Berlin, a tale of two cities

As you may have guessed, I am in Berlin. Having spent yesterday walking around its eastern part, I almost felt sorry for the East Germans, who had such a bad luck - to be bombed, raped and killed in 1945, and then dominated and humiliated until 1989. There are very, very few advantages in having a city razed to the ground after prolonged airstrikes and ground battles. The chance to build something new and spectacular is one of those advantages. Unfortunately, Stalin's architects had very few concerns about the local colorite, history or esthetic judgment. The end result is such a depressing hodge podge of fake barocco and echt socialist realism that it must be preserved for the generations to come as a certain chic kitsch, now even more so chic with the Ostalgie in its full swing.
I have no idea how one can be happy in Berlin. Of course, there are bars and drugs and sex and vivid night life somewhere behind the closed doors, there are hip places, Russian boutiques, Turkish Döners and Thai take-outs. But it is not a pedestrian city. Even the eastern part of it, presumably built for the car-less proletariat, is not designed for walking - the distances are stupendous, open spaces vast and windy. It is a lot like Rome, though Rome was built without any plan. Berlin was built with a plan, but the plan was not about the city or its architecture, it was all about the domination and dependency. It ended up sterile, dispersed and bland.
The western part of course is just like anz other American city, endless malls, stores, McDonalds, Starbucks and Sales signs (reduziert, noch ein mal reduziert, besser preise, % % %). What was better, the Soviet or American occupation? It is a lot like a question, which is better to die - by hanging or electrocution?