The Politics of Memory in Berlin and Stockholm: A Policy Cycle Analysis of Debates on the Preservation, Demolition, and Reconstruction of Historic Buildings, 1945–2024

1. Introduction

The European Year of Heritage celebrates its 50th anniversary in 2025. This makes the question of what part heritage has to play – or can play – in European cities relevant again. While English and German Romanticists in the 18th century appreciated picturesque ruins, German city governments after the Second World War preferred new and intact buildings after many years of seeing bombarded cities. In light of this development, in this article, we are searching for different motivations for preserving or demolition of the buildings in Berlin and Stockholm. The reason for choosing Berlin and Stockholm is that many historicist multi-story houses were built in both cities, and this style was later perceived as outdated; both cities have also grown out of several smaller units (the islands malmarna for Stockholm and the districts for Berlin). The massive bombardments of Berlin during the Second World War stand in contrast to Stockholm, which was left untouched by the war.

Regarding the state of the art, there has, to date, been no comparative case study of urban planning and monument protection in Berlin and Stockholm. Comparative international case studies of architecture in capitals such as Minkenberg (2014) or Therborn (2003) often do not include Stockholm or other Scandinavian cities.

This article examines a small number of buildings from different periods in Berlin and Stockholm to show the ideal images (an implicit image guiding policymaking) that have shaped urban planning and monument protection since 1945. The history of urban planning in 20th-century Europe suggests that “the automotive city” and “architecture as wellbeing” may have been influential for many decades. The method used is qualitative documentary content analysis with a policy cycle analysis approach. The original German and Swedish texts have been translated into English by the authors.

A section on the development of national and regional German and Swedish legislation on monument protection and culture policy is included to show the extent to which the city governments’ actions conform to, are explained by, or contradict them. For Berlin, the case studies are the Hansa Quarter (new building), the Palace of the Republic (demolition), and the Hacke Courts (preservation). For Stockholm, the demolition of Nedre Norrmalm/Klara1, which resulted in Sergels torg (new building) and Vällingby (new building), forms the case study. The choice was made with the intention of including both housing quarters and representative government buildings to show the different concepts of the relationships between the city center and the periphery, as well as the functions of living, working, and leisure.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Introduction

The policy cycle model (Jann and Wegrich 2007) shows how the public policies could have been developed, implemented, and continued or abandoned. The materials analyzed here include documents from the responsible government bodies. Hanke (2024) is the only publication using the policy cycle as a topic in cultural policy. However, cultural policy is a policy field that has seen comparatively little research (von Beyme 2010, 2014). Since the 1970s, several publications and government reports on the history of cultural policy have appeared both in Germany (Balme 2024; Klein 2024) and Sweden (Beckman 2013; Frenander 2010; Hambraeus 2024). On the other hand, when it comes the history of monument protection, there have been fewer publications in Germany (Falser 2008; Hammer 1995; Hönes 2018; Maier 2018; Odendahl 2005) and Sweden (Legnér 2022; Pettersson 2001; Thornberg Knutsson 2007; Unnerbäck 2002; Wetterberg 1992).

For Berlin, the City Council (German: Abgeordnetenhaus), the Senate, the first Magistrate until 1949, the Magistrate of East Berlin, and the district offices are used. For Stockholm, the City Council (Swedish: Stadsfullmäktige) and its committees are used. Apart from government bodies, interventions from actors in civil society described in the secondary literature are also used. The primary empirical data come from the following sources: For Stockholm, the City Archive (Swedish: Stadsarkivet) offers digitalized documents of the sessions of the City Council and its committees from 1863 to 2009 on its homepage2. For Berlin, the original documents have been accessed at the Central State Archive (German: Landesarchiv) in Berlin-Lichterfelde. Although the decision to build the Palace of the Republic was taken by the Central Committee of the Politburo, we analyze the minutes of the City Council, because we expect to find more debates related to urban planning.

A quantitative approach is impossible because there is no comprehensive list of the demolished buildings in Stockholm (e-mail from Stadsarkivet to MGP, 11/15/2024). Therefore, qualitative content analysis has been chosen, as in a qualitative content analysis, the categories are established at the beginning. While there are several cases of reconstruction in Berlin (the Castle, the Alte Kommandantur, the German and the French Cathedrals on Gendarmenmarkt, the Crown Prince Palace, the Nikolai Church, the Princess Palace, the Schauspielhaus theater, St. Hedwig’s Cathedral, and the Volksbühne theater), in Stockholm, not a single proposal for a reconstruction has been made in the City Council (e-mail from Stadsarkivet to MGP, 11/15/2024). There is only a blueprint for the reconstruction of Klara, which, however, has not been presented to any politician (personal communication from its architect Linnéa Olmarken to MGP, 01/31/2025).

2.2. History of Urban Planning in the 20th Century

The second half of the 19th century was a period of rapid urbanization, which resulted in the construction of a large number of multi-story houses and increased housing density. Because workers showed low productivity due to insufficient housing, many factory owners started to build better alternatives (Fuerst, Himmelbach, and Potz 1999). The garden city by Ebenezer Howard (1898) was the first example of modern town planning; it was based on a circle with concentric rings and separated zones for housing, recreation, and industry (Rodwell 2007). From 1928 on, the International Congress of Modern Architecture (French: Congrès International d’Architecture Moderne, CIAM) and its most famous architect, Le Corbusier, developed the new concept of the functional city. His “contemporary city” (French: ville contemporaine, 1922) planned to demolish historical city centers and replace them with multi-story office buildings. Housing quarters were to consist of skyscrapers with apartments. In the “radial city” (French: ville radieuse, 1930), Le Corbusier introduced a system of equivalent use zones – that is, the dissolution of the city center with its government and affairs quarter (Fuerst, Himmelbach, and Potz 1999).

The Charter of Athens (1933) influenced urban planning and building in the decades that followed. Its central idea was a human-centered housing and town building approach with the separation of housing, working, and leisure. In many largely destroyed West German cities after the Second World War, urban planners adopted the model of the loosened city to solve the urgent housing need. The model was developed by Göderitz, Rainer, and Hoffmann (1944) and inspired by the Charter of Athens (Fuerst, Himmelbach, and Potz 1999). The East German Department for Reconstruction followed the Charter of Moscow (1950), which rejected the garden city and allowed only the multi-story apartment house (Fuerst, Himmelbach, and Potz 1999). The 1960s saw the development of condensed settlements and the automotive city, inspired by the goal of technological and economic growth. The models of the Charter of Athens and the automotive city show some overlap: In both models, bungalows and townhouses are built in suburbs near the city, and companies are moved to the surroundings. The consequences are suburbanization, traffic pollution, and the loss of the city center’s importance. In the 1970s, massive protests against demolitions of historic city centers and the European Year of Heritage resulted in the new model of the compact city, which introduced a new appreciation for historical buildings in the inner cities. This revalorization of historic city centers continued in the late 1980s–1990s (Fuerst, Himmelbach, and Potz 1999).

2.2.1. The Development of International Legislation on the Protection of Monuments

The 1931 Athens Charter was the first document to set out the scientific principles for the preservation and restoration of historic monuments at an international level. It supported the use of modern materials and techniques. The 1964 Venice Charter supported the use of modern techniques, emphasised the importance of authenticity, and extended the concept of historic monuments to include urban and rural settings. The charter was adopted as the principal document of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) when it was founded in 1965 (Rodwell 2007).

In 1972, UNESCO adopted the World Heritage Convention in Paris. The convention is based on the concept of a common world heritage of outstanding universal value and the need for the international community to cooperate for its preservation (which resulted in the World Heritage List and the World Heritage List in Danger). Art. 5 commits signatory states to adopt measures to ensure the protection, conservation, and presentation of their whole heritage (Rodwell 2007).

The declaration of the European Year of Heritage by the Council of Europe in 1975 became a turning point regarding urban conservation (Jokilehto 2015). The 1987 Washington Charter protects the diversity of functions and the exterior and interior appearances of buildings (Rodwell 2007). ICOMOS formulated a Charter for the Conservation of Historic Towns and Urban Areas (1987) and the Charter of Petropolis (1987). The World Heritage Committee adopted the term “historic urban landscape” in 1992, while the Council of Europe did so in 1995. Until that time, ensembles of buildings nominated to the World Heritage List were classified as “groups of buildings” (Jokilehto 2015). The latest UNESCO concept, from 2011, is that of the historic urban landscape (Bianca 2015). Using different methods of archaeology and topography, this approach transcends the traditional term of the “historic city” and speaks instead of “urban heritage”, a more flexible and open-ended concept (Bandarin 2015).

2.3. Empirical Part

2.3.1. History of Cultural Policy and Monument Protection: Germany

i. Historical Development

In the 19th century, Germany understood itself as a cultural state/nation, a concept derived from Johann Gottlieb Fichte’s 1806 “Characteristics of the present age” (German: “Grundzüge des gegenwärtigen Zeitalters”), in which he declared culture to be the goal of the state. Culture was appreciated to such an extent that it almost served as a substitute for religion (Balme 2024). The first comprehensive codifications of monument protection were made in the first half of the 19th century. Even the Prussian General Land Law of 1794 mentioned regulations for the conservation of buildings (von Trützschler 2017). This law was the basis for all later German laws on monument protection (Odendahl 2005). The introduction of the office of the conservator in several German states came along with an administration for monuments (von Trützschler 2017). In the second half of the 19th century, many states drafted comprehensive protection laws, which were not, however, implemented. The draft written in 1883 in the Grand Duchy of Baden was unique in that it was the first to include privately owned monuments (Hammer 1995). The protection of monuments was introduced in the Weimar Constitution in art. 150 and the state’s goal of culture was introduced in art. 142 (Zimmermann 2024). National Socialism (1933–1945) introduced centralization, central steering, and control of all forms of art in cultural policy, thus breaking with the former federalist tradition (Hanke 2024).

In the immediate post-war era, only fragmentary legislation on monument protection was in place. Above all, the political will to protect was missing (Hammer 1995). Even the constitutions of the Länder, which included monument protection as a goal, did not have any legislative impact (von Trützschler 2017). Many West German cities prioritized building houses and adapting infrastructure to urgent needs. In cities largely destroyed – such as Berlin, Frankfurt, Stuttgart, and Hamburg – there were extensive debates on alternative reconstructions (Raabe 2015).

The young Federal Republic refrained from large interventions in the cultural sector. Singer (2003, quoted in Hanke 2024) defines the period from 1950 to 1966 as a period of the administration of culture (Hanke 2024). In East Germany, cultural policy first followed the concept of humanism and the Enlightenment, but soon the SED forced culture and the arts to follow the party line (Hanke 2024). Art. 18 of the DDR constitution of 1968 declared the promotion of culture a national goal (Klein 2024). In 1952, the Regulation for the Conservation and Maintenance of the National Cultural Monuments was adopted; this was followed in 1975 with a historic preservation law that included a socialist definition of monuments (von Trützschler 2017). The motivation for it was superficial because the DDR was never really interested in monument preservation (Hammer 1995). Responsibility for monument protection lay with the Ministry of Culture, supported by the expert opinions from the Institute for Monument Protection. At the lower levels, the district councils were responsible for inventorying and protecting monuments (Goralczyk 2005).

The revolution of cultural policy in West Germany came in the 1970s, mostly led by actors at the city level, such as Hilmar Hoffmann, the intendant for culture in Frankfurt, who coined the slogan “culture for everyone” (German: Kultur für alle). Soon, this new conception was agreed upon by all parties (Hoffmann 1990; Wimmer 2011, quoted in Hanke 2024). The new cultural policy resulted in the foundation of the Society for Cultural Policy, as well as several other minor institutions and a large growth in the subsidies for the whole policy field (Hanke 2024). Under pressure from the Charter of Venice (1964) and the European Year of Heritage (1975), all Länder felt compelled to create modern conservation laws or amend existing laws between 1971 and 1980 (Hammer 1995). All of these laws instituted regional Offices for Preservation (German: Landesdenkmalämter) in the tradition of the conservator offices created in the 19th century, but with more far-reaching powers (von Trützschler 2017). In West Berlin, the first law on monument protection went into force on 12/22/1977. There was no predecessor law until this date (Maier 2018).

After reunification in 1990, the new Länder adopted state constitutions proclaiming the promotion of culture and/or the protection of monuments as a state goal. Between 1991 and 1993, they created conservation laws based on the laws of the West German states (von Trützschler 2017). The Bund took over more responsibilities than before, including sponsorship of some major cultural institutions, appointing a Federal Representative for Culture and Media in 1998, and instituting a committee for culture and media in parliament. The effect was an increased importance for cultural policy, with a steadily growing budget and new cultural foundations with the participation of the Bund and Länder (Hanke 2024).

ii. Current Legislation

The Länder have the main responsibility for culture according to art. 30 of the Basic Law (Klein 2024). Their policy is coordinated by the Standing Conference of the Ministers of Education and Cultural Affairs (German: Kultusministerkonferenz, KMK). The Federal Representative for Culture and Media have the status of a permanent guest (Hanke 2024), and the cities are also represented (Schmidt and Hartmann 2024). The cities are responsible for culture according to art. 28 para. 2 of the Basic Law. They account for the largest part of public expenses for culture (Hanke 2024). Competences are divided the following way: The Lower Offices for Preservation (German: Untere Denkmalschutzbehörden) are located at the municipal level and have decision-making powers for individual cases (Davydov 2024). They are coordinated by the Superior Offices for Preservation (German: Obere Denkmalschutzbehörden). The Monument Authorities (German: Denkmalfachbehörden, Maier 2018) are responsible for giving advice and providing expert opinions. All of them are subordinated to the regional State Preservation Authority (German: Landesdenkmalamt, Davydov 2024).

Most regional constitutions contain texts on the protection of monuments (Davydov 2024), because legislation on monuments falls within the competence of the Länder. Monuments enjoy public protection as visible signs of local identity during former periods, which presumes a minimum amount of preserved building substance. For classification as a monument, a building does not need to be of extraordinary artistic value, and in some cases, not even of a minimum age (Davydov 2024).

The procedure to place a building under protection is as follows: Either protection already applies to a building by law, so it only has to be added to the register (notification system), or a building can be protected by the formal legal act (declaration system) of registering a building (Davydov 2024). Alterations of monuments or their surroundings may only be done with the consent of the Office for Preservation. All laws for monument protection call for a balance between preservation and the owner’s interests. Sometimes, the claim from the Charter of Venice to use appropriate materials and techniques is followed (Davydov 2024).

The law on monument protection in the Land of Berlin was issued on 04/24/1995. Its predecessor was issued on 12/22/1977 (GVBl. p. 2540, DSchG Bln). The law distinguishes between buildings, monumental areas, and garden and soil monuments. The 1995 law replaced the former constitutive system with a notification system. The Senate Administration for Urban Planning, Building, and Living is Berlin’s Superior Office for Preservation. The State Preservation Authority, however, lies under the Senate Administration for Culture and European Affairs. The 12 district offices (German: Bezirksämter) and the Foundation Prussian Castles and Gardens Berlin-Brandenburg serve as the Lower Office for Preservation. Other laws concerning monuments are the federal Law on Building (German: Baugesetzbuch, BauGB) and the Law on Area Planning (German: Raumordnungsgesetz, ROG, Maier 2018).

2.3.2. History of Cultural Policy and Monument Protection: Sweden

i.

Historical Development

The first law for the protection of buildings, from 1867, required the notification of the Swedish Academy (Swedish: Svenska Akademien) for all demolitions of churches, although the Academy did not always oppose demolition (Wetterberg 1992). A general discussion on protection was first held after the 1902 letter of the Royal Academy of Arts (Swedish: Kungliga Vitterhetsakademien) to the king, which asked for better legal protection for and preservation of cultural heritage (Wetterberg 1992). In 1911, two bills were debated in parliament about an amendment of the law of 1867 and the organization of responsibility for archaeological remains (Wetterberg 1992). The Royal Academy’s staff suggested that publicly owned secular buildings should be registered and protected as in other European countries and that buildings in private ownership should even be registered without the owner’s consent (Wetterberg 1992).

Sigurd Curman, Royal Antiquarian from 1923 to 1946, with a training in art history and architecture and international professional experience, professionalized the Royal Antiquarian Office (Swedish: Riksantikvarieämbetet), for instance, by requiring its staff to have a relevant degree (Pettersson 2001). The Committee for Protection of Antiquities (Swedish: Fornminnesvårdskommittén) in the Royal Academy developed a bill from 1913 to 1921 which suggested the possibility of registering buildings of especially high value against the owner’s will (Wetterberg 1992). It also enabled the creation of a department for building preservation in the Royal Antiquarian Office. Monuments in public ownership were finally protected in an ordinance from 1920 (SFS 1920 no. 744)3. In 1914, 1919, 1920, and 1928, the main intendent, the housing commission and the city planning committee, prepared bills for restricting alterations or demolitions of or near historic buildings, but these were rejected in the remission procedure by building companies and thus not passed as laws (Wetterberg 1992). The Stockholm exhibition in 1930 paved the way for the success of functionalism and modernism in architecture. It was acknowledged that, at most, one could preserve a few individual historic buildings (Malmsten 1932, Erixon 1937, quoted in Grundberg 1999).

This debate finally resulted in the 1942 law on cultural and historic buildings of exceptional importance (SFS 1942:354), which targeted privately owned buildings4. Regional governments could protect buildings of cultural and historic value with the consent of the Royal Antiquarian Office and the owner (SOU 2004). The consequence of the voluntary character of the law was that buildings could only be protected after long negotiations between the owner and public authorities (SOU 1953, quoted in SOU 2004). In 1956, only 106 buildings had been registered according to the 1942 law, 41 of which were privately owned. The main reason why this law was not applied more often was the owners’ economic interests (SOU 1953, quoted in SOU 2004). In 1942, a new law on archaeological remains (SFS 1942:350) replaced the law of 1867. This new law placed archaeological remains in a very strong position. They are to be protected in every case. By contrast, to place a building under monumental protection, the antiquarian has to prove at every step of a complicated procedure why the building is worth preserving (Grundberg 1999).

After the end of the Second World War, Sweden cut its ties to the German cultural model and developed a new identity based on modernity. History was no longer a source of strength, but a narrative about the bad and scary old times, which served as a contrast to the narrative of the promised bright new home for the people (Grundberg 1999). One of the effects of this mentality was the large-scale demolition of historical cities in the 1960s, because a national identity directed towards the future did not need any cultural heritage (Grundberg 1999).

In 1953, the government commanded a new report because of the limited effectiveness of legislation on privately owned buildings. The report “Proposal by the Expertise on Built Monuments on a Law on Built Monuments” (Swedish: Byggnadsminnesutredningens förslag till lag om byggnadsminnen, SOU 1956:26) noted that public interest in the largest and most spectacular monuments has gradually broadened, so legislation has to adapt. The report called for cooperation between urban planners and protectors of historic buildings (SOU 2004). It resulted in the Law on Monuments (Swedish: lag om byggnadsminnen, SFS 1960:6905, which introduced the possibility to declare a building a monument, independently of the owner’s consent (SOU 1956:26).

The welfare state governed by Social Democrats in the 1950s and 1960s placed low value on cultural heritage. Indeed, the relatively untouched urban environment from the 16th and 17th centuries in Norrmalm was demolished without a comment from the Royal Antiquarian Office (Beckman 2013). So, although the Office was equipped with qualified staff, it was powerless against a higher political level in the government hierarchy, both at the national and at the municipal level, who were not interested in preservation (Grundberg 1999).

In 1974, the Swedish parliament adopted the first comprehensive policy document for a cultural policy covering all areas. The new Swedish Arts Council (Swedish: Statens kulturråd) was founded, which is, up to the present, the executive body for Sweden’s cultural policy (Frenander 2010), and the House of Culture (Swedish: Kulturhuset) on Sergels torg was inaugurated. In the preliminary works of this policy document, the goal of preservation was not even supposed to be mentioned; instead, only the left-wing goals of equal rights, development, change, and criticism were to be included. In practice, the experts from the museums realized that many measures by the state could only be legitimized by preservation, so a sentence about preservation was added into SOU 1972:66 and affirmed by SOU 1974:28 (Grundberg 1999).

A working group for developing a comprehensive law on cultural heritage was appointed in 1987 (SOU 2004). The working group wanted to collect all existing legislation for privately owned buildings into one law. The novelty of this law was that the presence of a certain level of cultural value in a building was enough for it to be declared a cultural heritage (SOU 2004). The following bill 1987/88 on the protection of cultural environments contained all the working group’s suggestions. The goals for the protection of cultural environments mentioned in this bill are that it should contribute to making heritage perceived as an asset and promoting local cultural identity. Threats against cultural environments should be recognized at an early stage through planning and cooperation between bodies (SOU 2004). In 1989, the Law on Monuments (Swedish: kulturminneslagen, SFS 1988:950) was passed (Gustavsson 2009).

Five years after the Law on Monuments was passed, the government appointed a new working group with the task of making the procedure of declaring a building a monument easier. In 1996, the working group presented the report “Protection of Cultural Environments” (Swedish: “Skyddet av kulturmiljön”), which noted that the state had not managed to declare all the buildings as monuments that from an antiquarian point of view deserved this designation. The cities, on the other hand, did not sufficiently use all the tools they possessed since the passing of the Law on Planning and Building, including the prohibition of demolition, protection measures, and harder conditions for permission to build in designated areas. The report thus asked for the introduction of a new form of protection that would be easier and quicker to apply – the cultural reservation (SOU 1996, quoted in SOU 2004). In the following bill 1994/5, one novelty was the recognition that cultural value was a common interest to be taken into account in all planning. In 1996, a new bill on the guidelines of cultural policy was passed, which defined cultural heritage as one of the central goals of cultural policy (bill 1996/7, quoted in Grundberg 1999). Cultural heritage is also supposed to develop economic interests as a resource for tourism, recreation, regional planning, and job creation (SOU 1995, quoted in Grundberg 1999).

ii.

Current Legislation

The Law on Cultural Environments (Swedish: kulturmiljölagen), called the Law on Cultural Heritage until 01/01/2014 (Swedish: kulturminneslagen, SFS 1988:950, amended with law SFS 2000:265 and SFS 2013:548), is the central law for the protection of cultural heritage. Its chapter 3 defines which buildings count as monuments, while chapter 4 protects churches built before 1940. Public protection of heritage has not substantially developed since 1942. The ability to classify a building as heritage even against the owner’s will has been introduced, but only under the condition that the owner’s interest is taken into account as far as possible (SOU 2004). The Ordinance on Statal Monuments (2013) states that the government can declare a building a national monument after an expert assessment by the Royal Antiquarian Office.

Chapter 6 of the Law on the Environment (Swedish: miljöbalken) demands that planning for a building takes into account the consequences for the environment, cultural heritage, and cultural environments. The Royal Antiquarian Office may decide which areas are of national interest for the protection of cultural environments. In 1999, this law also introduced the possibility of creating cultural reservations. Other laws contain ordinances concerning cultural heritage6.

The responsible institutions include the Royal Antiquarian Office, which is responsible for supervising the protection of historical environments, interpreting the Law on Cultural Environments, and identifying national interests according to the Law on Environmental Protection. The Regional Governments (Swedish: länsstyrelser) are the national coordinating offices with the responsibility of implementing legislation and granting subsidies for conservation. The City Councils (Swedish: kommunerna) also take part in implementing the protection of cultural heritage. The regional museums are responsible for increasing knowledge on cultural heritage, documenting the region’s history, and preserving cultural environments. They may help with consultations on the preservation and restoration of buildings7. The City Museum (Swedish: Stadsmuseet) in Stockholm is responsible for classifying buildings of cultural and historic value for the city of Stockholm following a four-grade scale (from highest to lowest value: blue, green, gray, and dashed)8.

2.3.3. The Case Studies: Berlin

The following chapter will discuss the cases of the Hansa Quarter (a), the Palace of the Republic (b) and the Hacke Courts (c) for Berlin, and the demolitions of Nedre Norrmalm/Klara, the building of Sergels torg with the House of Culture, and of the suburb of Vällingby for Stockholm (V.).

• The Hansa Quarter

The Hansa Quarter was an elegant quarter before the war but was largely destroyed by bombardments in 1944. Berlin’s Magistrate appointed Hans Scharoun as director of the department for building and housing in 1945 (MGHS 2018). Together with his Bauhaus-trained colleagues, he developed a collective plan for rebuilding the city. The plan provided for the demolition of interior courts and their transformation into parks (Tagesspiegel of 05/10/2020). The city was supposed to be divided into neighbourhoods of 5,000 inhabitants. The city center was supposed to be dissolved in favour of an even distribution of housing and working areas. The radial and circular road system from Hobrecht’s era was supposed to be replaced by a rectangular system of high-speed roads leading through quarters with many green areas. At the same time, the district mayor of Zehlendorf Wittgenstein commanded the development of an alternative Zehlendorf plan, which respected the preserved roads and city structure. In April 1946, the Magistrate’s building committee welcomed the Zehlendorf plan and rejected the collective plan (MGHS 2018).

However, in 1947, the SPD won the elections and Scharoun’s successor Karl Bonatz (SPD) had a more realistic approach and kept the radial road system. In 1948, he presented Plan 1948, the last plan for both West and East Berlin: It preserved the historic city with its center, which again was supposed to become the most important part and host a few skyscrapers. Several low-speed roads were to be built around the neighbourhoods. In summer 1949, the General Construction Plan by Wils Ebert was presented, which included elements of both plans; this became the new city plan for West Berlin (MGHS 2018).

The immediate reconstruction of Berlin was concluded with the exposition “Achievements in Building” (German: “Bau-Leistungsschau”) in autumn 1948 with the participation of the department for building and housing. The Superior Office for Urban Planning presented a plan with separate areas for living, working, hospitals, universities, and government institutions (Tagesspiegel of 05/10/2020). At the end of 1948, the city was divided. Plan 1948 was in force as a building plan for the whole city, so only minor changes could be made to it. The planning law of 1949 led to the adoption in 1950 of a plan for area use for West Berlin approved by the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies. This plan focused on the road system, and all other buildings were subordinated to it.

From 1949 on, West and East Berlin used urban planning as a means of carrying out their conflict. On 06/09/1950, the People’s Chamber issued the Law on Aufbau with its Principles of Urban Construction. From December 1950 on, responsibility for urban planning in East Berlin fell to the City Planning Committee, which consisted of representatives of the department for Aufbau and the corresponding office in the Magistrate (MGHS 2018).

In August 1953, the West Berlin Senate decided on the reconstruction – or rather, new construction – of the Hansa Quarter. The plan of the same year decided that it should be limited to the southern part of the pre-war Hansa Quarter. The reconstruction would use a blueprint by the best international architects, who were to be selected in an architecture competition within the international building exposition “Interbau” in 1957 (MGHS 2018:16). A total of 55 architects from 13 countries were invited, and 35 buildings were realized after their sketches (Dolff-Bonekämper 2021). The Hansa Quarter consists of six 8-story rows of houses, six 16- or 17-story single skyscrapers, one 4-story house, an area of 19 connected bungalows, and four 1- or 2-story villas. They were completed by one underground station, a library, two churches, a shopping mall, and one entrance pavilion (Dolff-Bonekämper 2021). The quarter bears witness to a period that believed in architectural modernity and in a new beginning after the war, in the spirit of international cooperation. It was declared a monument in 1995 (Dolff-Bonekämper 2021).

• b. The Palace of the Republic

In 1950, the East Berlin government began to demolish the remains of the Berlin Castle. On 05/21/1973, the City Council of East Berlin unanimously decided upon the construction of the Palace of the Republic, agreeing to the decision of the Central Committee of the Politbüro of the SED and the Council of Ministers. It is called “an impressive building” and has been said to contribute to the enrichment of social and cultural life in the center of the capital (Minutes of the 6th session of the City Council of East Berlin on 05/21/1973) and to East Berlin’s development into a Socialist capital. A change of the plan for building investments in 1973 during the Magistrate session of 08/29/1973 (document no. 192-73) states that the Palace would set new standards of architecture and arts, ultimately finding a worthy place in the architecture of Socialist DDR history. The building is said to be up to the political significance of the Marx-Engels-Platz through its urbanistic and architectural qualities. It would also become a point of attraction for DDR citizens and their guests. The decision was approved without emendations. Other documents, such as the theses for press information and the speech of the minister of building on 05/21/1973, or the bill no. 95 in the City Council session of 04/19-20/1961, confirmed the decision to build the Palace and repeated the praises for it. The evaluation of the documents on the building of the Palace shows that there were no debates about it nor any presentations of its blueprint. Apart from a few mentions of its architectural and urbanistic qualities, which, however, were never developed in detail, the speeches contained nothing but praises of the DDR and rejections of the former “militarism” and “imperialism”.

• c. The Hacke Courts

In 1904, Hans Quilitz rebuilt the area with its roots in the 18th century in the Art Nouveau style. The high standard of living – with central heating, interior baths, and toilets – attracted middle-class tenants along with shops and workshops (Romelli 2002). The area was spared from bombardment during the Second World War. The Berliner Zeitung published a blueprint for the construction of a new center for Berlin on 08/27/1950, developed in the DDR department for construction. Berlin was supposed to become the model for urban planning for the DDR and for all of Germany. The focus lay outside the historic city center, around the newly built Stalinallee (1951–1955), “the first socialist road in Germany”. As a consequence, the Hacke Courts were preserved (Romelli 2002:20), except for the Art Nouveau façade, which was demolished in 1961. In 1977, the Hacke Courts were declared a monument9. It was not possible to find out the reason for this decision by examining the archive material: The minutes of the 36th session of the Magistrate (09/21/1977, C Rep. 1005-05 – 1717), the correspondence with the department of culture (C Rep. 101 – 1721), the Magistrate’s “Städtebauliche Bestätigungen Stadtbezirk Berlin-Mitte Rosa-Luxemburg-Straße” (C Rep. 131-09 – 675-01), and the monument list of East Berlin (F Rep. 270 – 14769) contain no motivations.

In 1994, the area was sold to the company Hackesche Höfe GmbH und Co Kg on the condition that they would realize a concept compatible with culture and housing while respecting monument protection. The Hacke Courts were restored in 1995/6 and today they host the Heinrich Böll Foundation, cafés and restaurants, theaters, shops, workshops, and apartments. They are also a major tourist attraction10.

Although one could assume that the Hackesche Höfe fulfilled the criteria of a hostile image of the DDR’s cultural policy (the Art Nouveau style, a history of use as housing for the wealthy middle class, and its presumed signs of decadence, such as warehouses), this area was preserved simply because the Magistrate prioritized other projects.

2.3.4. The Case Studies: Stockholm

The preliminary works for the post-war demolitions known as the Norrmalm regulation began with the General Plan for Stockholm by Albert Lilienberg in 1928 (Larsson 1960). In 1932, the City Council called for an international architecture competition for a new design for Nedre Norrmalm. The competition received 350 contributions, including designs by Alvar Aalto and Le Corbusier, among others. The latter provided for the demolition of Norrmalm and Södermalm and its replacement with skyscrapers (Rudberg 1989).

The decision of the City Council of 06/18/1945 resulted in the city plan of 1946, the first part of the Norrmalm regulation (expert opinion 172 of 1945). City plan part I from 1951 included Klarabergsgatan; city plan part II from 1952 included the area from Hötorget to Sveaplatsen; city plan part III from 1953 included the area south of city plan part II and west of Drottninggatan and Tegelbacken; and city plan part IV included Sveaplatsen and the four skyscrapers on Sveavägen (which later became five, Hall 2002). The whole area to be rehabilitated was between Vasagatan in the west, Kungsgatan in the north, Norrlandsgatan in the east, and Tegelbacken in the south (Essén 2025).

On 06/18/1945, the city planning committee’s proposal to broaden and lengthen Sveavägen to Gustaf Adolfs torg and the opposing proposal from the road committee, prepared by Paul Hedqvist, to lengthen it only to Sveaplatsen were debated (expert opinion 285 of 1951). Priority was given to public transport, especially the underground (Minutes of the City Council of 06/18/1945, nr. 157045, vol. 7), and to distribute traffic from north to south over as many bridges as possible. The expected growth of the number of employees in offices and shops was also mentioned (p. 268). The City Council voted in favor of the road committee proposal, with 53 to 35 votes.

A proposal from 1952 to preserve the Bethlehem church and the Sergel house was examined by the city planning committee on 03/06/1952. The Royal Antiquarian Office and the Council for Beauty demanded their preservation. The building committee argued that the plan would place them in a strange and unsuitable environment. The Sergel house had the status of a monument, but this only meant that before demolition, drawings, photographs, and descriptions of the building had to be made (expert opinion 205 of 1952). The city planning committee declared its preservation to be irreconcilable with the creation of a business hub and a modern city building instead of the current slum area (expert opinion 205 of 1952). In 1952, the Bethlehem church and the Sergel house were demolished (Gullberg 2001).

The suburb of Vällingby and the decisions on it were divided in different areas (I–VIII). Vällingby VII was to be built with villas and town houses, shops, and a school (expert opinion 325 of 1951). The city plan for Vällingby II provided for offices, workshops, and housing for 3,000 inhabitants, with department stores, post offices, banks, theaters, and other cultural places (expert opinion 228 of 1951). The plans for the other parts of Vällingby VI and III (expert opinion 126 of 1951) contained similar content. The language in the expert opinions on Vällingby was neutral and descriptive; it neither mentioned the demolitions of historic buildings or the “slums” in Nedre Norrmalm nor praised the new buildings in Vällingby as promises for a better future. Car traffic was not mentioned; instead, the underground was presented as the great innovation.

Sergels torg was a creation of the Plan of 1946. In the first blueprint by the leading building director Sven Markelius, Sveaplatsen (as it was called until 1960) was still a small area with some banks and trees beside an automotive intersection. In 1954, this had been extended to a two-story square, with the lower plan on the same level as the underground. In 1959–1960, the final blueprint was ready. Car traffic was reduced to the eastern part of the square (Länsstyrelsen 2000).

A group of craftsmen, led by the textile artist Elsa Gullberg, protested against the Norrmalm regulation and demanded the preservation of Norra Smedjegatan, which contained their workshops and shops. The Academy of Fine Arts and the tourism association supported the protests, but in 1955, they gave up because their negotiations with the city did not yield any results (Gullberg 2001).

After the Social Democrats’ victory in 1962, City Councillor for Finances Hjalmar Mehr led the negotiations for extending Plan 46 to Plan 62 (Hall 2002). In a speech on 06/12/1962, Mehr declared that there was no romanticism in the old buildings in Nedre Norrmalm, Vasastan, and Kungsholmen. His colleague, City Councillor Joakim Garpe, added that without demolitions, the city would reach its death in beauty. Opposition against demolitions was expressed by intellectuals such as Ingmar Bergman, Karl Gerhard, and Per Anders Fogelström. Anders Åman asked whether 19th-century buildings are dangerous to look at (Gullberg 2001). Other actors opposing the demolitions of the city planning committee included the Council for Beauty and the building committee (Hall 2002). Nevertheless, City Plan 62 was adopted in 1963, and City Plan 67 was adopted in 1968, built on the same City Council decision.

The city planned the construction of a House of Culture with a theater exactly at the same place as the Preissiska house from 1680 on the south side of Sergels torg, which was classified as a monument and housed the Regional Government. City Plan 62 provided for its demolition (Gullberg 2001). The city called for an architecture competition in 1964, and each contribution was supposed to include one blueprint with and one without Preissiska house (Gullberg 2001). Peter Celsing’s blueprint for the House of Culture (built in several stages from 1966 to 1974) won the competition (Länsstyrelsen 2000). There was no consensus about which cultural institutions should move to the House of Culture (among the proposals were a hotel, a theater, and a reading room, expert opinion 348 of 1971). In a City Council session, Mehr observed that the House of Culture was supposed to become not a status symbol that is only good to look at, but a place where something for all ages happens, full of life, movement, change, and openness (Minutes of the City Council of 10/15/1970). Several plans to fill the House of Culture with life, such as shops open at night, as imagined by Mehr, failed. The building was unpopular among the people of Stockholm, and many wanted to see it demolished (Gullberg 2001).

With the completion of the House of Culture, Sergels torg was considered to be finished (supplement no. 13 of 1973). The western part was ready in the spring of 1971 and hosted the new one-chamber parliament. On 10/15/1974, the whole House of Culture was inaugurated. First, Parliament held its sessions there until 1983. In 1983, the European Security Conference moved in, followed by the City Theater in 199011. The fifth skyscraper, bought by the city for 49 million kr with the intention of hosting another bank, stood empty except for a toy shop and a bookshop on the ground floor and the youth pub Träff, which closed after a short time (supplement no. 55 of 07/12/1970).

Bo Lagercrantz of the City Museum stated that his museum could not manage to deliver the expert opinions and inventories on the houses destinated for demolition quickly enough, because there were so many demolitions so quickly. He demanded better laws and more weight for the antiquarian expert opinions against the economic and technological ones. He mentioned old Swedish wood cities as models for the human measure and wellbeing as primary motives in modern city building. Lagercrantz referred to American urban planners such as Kevin Lynch, who used medieval Italian cities as a point of departure for the sake of a city’s readability and imageability (Stadskollegiets utlåtanden och memorial, supplement no. 34 of 1970).

During the session of the City Council of 12/06/1971, Social Democrat City Councillor for Finances Albert Aronson mentioned that there still were 25,000 unmodern apartments in the inner city, which could not be modernized without new production at the same time (Minutes of the City Council of 12/06/1971). He also asked where the green city had gone and blamed the Center Party for not taking ecology seriously. City Council Member Söderqvist (Communist Party) said that an inner city of administration, bank palaces, and insurance companies was being built, while the working population was sent out to live in other municipalities. Soon, not a single person would live in the city area any longer, while carparks there continued to receive city subventions (Minutes of the City Council of 12/07/1971).

The Liberal City Council Member Rydberg asked during the 10/16/1972 session who was actually in charge of preserving buildings of cultural value. He argued that the office for building permissions, which had the last say, should consider cultural and historic needs. Rydberg asked for a program to preserve such buildings in cooperation with the City Museum (minutes of the City Council of 10/16/1972, volume 12). This is the first time that documents of the City Council or its committee mention historic buildings in a positive way, calling them “culture houses” (Swedish: kulturhus) instead of “slums”.

In 1971, massive protests to save the elms in Kungsträdgården park managed a temporary halt to the demolitions (Hall 2002) and a change of direction: City Plans 75 and 77 cancelled all planned large roads and road extensions, reduced the number of planned parking slots, turned roads into pedestrian zones, and protected more historic buildings. Stockholm’s City Museum also began an inventory of historic buildings in the city center (Essén 2025).

3. Results

The policy cycle contains several steps, from agenda setting, policy formulation, decision-making, implementation, and evaluation, eventually leading to termination (Jann and Wegrich 2007). Actors from government and civil society constantly try to influence the agenda by dramatizing a certain problem or advancing a certain problem definition. They can use experts to do this, and moving an issue from its recognition by interest groups to the political agenda can include many substeps. Many interacting factors and variables can contribute to the process, showing that agenda-setting is far from a rational process (Jann and Wegrich 2007). In the stage of policy formulation, expressed problems and proposals are transferred into government programs. This includes the definition of objectives to be achieved with the policy, the consideration of different alternative actions, and the choice of one alternative. This stage also involves coordination between different public and private actors. Mayntz and Scharpf (1975) argue that interdepartmental interaction usually follows the pattern of negative rather than positive coordination (Jann and Wegrich 2007). The stage of implementation, ideally, includes the steps for which bodies should execute the program, which resources are allocated to it, and how single cases will be decided (Jann and Wegrich 2007). Evaluation research can deal with the intended outputs and the unintended outcomes of policy. The perspective is not limited to the cycle’s final stage but can be applied at any time, and the political process and debate in society and media form part of this perspective (Jann and Wegrich 2007).

In Berlin, the requirement for agenda setting was given by the urgent need for housing and infrastructure after the Second World War. Policy formulation happened with Scharoun’s and Bonatz’s reconstruction plans and the call for the Interbau competition. Construction of the building was the policy implementation of the state. In East Berlin, the Charter of Moscow was the policy formulation, which resulted in the demolition of the Castle, the building of Stalinallee, and many multi-story houses. The preservation of the Hacke Courts was a collateral effect of a policy implementation focused on other building projects. Policy evaluation and reformulation happened in West Berlin through citizen protests against the massive demolitions of historic substance in the 1970s, and was further motivated by the European Year of Heritage. This led to the issue of laws on monument protection by all Länder. Another move towards a higher valuation of this policy came through reunification and the need to grant subsidies to East Germany’s heritage.

In Stockholm, the need for agenda setting came from the city’s outgrowth of Stadsholmen, which resulted in a shortage of housing and traffic problems. The first attempt at policy formulation was the Lilienberg plan of 1928, and later, the city plans starting in 1946. Their implementation with the demolition of Klara, the building of Sergels torg with the house of culture, and the building of Vällingby was the stage of policy implementation. Policy evaluation led the City Council to change direction and was first heard in the 1970s, with protesting from citizens in Kungsträdgården, but also from City Council members and museum experts who argued in favor of the environment, social segregation, and the cultural value of historic buildings. Another factor was the practical failure of the building policy: The House of Culture and the five skyscrapers were difficult to fill, and the former was unpopular. Later City Council minutes often mentioned Sergels torg as a site of drug abuse and criminality.

4. Discussion

Both in the German states and in Sweden, legislation on the protection of monuments was first developed for public buildings and then, several decades later, updated to include private buildings. The protection of monuments has been a state goal in Germany since the Weimar Republic. In Germany, it is codified in the constitution and the Länder constitutions, while in Sweden, it only appears at the level of a framework policy document for cultural policy in 1974 (and even there, it was nearly not included at all). Sweden’s legislation had the bias that it provides far more protection to archaeological remains than to historic buildings. One major difference is that German legislation makes it much easier to declare a historic building a monument, while in Sweden a complicated procedure involving many steps and justifications to the regional government is necessary. In both countries, cultural policy appears as a comprehensive policy field with a strategy document in the 1970s, which has also changed its orientation with the “new cultural policy”. The decades from 1945 to the 1970s were an era of low conjuncture for monument preservation in both countries.

The result of the most similar systems design (Przeworski and Teune 1970) lead to the result that the one different dimension expected to explain the research question is Berlin‘s demolition by the bomdardments of World War II. During the course of the research, however, one more explanative dimension appeared: the modernist „people’s home” ideology in Sweden, which turned to be the explaining variable. Its influence stopped legislators from introducing more effective protection for historic buildings and convinced Stockholm’s Social Democratic city planners to develop city plans containing large-scale demolitions.

There is a public preference for modernist and functionalist architecture in both cities, but an interesting finding here is that there are different interpretations of this concept. Urban planners in West Berlin wanted to create more green spaces and low-story houses and disaggregate the center, following the model of the loosened city of the 1940s and 1950s. Planners in Stockholm, by contrast, wanted to get housing out of the city center in favour of skyscrapers and high-speed roads – that is, a compacting of the city center. Their model contained many of the elements of the automotive city of the 1960s. When looking at the arguments used by the Stockholm City Council and its committees, car traffic was not the only point made. The speakers also argued in favor of the underground, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, shop and business areas, growing administration, and more hygienic housing. On the whole, the argumentation in favour of a modern city and against slum areas prevailed, so that one could even classify this argument as being part of the “architecture as wellbeing” movement. In West Berlin, the Hansa Quarter, with its loosening of the built surface by green areas, is also a case of architecture as wellbeing. The architects planned the area with the population’s needs in mind and included all kinds of facilities. The preservation and new use for the Hacke Courts also falls within the wellbeing category, despite its different character with theaters, cinemas, shops, and workshops. Finally, the Palace of the Republic, like other buildings in East Berlin, such as the Stalinallee, mainly had the function of demonstrating the supremacy and monumentality of the DDR regime. It does not fall in either “the automotive city” or “architecture as wellbeing” categories, because its construction neither facilitated car traffic (the square had stood empty before the Palace’s construction) nor was it designed with people in mind.

5. Conclusions

Could the buildings and areas from the case studies have been saved from demolition? For the Hansa Quarter, there was no law on monument protection in the Land of Berlin at the time, so a reconstruction of its pre-war predecessor would have been difficult. The Castle was demolished beginning in 1950, and thus before the issuing of the DDR law on monument protection in 1975. But even if this law had already existed, it probably would not have been able to protect the Castle, because it used a socialist definition of the term “monument” that was not applicable to the Castle. The Hacke Courts were preserved in the 1950s, although the law on monument protection was not yet issued, because the DDR government’s focus was on the Stalinallee as a new center.The area was even declared a monument in 1977, although one should expect it to be perceived as worthless in the eyes of the DDR government. An area of warehouses and apartments for the wealthy middle class in Art Nouveau style must have been the essence of the DDR’s hostile image. In Stockholm, when the City Council took the decision to demolish Nedre Norrmalm, both the ordinance of 1920 for buildings in public and the law of 1942 for privately owned buildings were in force. As experts and politicians mentioned several times, stronger protection legislation would have been needed. Perhaps legislation similar to the Swedish legislation on archaeological remains or a system of balance between preservation and the needs of the occupier, as in today’s German Länder, would have made a difference.

It is not possible to state „historic architecture equals to wellbeing” and „modern architecture equals to automotive city “, but both tendencies could appear within both policies: When the historicist multi-story buildings were built, there were both aesthetic and economic motives. When they were rediscovered and appreciated in the 1970s, it was for the sake of wellbeing. On the other hand, modern architecture can both result in a loosened city, as in Vällingby and the Hansa Quarter, which were designed with different needs of their inhabitants in mind, and in a densened city, as in the different Plans for Stockholm’s inner city, which were designed completely past the inhabitants‘ needs.