Abstract
In the context of globalization and post-Ford, the construction of “creative cities” has become one of the research hotspots. In the Berlin case study, the “bottom-up” creativity has contributed to the success of the city's transition from industrialization to post-industrialization. This paper will be divided into four main sections to discuss Berlin's success as a famous “creative city”. First, the initial section introduces the basic theoretical knowledge of culture, creative industries and “creative cities” and the necessary developmental elements of creative cities. Then, the second section is the background of Berlin, which is outlined in terms of history and economy. In the following sections, the reasons for the success of Berlin's “creative city” will be explained and analyzed in detail. The third part of the attitude of Berlin towards temporary use and practical case studies for temporary use. The fourth section will describe the Berlin government's policy guidance and planning policy support for cultural and creative development, with the example of Spandau in the suburb of Mitte. Finally, summarize and discuss some of the shortcomings of temporary use and planning policy development, and give some suggestions for coordinated solutions.
References
[1] Comunian, R. (2008). Culture italian style: business and the arts. Journal of Business Strategy, 29(3), 37-44.
[2] Landry C. The Creative City: A Toolkit for Urban Innovators [M]. London: Earthscan Publications, 2000.
[3] Liang Zhichao, Huang Xu, Xue Desheng. Development of Art Space and the Mechanism of Government Guidance in Berlin: A Case Study of ‘Spandauer Vorstadt’ in Mitte, 2017.
[4] Tang Yan, Klaus Kunzman. Creative City Practice: A Perspective from Europe and Asia. Beijing: Tsinghua University Press, 2013.
[5] Haase, D. (2008). Urban ecology of shrinking cities: an unrecognised opportunity? Nat. Culture 3, 1–8.
[6] Claire Colomb. (2012). Pushing the Urban Frontier: Temporary Uses of Space, City Marketing, and the Creative City Discourse in 2000S Berlin, Journal of Urban Affairs, 34:2, 131-152.
[7] SenStadt (Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Umwelt). (2007). Urban Pioneers. Berlin: Stadtentwicklung durch Zwischennutzung. Temporary use and urban development in Berlin. Berlin: Jovis Verlag.
[8] Heck, A., Will, H. (2007). Interim Use: opportunity for new open-space quality in the inner city—the example of Leipzig. German J. Urban Stud. 46 (1).
[9] BBR (Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung). (2004). Zwischennutzung und neue Freiflächen. Städtische Lebensräume der Zukunft. Berlin.
[10] BMVBS (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung) and BBR (Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung). (2008). Zwischennutzungen und Nischen im Städtebau als Beitrag für eine nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung. Bonn.
[11] BMVBS (Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung) and BBR (Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung). (2012). Offene Räume in der Stadtentwicklung. Leerstand–Zwischennutzung–Umnutzung. Berlin.
[12] Kohoutek, R., & Kamleithner, C. (2003). Tempora ̈re Nutzungen, Deregulierung und Urbanita ̈t. de ́rive, Zeitschrift fu ̈r Stadtforschung, 14, 12–15.
[13] Bishop, P., & Williams, L. (2012). The temporary city. New York: Routledge. Bowman, A. O. M., & Pagano, M. A. (2001). Terra incognita: The strategic use of urban J. Németh, J. Langhorst / Cities 40 (2014) 143–150 149 Hospers G J. Creative Cities in Europe [J]. Intereconomics, 2003, 38(5): 260- 269.