4 ms·

One of my favorite spots in Berlin is the Monsterkabinett. It's an underground dungeon full of giant animatronic creatures who dance and sing along with the ind

One of my favorite spots in Berlin is the Monsterkabinett. It's an underground dungeon full of giant animatronic creatures who dance and sing along with the industrial style music of their creators. It's also a fantastic example of what's possible when you don't have to worry about rent. The space is part of an old squat, still filled with artists who now get a steady flow of tourists to sell to. And some of the artists, who don't have to worry so much about day jobs, had time to take a side project building these creatures along with software to drive them. Berlin, and kreuzberg in particular, is full of artists and rebels who moved into a war zone because they had no where to go, found a blank canvas, and made something awesome of it. Bowie did some of his best work in that environment, and it's also given us great punk music, and was an incubator for techno and edm. You can call it NIMBYism, but for Kreuzberg it's really more about fighting gentrification and displacement, and preserving a city at the edge of society. There's a fundamental difference between fighting development in the mission and presidio...

dexen 8y ago
There is no difference in kind between two hungry IT students developing better web search, and several hungry artists developing awesome dungeon of animatronics. Either start off poor, but once they get major traction, the money starts rolling in. Of course, the web search scales faster, but that's about it. Point being, the artists' den would become expensive bohemian district of the city anyway, startups or not, as "new money" people learn of it and start moving in to bask in the splendor of the underground culture. Eventually pricing out the actual artists.
- 738472527784 8y ago
  Are you saying any economically successful person is an artist, contributes to society and culture as art does? Are you saying, some billions heavy foreign company should have the same "right" to influence a region as a local art collective has? Because they are basically the same? Are you serious?
TulliusCicero 8y ago
> You can call it NIMBYism, but for Kreuzberg it's really more about fighting gentrification and displacement, and preserving a city at the edge of society. There's a fundamental difference between fighting development in the mission and presidio... SF tried "fighting" gentrification by blocking development, and it just made the problem twice as bad. Look at the results: do they look good to you? Why would you want to copy such an abysmal failure? NIMBYs are the cause of much displacement, especially of the poor. In some cases this is because of ignorance, in other cases it's greed. Either way, it's not acceptable.
- sdenton4 8y ago
  "We must burn the village to save it." New housing tends to be higher rent; if you want to increase affordable housing stock, mowing down older, lower-rent buildings isn't the way to do it. (Especially in Berlin, where housing is often already far higher density than you see anywhere in the bay area.)
  - TulliusCicero 8y ago
    > New housing tends to be higher rent Yes, much like new cars tend to be more expensive than old cars. Is this...surprising to anyone? That used things are generally cheaper than new things? > if you want to increase affordable housing stock, mowing down older, lower-rent buildings isn't the way to do it. It actually can be, at least if you're increasing the total housing stock: http://cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-busting-high-income2/ http://cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-busting-high-income2/ Granted, for Berlin perhaps not always the case, and I think policies to that effect, that push for redevelopment to mean more total housing, would be a good idea. And again, please don't ignore SF as a cautionary tale. SF tried the whole "let's not knock down buildings" thing, as hard as they could, in the face of overwhelming demand. Now: did it work?

dexen 8y ago

There is no difference in kind between two hungry IT students developing better web search, and several hungry artists developing awesome dungeon of animatronics. Either start off poor, but once they get major traction, the money starts rolling in. Of course, the web search scales faster, but that's about it. Point being, the artists' den would become expensive bohemian district of the city anyway, startups or not, as "new money" people learn of it and start moving in to bask in the splendor of the underground culture. Eventually pricing out the actual artists.

738472527784 8y ago
Are you saying any economically successful person is an artist, contributes to society and culture as art does? Are you saying, some billions heavy foreign company should have the same "right" to influence a region as a local art collective has? Because they are basically the same? Are you serious?

TulliusCicero 8y ago

> You can call it NIMBYism, but for Kreuzberg it's really more about fighting gentrification and displacement, and preserving a city at the edge of society. There's a fundamental difference between fighting development in the mission and presidio... SF tried "fighting" gentrification by blocking development, and it just made the problem twice as bad. Look at the results: do they look good to you? Why would you want to copy such an abysmal failure? NIMBYs are the cause of much displacement, especially of the poor. In some cases this is because of ignorance, in other cases it's greed. Either way, it's not acceptable.

sdenton4 8y ago
"We must burn the village to save it." New housing tends to be higher rent; if you want to increase affordable housing stock, mowing down older, lower-rent buildings isn't the way to do it. (Especially in Berlin, where housing is often already far higher density than you see anywhere in the bay area.)
- TulliusCicero 8y ago
  > New housing tends to be higher rent Yes, much like new cars tend to be more expensive than old cars. Is this...surprising to anyone? That used things are generally cheaper than new things? > if you want to increase affordable housing stock, mowing down older, lower-rent buildings isn't the way to do it. It actually can be, at least if you're increasing the total housing stock: http://cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-busting-high-income2/ http://cityobservatory.org/urban-myth-busting-high-income2/ Granted, for Berlin perhaps not always the case, and I think policies to that effect, that push for redevelopment to mean more total housing, would be a good idea. And again, please don't ignore SF as a cautionary tale. SF tried the whole "let's not knock down buildings" thing, as hard as they could, in the face of overwhelming demand. Now: did it work?