport park. Here is yet another characteristic that makes Berlin a special and somewhat strange city. And an increasingly green one.

Resources:

Lamb, Zachary. “Sudgelande Nature Park.” 2008. Backlands_Post-Industrial Urban Wildlands in Berlin. 7 May 2011. <http://architecture.mit.edu/class/nature/student_projects/2007/zlamb/urban-nature/sudgelande/sudgehistory.html>

“Natur-Park Suedgelaende, Berlin.” 2008. Gardenvisit.com. 7 May 2011. <http://www.gardenvisit.com/garden/sudgelande_nature_park>

“Nomadisch Grün (Nomadic Green) – Prinzessinnengärten.” 2011. Kitchen Gardeners. 7 May 2011. <http://kitchengardeners.org/partners/nomadisch-grun-nomadic-green-prinzessinnengarten>

“Prinzessinnengärten Urbane Landwirtschaft.” 2011. Prinzessinnengärten. 7 May 2011. <http://prinzessinnengarten.net/about/>

Knowledge Cities Final



Reflections on the Possibility of Restructuring U.S. Education Using a Knowledge City Model

A high school teacher once remarked to me that successful revolutions are difficult to come by. Even when people can see that there are problems with a system, she explained, the law of inertia tends to govern social movements. People tend to resist change, especially today when they have to constantly fight to maintain any kind of stasis. So how does one start the ball rolling then? The same teacher explained that calls for system change are most likely to gain followers if there is a defined plan and if substitute practices are suggested to replace practices that are being abandoned. She suggested, for example, replacing a prompt to ‘read more’ with ‘read three new books each month.’ In another example, she suggested ‘read more closely’ with ‘keep an outline while reading and compose a response at the end of each chapter.’

I have been thinking of this teacher frequently over the past few months, and watching the Ken Robinson video after our midterm inspired me to use her as my jumping-off point for this final paper. Like many excellent books, articles, and videos I have recently encountered pointing out the flaws of the current U.S. education system, the video made many good points. My problem was that, again like all the others, it pointed out specific problems but then offered an abstract solution instead of a series of concrete ones. My intention is to use this paper to synthesize the different ideas about knowledge production that this class has explored into a theoretical action plan for actually initiating change.

At the start of the video, it is proposed that there are two reasons that countries are reforming their education systems: economic and cultural. I would perhaps be even more extreme and say that these are the reasons countries have education systems at all. Why is education necessary and why do societies value schooling? The questions given in the video provide some possible answers. Public education is supposed to prepare children to become the kinds of employees the economy needs, and simultaneously it is supposed to socialize them so that they develop a sense of cultural identity. According to the myth that previous generations were raised with, working hard in school and getting good grades would lead to a college degree, which in turn would lead to a “good” job. Students have suspected for a while now that this is an outdated myth, but only recently have those in power begun to notice that their system needs an update, at the very least. Their initial reaction involved implementing more standardized testing in an attempt to ‘raise standards.’ That hasn’t done much good, but I’ll return to the topic of testing shortly.

To begin my response, I have to point out that focusing solely on training children to become employees sounds, if we are honest, completely insane and absurd. Shouldn’t children be children for a while and then grow into engaged adults, free to pursue their interests, passions and talents? One could say that an overly economic idea of the purpose of education is in and of itself problematic, but I am hardly the person to think up an alternative structuring of a whole society. For now, then, I will work with the assumption that students are being trained to take their places in the current economy. What does this mean? Dealing with the current economy means dealing with constant instability. Technology evolves at a rate which creates new jobs and makes others obsolete at a rapid pace, and how does one prepare for a job that does not yet exist? Also noteworthy are the two conflicting trends that are prominent right now: globalization increasing the need to collect credentials that make one look competitive, and degree inflation making this more difficult by making the most accepted credential form worth less and less.

As far as building a sense of cultural identity in United States students, I again have to ask what this means. Since U.S. citizens do not share an ethnic background, our common culture is wholly dependent on learned behaviors and myths. One of the strongest learned behaviors that we share is that of language, but our institutions cling so tightly to English at times that they can be impractical about ignoring the usefulness of knowing another language. This can then make it difficult for students to find opportunities to learn alternative languages even if they want to.

The national mythology taught especially in history classes is also problematic. Generally, the mythology focuses heavily on U.S. history, and only glorious history at that. Sometimes, individuals like Howard Zinn have started movements to include stories about minority achievement and national failures in this narrative. In many cases, however, the fact that the national textbook industry caters to the editing requests of the biggest, wealthiest, and frequently most conservative states leads to the perpetuation of a narrative that does exactly the opposite. This inter-state conflict is just one of many, especially when it comes to public education, and I would propose that such conflicts indicate a need to change the version of cultural identity being taught to one that acknowledges state identity, city identity and ethnic identity as components of the individual. This would allow these different facets to be acknowledged, but it would hopefully also check the dominance of any one identity in determining the education of the individual. The tone of the history stories needs to be changed to one that celebrates the strength that comes from our diversity. Once this is managed at home, then the next urgent matter of business is to start teaching students languages earlier so that they can interact well with the rest of the world and become part of a global community.

While we’re re-writing the old myths of past times, we should also address the myth about the worth of a college degree. Degree inflation is no secret, and by now many of the academic articles on the subject of higher education even admit that jobs are requiring more credentials of employees today even if the skills needed for the job have not changed at all. This is, of course, a result of the supply-and-demand law of economics in the free market: there are currently many workers and not so many jobs so employers can afford to be picky. The problem is that it is becoming more and more necessary—in the U.S. context—for students to spend more of their lives and money on schooling than ever before. This paper focuses on primary and secondary education, so this is all I’ll say directly on this subject, but it is something worth noting and something worth researching further at another time.

The Robinson video goes on to discuss how the system of public education devised in the industrial era, and with us to this day, created an idea that people are either smart academics or not-smart non-academics. This narrow definition of achievement has led to equally narrow definitions of intelligence and of success. Theoretically, once could counter that the idea of multiple intelligences and learning styles has been around since Howard Gardner. And this would be true: the idea has been around. What still hasn’t happened, however, is the translation of this idea into concrete terms. The idea that people learn differently has changed the way some classrooms are run and some exams are given, but this is mostly at the digression of individual schools and teachers. Overall, standardized testing still assumes that ‘achievement’ can be measured best from all students in just this one manner, and society assumes that individuals who do not test well are not as capable or intelligent. If schools are to maintain their autonomy from the federal government, then some kind of assessment is necessary to enable students to transfer credits and to help universities screen applicants with different educational backgrounds. This is only practical. However, this assessment does not need to be in the form of a 4 hour standardized fill-in-the-bubbles test, for which one pays an independent company around $80.

I could actually continue to discuss the problems with standardized testing for a long time; however, the problems that have come up with the increase in mandatory standardized testing are also worth mentioning briefly. Firstly, the problems ESL students have with the testing because they are not given enough extra support during state testing have ESL teachers railing against certain forms of testing and leave the test results in certain states very demographically segregated. Second, there is the problem that teachers feel pressured to cut material out of their lessons so that they can review the information and skills that will be ‘on the test.’ The issue touched on in the video, however, is yet another. Robinson focuses on the increase in the number of kids prescribed ADD/ADHD medication as both frequency of testing and pressure from parents increase. While I can’t comment specifically on this trend, it only seems right to question why so many teachers and parents are taking their kids to doctors on account of trouble in school. Of course, this isn’t the only reason one might make an appointment that results in the prescription of Ritalin; however, I distrust the caretakers who think bad grades are an illness as much as I distrust doctors who put pharmaceutical fashion before the health of a child. Clearly the years of education they underwent failed somewhere along the line to teach them about priorities.

So what should our priorities be? Well, the current educational system was designed to serve the interests of industrialism, and so it maintains the priorities of that bygone era. It aims for standardization. Interestingly, as mentioned above, when it was first observed that this system was no longer effective, the first reaction was to implement more standardized testing and more standardized curricula. Then people were surprised that this didn’t work. Robinson concludes that current schools train students to a grand narrative, in which there is only one answer to each question. Schools also, to use a phrase I came across in a classroom recently, function as ‘sorting machines,’ and focus on isolating students as a result. Ideally, proper reform of the public education system would require scrapping the entire system and rebuilding from scratch, beginning with the very paradigms upon which the system is designed. This is hugely ambitious, of course, and so in the meantime smaller changes will have to suffice. Where to start? It would be good, for example, if schools encouraged cohorts and teams instead of insisting students separating students into batches and tracks. Another huge improvement would be to design programs which encourage divergent thinking. Starting with these modifications would be to start with re-directing the priorities stressed through schooling. The focus would shift from solitary standardization to interactive innovation, the kind of development that the current economic market actually needs.

Would school need to remain school? I would actually prefer to see school buildings replaced with learning complexes devoted to knowledge sharing. The idea of the knowledge city is not one in which I put faith as a solution to urban sustainability problems, but I do feel that it could be one component of a city’s identity. More importantly in the context of this paper, I feel that the concept of a knowledge city could be adjusted and used in redesigning the school system. Ergazakis et. al. defines a knowledge city as a city that “aims at knowledge-based development, by encouraging the continuous creation, sharing, evaluation, renewal and update of knowledge. This can be achieved through the continuous interaction between its citizens themselves and at the same time between them and other cities’ citizens” (2). By definition, a knowledge city is mindfully coordinated to increase the happening of knowledge moments. Knowledge moments, in turn, are interactions between people which lead to the discovery, transfer, nurturing, or recording of knowledge. It seems apparent to me that a smaller scale institution would also be able to provide this sort of environment, and a school certainly could if the value of such a project was recognized.

In establishing a new learning center model, one might find it helpful to reference the characteristics of a knowledge city outlined in Carrillo’s “Century of Knowledge Cities.” To run through them briefly: political and social will must back the project before any kind of change can begin, a strategic vision and specific development plan should be put forth by educational theorists and researchers, financial support would come from taxes and state funds, and investments could potentially come from corporations. As far as an agency to promote regional development, this would translate into state agencies responsible for promoting inter-city exchange and community outreach programs run through the center. Including foreign languages, world history, and ESL support would be steps toward internationalizing that are long overdue in the education system, and re-working the national mythology, as already mentioned, to celebrate national diversity as a strength would help as well. The need for a metropolitan website translates easily into a need for a center website, and easy access to online communication networks is also a must. Value creation would work very similarly as in a true knowledge city, through here the influences of the needs of the market would presumably be more apparent as the center would issue qualification documents. Of course research facilities, access to a public library network, and access to public transit are also all vital to the success of such a project. Ideally, they would be open to the public as places where knowledge producing programs and projects can incubate even if they are not directly linked to a group of students. The final point on Carrillo’s list is the presence of urban innovation engines. It would be ideal if the learning center itself became an innovation engine, creating a stimulating and supportive atmosphere in which divergent thinkers come together and innovate.

Structurally, a learning center model would be something of a hybrid between different knowledge places known for facilitating knowledge moments. Considering that there are certain merits to socializing children together as they hit the milestones of early development, younger students would be grouped in cohorts that span three years, an idea borrowed from the Montessori model of schooling. For these younger geniuses who are still in their exploratory stage of development, the Montessori model through which the students move through their lessons at their own paces would also be preferred. This would allow students with different talents and learning styles to differentiate their educational experiences from the beginning. Beyond what would currently be considered middle-school, and actually up through and beyond university, modules would be available to students. The modules would be interdisciplinary groupings of classes, likely clustered under broader subject areas. This connects to my theory on one possible answer to degree inflation.

Since the death of the concept of the career, it has become widely understood that individuals seeking to maintain employment in the current economy need to constantly be updating their skills and skill sets. Previously, it was possible to know how much education was required for which jobs. Then, one went through the prescribed amount of schooling, worked hard for strong marks, and upon completion of the schooling received a piece of paper called a degree. This degree was an open letter of endorsement from the institution that provided it, and through it the institution bore witness to the fact that the individual had acquired certain understanding and skills through the program. I would like to see developed a system of experience accreditation that matches the call to lifelong education that is increasingly the norm. By this idea, independent research and experiences can officially be added to an individual’s pile of credentials without the debt caused by college tuition. Along with this, I would suggest that formal courses—because of course they are still interesting and necessary—each conclude with a project by which the student can demonstrate their mastery of the material. With the assistance of an online program such as NYU’s eVita or even the U.S. Common App., the notices of accreditation and these projects would be compiled into a virtual file. Through this documentation of knowledge moments both inside and outside the formal academic setting, hopefully many kinds of learning would come to be valued and individuals would also be able to compete on the job market with their individualized and ever-growing skill sets.

Resources:

Carrillo, Francisco Javier. Knowledge Cities: Approaches, Experiences and Perspectives. Butterworth-Heinemann, 2006.

Ergazakis, Kostas, Kostas Metaxiotis, John Psarras. “An Emerging Pattern of Successful Knowledge Cities’ Main Features.” 2006. National Technical University of Athens, Greece. Reader.

Robinson, Sir Ken. “Changing Education Paradigms.” 14 Oct 2010. RSA Animate. 7 May 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDZFcDGpL4U

Museum Island Final




Object Biographies:

A Discussion of Semiophores, Symbols, Stories and Status

At the start of this course, I chose “Object Biographies” as my final topic because I was curious about the relationships between cultures, objects, collections, exhibits and museums. I started out interested primarily in how objects gather biographies for themselves and so acquire value. Increasingly, however, I have become interested in how individuals use objects in building their biographies. I intend to pull all of these interests together in this paper, considering finally how the nature of object biographies and the history of their importance are intertwined with museum value, historical memory, identity creation and questions of restitution.

To say that objects have biographies seems perhaps strange, but as human biographies are simply maps of our interactions across time and space it makes sense that any common denominator of interactions across time and space also have similar maps. Essentially, if it exists, it has a story. Objects can be either natural or man-made, and their stories begin in different places accordingly. Thinking of a fossil and a painting, one can see that both objects are somewhat explicated when the circumstances of their origins are considered. With a natural object like a fossil, the life of the being that shaped it influences it as much as the time in which it was created and the conditions of climate and soil that preserved it over time. With the painting, the world and technologies that influenced the artist should be considered along with the subject and the medium used for the same effect. After this point, the stories of the two kinds of objects can merge. They have a life cycle in which they interact only with their natural environments as they are left alone, with people or animals as they are used, with other people or animals as they change use or ownership, and with time as they wear down with age.

Sometimes, though, the object is at some point ‘discovered’ and attributed value. At this point, Krzysztof Pomian would argue, the object is taken out of economic circulation and becomes a semiophore with no practical use. One theory of how this process works suggests that the divisions implied by language are the reason that we attach meaning to objects. Language names the visible and suggests the invisible, so that we perceive the mysterious invisible as the source and destination of all phenomena. This subjugates the visible to the invisible as something more easily understood and so implicitly simpler.

These explanations do not necessarily put my mind as ease. I disagree with Pomian on two major points and question a third. First, I would argue that the objects in museum collections, semiophores that have apparently been taken out of economic circuit, are still pawns in the alternative economies present in the worlds of international affairs, art collection, and archeology. Second, I would challenge him as to whether these objects truly also have no practical use once they become symbolic links to the invisible. Albert Barnes would disagree, as his foundation continues to use assemblages of impressionist paintings and African masks—among other objects of undeniable value—to teach color and composition theory. As a somewhat converse example, jewelry frequently acquires symbolic value as it is passed down through generations, but one can wear a necklace as much for its color as for the social status it communicates or its association with a past era. Finally, I would question the theory that language prompts us to superimpose value on symbolic objects by suggesting an invisible world. Since words, letters, and sounds are themselves simultaneously the basis of language and symbolic invisible units themselves, it seems absurd to say that they create symbolic links to the invisible which we then value. So do we then value or collect language? This could explain why Western academia values the written word more than the spoken word: writing gives another dimension to the symbol by making it almost tangible. So it becomes something that can be possessed and worked into part of a social economy. Does our putting value, symbolism and narrative onto objects indicate a need to communicate or is it still a sign of a longing to touch the invisible, to find the source and understand the destination as Pomian proposes? Or is it both…another version of the phenomenon we instigate when we link sound to lines by writing? I don’t actually have answers to any of these questions, but these are what I see as the weak points in his theory.

To continue, then, objects to which value has been attributed continue dynamic interactions even once afforded their semiophore status. This is important, because it can seem sometimes as if these objects rest in museums and archives and so make these static places outside the influence of current events and mindsets. Of course this is not true, as evidenced by the lootings of Egyptian museums this semester and by the ongoing struggles for restitution of nation-defining objects.

In describing the objects that take on value in this way, Pomian explains: “…[T]hese are, of course, merely empty compartments capable of containing the most diverse of beings, from ancestors and gods to the dead and to people different to ourselves, as well as events and circumstances…”(24). Because the objects are considered links to the invisible, they are also seen as bridges or transport pieces which can open dialogues between audiences of living, dead or deified beings. Typical objects of this kind include funeral objects, offerings, gifts, booty, relics, sacred objects, and royal treasures. These are some traditional examples, but Pomian’s comment indicates that any variety of objects can take on a range of symbolic significances. This can be seen when one looks at collections and what composes them depending on whether they belong to institutions or to individuals.

Interactions with collectors, curators, exhibitions, other objects, and institutions are frequently part of the biographies of semiophores. This is because they tend to become parts of collections. Collections are groups of objects that have value, are outside of the traditional economic circuit, are afforded special protection as a group, and are usually put on display. One might build a collection in hopes of financial gain, due to a hoarding instinct, for aesthetic pleasure, out of nostalgia, or as part of a quest for knowledge. One of the oldest and most common reasons for collecting, however, is the accumulation and expression of power.

Early on, collectors gathered semiophores to make themselves more powerful by increasing their proximity to the invisible. The demographic that collected and the types of objects collected changed through the years as the locus of power shifted from religious to secular and royalty to celebrity. As the middle class grew in size and strength, they too demanded access to collections. This led to the importance of the museum as a place of ritual and socialization. It was hoped that in the museum the display of upper class culture and social relics would give the middle class a model to imitate in order to become more sophisticated. With this shift of power, the institutions responsible for public display began to collect collections. Certainly the artifacts and collections were still important for the private collectors; they were still the legal owners, gaining prestige and a symbolic immortality when their names appeared near their pieces in the libraries and museums. Importantly, though, the display institutions also begin to more obviously gain the same prestige from these collections.

Taking this as my point of departure from the Pomian text, I would like to consider the implications of this shift as they relate to Can Bilsel’s “Zeus in Exile” article. Bilsel’s article discusses how the question of the restitution of the Zeus alter of Pergamon is a question of international memory politics. The article concludes that museums must look at such cases as more than questions of legal acquisition and ownership; he would have them considered struggles over who can claim control of the capturing of the object biography in language.

When the collectors first handed collections over to museums, the power-by-association impact of the objects was not diminished by these transactions. On the contrary, the benefits of association multiplied enough to then cover both the individuals and the institutions. This result points to the pattern of micro-/meta-perspectives involved when considering symbolic value. Presence of certain items gives value to a collection. Ownership of a collection gives value to an owner. Control over collections gives value to a museum.

I do not wish to imply that quantity is the only factor that matters in developing museum value. Small museums that specialize can earn reputations as places of expertise, becoming valuable to researchers and scholars as places of potential discovery. These places become attributed with proximity to the invisible as places of knowledge and understanding, qualities which are considered to bring one closer to the source/destination through interaction as semiophores do through acquisition. In larger museums that do rely on the collection of collections for developing their reputations, the objects in each collection contribute different values to that collection. This means that some collections are more prestige-granting than others. And of course, the presentation of the collections becomes vital because the ability of a display to confer power is dependent upon the presence of an audience.

Responsibility for the accessibility of an exhibited collection to visiting audiences today falls on curators, meaning that they too now benefit from association with the collections. Care of the trend towards democratic social structures in the Western world, the efficacy of a museum is also now tied to how well those in charge of the museum arrange it to facilitate visitor-semiophore interaction. It was never enough to control the objects and be near the invisible; someone must give power in order for another to acquire it. As collectors were pushed to share their collections with institutions, institutions now are pushed to share their privileged position with visitors, all in order to maintain the presence of an audience.

Audiences explore collections in the hopes of increasing their proximity to the invisible as well. The expansion of the internet has increased accessibility to images of objects and collections—with consequences for museums seeking to communicate their control over collections via control over production of images of the collections—yet people still go to museums. Part of this is tied to the ritual aspect of museum visiting, which I don’t have space to discuss here. Part of this also may be a result of a desire to increase personal understanding through interaction with the objects and collections, another route towards proximity with the invisible, as mentioned above. I would suggest, though, that a large part of the reason people go to museums brings this whole discussion back to where it started: the biographies of objects. People want to take their own pictures of objects. They want to pass their own subjective judgments on the aesthetic value of objects, and they want to be able to say that they have done so. In short, people seek to touch their own biographies to those of different objects.

Such intersections of histories are, of course, intangible invisible things. Also, many such intersections can exist simultaneously. Multiple intersections can be true without the value of any one being diminished by the presence of the other. In each case, the intended audience of the interaction may be as small as the self or as large as a celebrity fan-base. To establish ownership and control over an interaction for display purposes, the individual must transform the interaction into a visible entity. If the intended audience is the self, the memory of a fixed image from the interaction may be concrete enough. This is particularly true if the memory-image is a classical one documented and shared with many others. Otherwise, the interaction is pinned down through symbolic means: language, sketches, or photographs…semiophores. Over a lifetime, one likely collects many of these semiophores and develops a personal narrative around them. The narrative includes other stories, symbols, and myths, and this narrative is what the personal perception of identity becomes tied to.

To conclude, I would suggest that people are the smallest units of audience that interact with semiophores in this manner. Though larger units of audience—towns, cities, nations and regions—may have different patterns of engagement and interaction, I would propose that some of the important basics remain the same. First, they are moving to define their identities through communicated interactions. The most valuable interactions for this are those that bring proximity to the invisible. It is also important that the interactions can be crystallized into a shared memory-image or a tangible symbol, because only then can the interaction be communicated to an audience.

The last of these fundamentals, though the one with the most consequences for Bilsel and restitution struggles, would be that the symbolic value of the object is not diminished by the number of interactions associated with it. Think of how many biographies have touched that of the Mona Lisa! Yet there is no value lost from the size of the number. The only time multiple interactions becomes a problem is when the two parties are in competition for the most or most meaningful interactions…for power conferred through closeness to the invisible. The parties may then attempt to alter the value of an interaction by stressing the duration of it or the amount of control expressed during it. They do so by creating new myths and writing new narratives, the authority of which are determined by other factors of the parties’ identities, which again I don’t have space to discuss here.

The invisible represented in museum objects is frequently that of past times, persons, or places. These invisibles are attached to objects through narratives that symbolize their interactions, and current audiences use the transitive property to reach through the objects and touch the invisible. This interaction then becomes symbolized…it is a never-ending process. I had considered arguing that the creation of symbols and semiophores is a form of capturing the invisible, of declaring it to be finite, possessable, and so lesser, by Pomian’s original reasoning. Through this process, audiences reassure themselves that they are not finite; rather, they are dynamic enough to be creating. They exist, are alive, and have value as generators of meaning. Considering Mauss’ theories on the nature of gift exchange—in which gifts also become semiophores of a sort in that they symbolize interactions and transactions—my argument may have to be edited a bit to consider circumstances in which the semiophore is a bridge between two present audiences, though each would still be something of an invisible to the other. If anything, though, such editing would just make an even stronger case for the conclusion that audiences rethink their competitions. Power is not the ultimate goal according to these theories; it is desirable only because it indicates closeness to the invisible behind all symbols. If this is so, all audiences are reaching for the ultimate source and destination, for the ability to transcend time by compressing it into symbols and touching one’s biography to that of such a collection. And so the narratives of interactions with a semiophore should be able to exist with equal voice regardless of whether they were composed in Turkey or Prussia, and the physical location of an object is not as important as the ability to compose symbols of interactions with the ever-growing biography of the object.

Sources:

Bilsel, Can (2000): “Zeus in Exile. Archeological Restitution as Politics of Memory”. Working Paper No. 13. Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies, Princeton University.

Pomian, Krzysztof (1990): Collectors and Curiosities. Paris and Venice, 1500-1800. Cambridge: Polity Press, chapter 1: “The Collection: between the Visible and the Invisible” (pp. 7-44).

And then I blinked.

Stranded a bit zuhause ohne Auto, I'm about to start a mad game of catch-up. Things got a bit crazy at the end of the semester (as I'll soon explain)...but I'm about to post a list of German songs, a couple of my papers, and then finally a recap of the last few weeks in which I fell completely in love with Berlin. Gut?

My Berlin playlist:
Alpha Gun "Auslander"
Frauenarzt & Manny Mac "Das Geht Ab"
Marteria "Marteria Girl"
Glashaus "Wenn das Liebe Ist"
Xavier Naidoo "Ich Brauche Dich"
Lazerkraft 3D "Nein, Mann"
Die Prinzen "Millionar" (with the accent over the 'a' but I don't know how to type it!)
Die Prinzen "Das Alles ist Deutschland"
EAV "Es Steht ein Haus in Ostberlin"
Roger Cicero "Zieh die Schuh Aus"
Kool Savas & Ercandize "Komm Mit Mir"
(non-German...)
Eldrine "One More Day"
Jeward "Lipstick" (oh Eurovision...)
Yolanda Be Cool "We No Speak Americano"
Dschinghis Kahn "Moskau"

So I never said they were particularly GOOD songs...just ones that now make me laugh.