Abstract
During the past two decades, American and European cities have increasingly stressed place marketing and image production to compete successfully. Until now, however, there has been little published work on the politics of place marketing or on its effectiveness. Staging the New Berlin helps to close this gap. Claire Colomb asks the question: to what extent do place marketing and branding along with the politics of image production affect the development of a city and the crafting of policy?
Although Berlin is highly atypical since the city was disconnected from global economic restructuring for 40 years, it can serve as a laboratory for assessing place making’s impacts. Staging the New Berlin relies on an analysis of both textual sources and visual materials along with the results of semi-structured interviews with city officials.
When the Berlin Wall came down in 1989, promotion and marketing were not high-priority activities; city leaders needed to deal with the legacy of a divided city. Marketing became a significant issue as part of Berlin’s failed bid for the 2000 Olympics. The Grand Coalition of Christian Democrats and Social Democrats not only endorsed the Olympic bid and the development of a reunified city, but also “prioritized the search for global competitiveness at all costs and the transformation into a post-Fordist ‘service metropolis’” (p. 106). This meant reimaging the new Berlin for potential investors, potential tourists, Germans throughout the Federal Republic and Berliners themselves. As an indication of the shift toward entrepreneurial patterns of governance, the Land (City State of Berlin) contracted specific place marketing tasks to a newly set up company, Partner for Berlin (PfB).
Between 1994 and 2001, the ‘golden years of city marketing’, cutting-edge architecture was used to attract investors and tourists. Potsdamer Platz with its skyscrapers and its highly visible corporate logos—the epitome of flagship development—became a critical visual element of the skyline for a reunited Berlin. Norman Foster’s glass cupola is a defining architectural statement standing as the “symbol for new beginnings and the transparency of the parliamentary work of a modern democracy” (p. 182). At about the same time, Partner for Berlin developed “Showcase Berlin” (guided tours and visits to construction sites of major urban projects as well as a series of cultural events and art performances at these sites), which eventually evolved into “Berlin Open City” (the entire city as exhibition). In contrast to the use of cutting-edge design at the Potsdamer Platz or the new representative buildings of the German republic, ‘critical reconstruction’, which invoked the traditional European city of pre-1933 times, spearheaded the redevelopment of the inner city.
In 2001, as a result of a major financial scandal involving public authorities, the Grand Coalition lost control of the city to the new Red–Red coalition that consisted of the Social Democrats (SPD) and the new Left Party (PDS). The Red–Red coalition continued the marketing activities initiated by the Grand Coalition, but place marketing became more multifaceted and focused on new themes. Marketing presented Berlin as “a young tolerant and cosmopolitan city … [containing] the explicit inclusion of ‘off-beat cultures’—youth and club cultures in particular” (p. 230). Three new types of sites and places were incorporated into place marketing: urban voids and wastelands (for example, beach bars and clubs along the River Spree) presented as new urban playgrounds; Berlin’s ethnically mixed neighbourhoods such as Kreuzberg portrayed as tourist destinations and as potential locations for creative entrepreneurs; and, the remnants of Nazi and Cold War sites (for example, a new ‘memory district’ including the Jewish Museum and the Memorial for the Murdered Jews of Europe) and the Berlin Wall History Mile (a permanent exhibition of the construction and fall of the Wall with maps and photos located throughout the inner city). Finally, in 2007, a new place marketing campaign was organised under the slogan “be Berlin”. This innovative form of city branding which relied on the contributions of Berliners themselves (via postcards or postings on a website) sought to “turn citizens into ‘the real heroes of the brand Berlin’” (p. 260).
Colomb convinced me that politics matters a great deal in Berlin’s place marketing. However, the impact has been mixed. Berlin has achieved impressive growth in certain sectors—tourism, cultural and media industry, and the knowledge-intensive sectors (higher education, R&D)—but this growth has benefitted some population groups and not others. While Berlin’s place marketing was initiated for cultural and political reasons (for example, to stimulate civic pride) as well as for economic reasons (to foster inward investment), it is uncertain whether this goal has been achieved. Ironically, the relative openness of the process probably has stimulated rather than reduced opposition by activists and leftist academics. Furthermore, it is likely that place marketing has exacerbated the very problems it was meant to solve, including uneven development/gentrification and social polarisation/increased income inequality.
Clair Colomb has produced a well-researched, well-written and well-illustrated book that will contribute to a more balanced debate about city marketing and image making. Staging the New Berlin is highly recommended for practitioners and academics on both sides of the Atlantic. Because of its detailed treatment of politics, communicative planning and visioning, I intend to make it required reading for students in my course on planning theory.