紀要論文

「フローの空間」における「場所の空間」としてのミュンヘンとベルリン

Munich and Berlin as Spaces of Places within the Space of Flows

jpn

00229741

https://doi.org/10.15002/00003267

法政大学経済学部学会

72

4

87

180

2005-03-07

Version of Record

The purpose of this paper is to compare Munich and Berlin within the framework of Manuel Castell's theoretical thinking on space of flows and space of places. It is said that intermetropolitan competition for international business location has become severer and polarization as its byproduct is more and more apparent within the urban space under the globalization. These phenomena correspond to the concepts of space of flows and space of places. The most important spatial unit in the globalized space of flows is a metropolis as a node of information flows, capital flows, material flows, and flows of human beings. It is decision-making of corporations and governments that determines the quantity and characteristics of these flows. In the space of flows, metropolises gradually become to lose their own specificity, and they become to be stratified. Nevertheless, each metropolis continues to have differenciated and diversified places within itself, so that we can consider it a space of places, all of which show their own specificity respectively. Therefore, a metropolis can show its own specific feature even under the pressure of power of space of flows. As well as a number of European metropolises, both Munich and Berlin are the second important metropolises following London and Paris within the space of flows in the European scale. This is illustrated in the internet connections, media industry, innovative capability, flight passengers, location of international trade fairs, location of headquarters of big corporations, and evaluation as business location by big multinational corporations. Especially Munich is remarkable as a node of flows in the European scale and it exceeds Berlin in this sense, although it is not the capital of the nation state. The present author does not deal with all places in the both metropolises, but focuses on a problem district respectively. These problem districts are characterized with poverty and its related phenomena such as concentrations of unemployment, households of one parent and his/her children, migrant minorities and so on. That means that a new problem under globalization appears as some form of exclusion in the problem districts. Their locations and characteristics are, however, not the same between Berlin and Munich. Even within a same metroplis, there are various problem districts. In Berlin, most of them appear in the inner city, which were constructed in the late 19th century as a mixed district of dwellings, factories and commercial functions. The typical case is Kreuzberg, especially the so-called SO 36 district and the quarter around Kottbusser Tor. On the other hand, the phenomena in Munich are more apparent at the outer districts than at the inner city. A large number of the so-called social dwellings were developed on a large scale after World War II in the Munich outskirts. But there is also a problem district in the inner city of Munich, Schwanthalerhöhe, the construction history of which resembles Kreuzberg, and Berlin also has a problem district in the outskirts, where a large estate of high-rising apartment buildings were constructed in the 1970s and the 1980s under the regime of socialist government of German Democratic Republic. All the problem districts have their own characteristics respectively. Therefore, we can find variety of places within each metropolis, even if we focus only on the problem districts. The city authority, various non-profit organizations and people in the problem districts have tried to renovate the physical conditions and revitalize the social atmosphere in the problem districts both in Munich and Berlin. It is worthy of mention that citizens' participation including migrant minorities without full citizenship are considered important and practiced in the both metropolises. In the 1980s and the 1990s, careful renovation was promoted in Kreuzberg. And in 1999, the so-called quarter management was launched in 15 quarters in Berlin in the framework of the cooperative task between the federal government and the Land government. This project is supported by EU. The quarter around Kottbusser Tor in Kreuzberg is one of them. On the other hand, the so-called careful renovation has been continued in Schwanthalerhöhe of Munich since the 1970s. In the both cases, maintenance of intra-district variety in some senses and participation of the local people in the project is taken into account as key factors for the regeneration and revitalization of the problem districts and quarters. In this point, we can see important characteristics of European urban society. Nevertheless, Munich seems to be more successful also in the revitalization of the problem district than Berlin. The present author does not clarify the reason for it in this paper. He does not also discuss results and problems of the quarter management in Berlin. In order to conduct the research further, it should be important to shed light on the place identity of the local people. We should ask if it is possible for different groups in a locale to feel common identity or sense of belonging to a place. We cannot be optimistic, if we face the situation of the quarter around Kottbusser Tor.

Article

AN00071028