ABSTRACT
The intent of this chapter is to investigate not only the well-being of Berlin—that is, of its inhabitants and ecological systems—but the issue of how we might legitimately go about making such an assessment. Here we encounter the underlying question of what kind of a thing a historical, great city might be that it could be resilient or transformed. These are not so much problems to be solved, but puzzles to be entered into, described, analyzed, and interpreted. Specifically, the chapter will (1) describe and interpret several dimensions of recent changes in Berlin’s built environment and open spaces, (2) probe the extent to which this empirical work benefits from applying the ecological concepts of resilience and transformation, and (3) reciprocally, test the validity of that distinction by using historical urban findings. To be clear: the assumption is that there are neither simple “facts” about Berlin that appear innocent of theory and research practices, nor that theory and practice appear from out of nowhere to be applied to phenomena as a procrustean bed. Thus there is a critical but positive “hermeneutical circle” in simultaneously applying and testing the usefulness of the ecological distinction of “resilience” versus “transformation” to urban environments to (a) see how the categories might explain the development of Berlin over successive regimes and (b) use the evidence and findings to modify, reject, or accept the use of these categories for urban planning.
