Partial explanation: Gentrification + increased costs because of inflation is my understanding.
Berlin has been relatively underpopulated ever since WW2 which seems to have contributed to a de-gentrified situation which allowed an unique culture to grow. But time's are changing.
What does this even mean? Does this mean "low cost of living"? I feel like gentrification due to post-war generational housing shortages is now just a catch all term for increasing cost of living in general.
Berlin lost over 1.5m inhabitants in the time since 1945 to its lowest point after reunification (due to being a divided city without much industrial jobs).
At it height 1 in 5 apartments were empty in Berlin which pushed rents down below 4 EUR per square meter. A 3 bedroom apartment for less than 500 EURs a month. This was de-gentrification the parent mentioned.
Since 2010 population grew and now Berlin has housing shortages like every other capital in Europe. Rents now top 20 EUR per sqm.
Sure it's mostly about cost of living but also relatively good access to abandoned buildings (and perhaps other services) that could be used for non housing purposes. A lot of Berlin clubs and art venues started in buildings that were abandoned if I understand correctly.
I recall that there were interesting similarities after depopulation events like the black plague. Suddenly there's a surplus of built infrastructure.
Berlin is the best proof that capitalism destroys culture. We should probably find a way to prevent that from happening. The current German and Berlin government would rather accelerate it though - besides the funding thing, they're currently ramming a highway expansion straight through a cultural area.
To answer the question in replies, good East Berlin developed in the relative anarchy when the Soviet Union collapsed and no new system was really established yet. (Being able to exchange deutschemarks for groceries is not capitalism - they had that in communism too.) The western end of Berlin, by contrast, wasn't culturally interesting in the same way, and didn't change much when the wall fell. Not that symphony orchestras and painting galleries aren't culture, but they're not the kind we're talking about here, the kind that develops bottom up when people are given the freedom to do what they want.
dang informed me by email that this is a bad comment and I deserve to be, and have been, punished for posting it.
"but it does indicate that an abundance of cheap housing/buildings makes culture thrive."
Not on its own, though. Plenty of abandoned/underpopulated cheap places in europe that do not thrive. But it certainly is beneficial.
(in the case of Berlin, there was for example a special effect, that all germans living in west berlin did not had to go to the army (to not having to shoot their relatives in east berlin) - so lots of counterculture people evading the army came to Berlin and they created culture)
Don't you think that a lot of that politics stems from politicians wanting the value of houses in places where they (or their friends) live to go up rather than down though?
But capitalism doesn't have an interest in prohibiting housing being built in certain areas or limiting density to a fraction of what was possible 130 years ago.
Berlin has been relatively underpopulated ever since WW2 which seems to have contributed to a de-gentrified situation which allowed an unique culture to grow. But time's are changing.
Look at this pop graph: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_population_statistics Still hasn't caught up with the peak in the 1930:s.