By Eberhard Diepgen
Berliners – especially from the west of the city – were proud of their ICC. Internationally, it was considered particularly suitable for large congresses and Berliners celebrated lavish parties in it.
I fondly remember the ADAC balls and the state press conference. Today, however, the building appears more and more like a block in the leg of Berlin politics. Since 2014 it has only been used sporadically. Internationally, requirements for the organization and conduct of congresses have changed. The architecture of the ICC generates significant energy and other operating costs and the necessary cleanup of pollutants (sheet asbestos) was not properly addressed.
Since 2014, the International Congress Center (ICC) has only rarely been used for events Photo: rje lre
Above all: The Berlin trade fair did not want to burden itself with the building; it built a new building for congresses that better met the new customer requirements. Senates of different political compositions have repeatedly made attempts to revitalize the building with its usable space of 200,000 square meters.
The Senate has now presented another attempt with an international tender (costing 1.6 million euros). The idea is to create a place for “culture, creativity, innovation and new technologies”.
This is what it sounds like in many projects in Berlin, where buildings that are useless or simply in need of renovation are to be marketed. The congress and event business should not be excluded from the ICC in the future, even if it competes with the trade fair.
Everything should be decided by 2028 (!). I wish you much success. However, the planned tender seems to me to be unrealistic in terms of its financial basis and therefore more of an expensive postponement of necessary decisions than a sign of a powerful approach. The renovation costs are known from audits in recent years. Contrary to previous considerations, the Senate no longer wants to take part in this.
The monument protection that has existed since 2019 limits the possibilities of converting the building. This means that every private operator will continue to face enormous energy and operating costs. This means that public subsidies remain necessary for operation. If the ICC is not to be demolished – that would also be very more expensive – in my opinion the focus should be on using the ICC to meet a need for the city.
The state will have to contribute to the renovation and operating costs. Otherwise all the nice speeches about the future ICC will remain nothing but smoke and mirrors.