The author argues that the Berlin Wall was more than merely a political construction. Demonstrating the powerful language of architecture, its form was psychologically driven and grounded in historical tradition and culture. Furthermore, it exemplified how architectural constructs are not static but acquire opposing and fluctuating meanings and symbolisms. The wall was, and is, a dynamic condition. More than an object, it was a modern procedure. Not only was it affected by its cultural and socio-political context, but it, in turn, affected its context--space, the pace of time, history, cultural thought and expression. It was an analogue of politics and a palimpsest of culture. Among other modes of expression (such as film, literature and visual art, including graffiti), architecture has been used as a tool to address political agendas connected to the wall. Examination of this architecture divulges a gulf--with notable bridges--between the nature of theoretical and of built projects; and similarly, between projects proposed for a hypothetically projected post-wall situation and those proposed after the wall actually came down.