Planning Workshop Stuttgart.pdf - REVIT

REVIT revitalising industrial sites
Kerstin Langer, Martin Franz, Hermann Kirchholtes,
Eberhard Koning, Nils Krieger, Michael Schweiker
REVIT Planning Workshop:
Guidelines and Objectives for
Sustainable Development at
'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station'
April 2006
KOMMA.PLAN
Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 28
81829 München
phone: +49 (0)89 90936818
langer@komma-plan.de
www.revit-nweurope.org This report is part of the REVIT selfguiding trail.

Manual
REVIT Planning Workshop:
Guidelines and Objectives for
Sustainable Development
in the 'Bad Cannstatt
Goods Station' Area
(Pilot Application)
Kerstin Langer, Martin Franz, Hermann Kirchholtes,
Eberhard Koning, Nils Krieger, Michael Schweiker

Contacts
Kerstin Langer
KOMMA.PLAN
Georg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 28
D-81829 München
phone: +49 (0)89 90936818
fax: +49 (0)89 90936817
langer@komma-plan.de
Martin Franz
Centre for Inter-disciplinary Ruhr Area Research, Ruhr University, Bochum
NA 7 / 169
Universitätsstr. 150
D-44780 Bochum
phone: +49 (0)234 3223381
Martin.Franz@ruhr-uni-bochum.de
Nils Krieger, Eberhard Koning
State Capital of Stuttgart
Office of Urban development and Renewal
Eberhardstraße 10
70173 Stuttgart
phone: +49 (0)7 11 2 16-62 91
fax: +49 (0)7 11 2 16-31 71
Nils Krieger: u610101@stuttgart.de
Eberhard Koning: u610207@stuttgart.de
Hermann Kirchholtes, Michael Schweiker
State Capital of Stuttgart
Office of Environmental Protection
Gaisburgstraße 4
70182 Stuttgart
phone: +49 (0)7 11 2 16-71 59
fax: +49 (0)7 11 2 16-39 40
Hermann Josef Kirchholtes: u360351@stuttgart.de
Michael Schweiker: u360356@stuttgart.de
Publication Data
Edited by: State Capital of Stuttgart, Office of Urban development and Renewal
Illustrations: Elke Zahn, Fotostudio Elke und Jochen Zahn, Munich; Gritta Geffers, Office of Urban
development and Renewal, Stuttgart, Martin Franz, Ruhr University, Bochum
This project is sponsored by the EU Community initiative INTERREG III B NWE (2000-2008).

Manual
REVIT Planning Workshop:
Guidelines and Objectives for Sustainable Development
in the 'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station' Area (Pilot Application)
Introduction .......... ........... ................................................................................................ 1
1 The Political and Planning Context of the Stuttgart Planning Workshop .......... 2
1.1 The Urban Development Problem and Related Political Decisions........................... 2
1.2 Guidelines and Objectives of the Mercedesstraße Master Plan................................ 3
1.3 Guidelines and Objectives for the Feasibility Study on the Mercedesstraße
Development Concept, Bad Cannstatt (Construction Stage 1).................................. 4
2 Objectives and Indicators of Sustainable Urban Development........................... 7
2.1 Experience with Indicators of Sustainable Development........................................... 7
2.2 Urban / Zoning Plan Level: 'Cities of the Future' (DE) ............................................... 8
2.3 Master Plan Level: 'SEEDA-Checklist' (GB) .............................................................. 9
2.4 Finalised Planning Level: 'RESCUE-SAT' (EU)......................................................... 9
3 REVIT Planning Workshop: Guidelines and Objectives for Sustainable
Development in the 'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station' Area .................................... 11
3.1 Workshop Preparation ............................................................................................... 11
3.1.1 Political and Administrative Preparations .................................................................. 11
3.1.2 Internal Coordination and Harmonisation with External Agencies............................. 12
3.1.3 Selection of Objectives and Indicators....................................................................... 13
3.1.4 Organisation . ........... ................................................................................................ 14
3.1.5 Public Relations ........ ................................................................................................ 17
3.2 Workshop Implementation ......................................................................................... 18
3.2.1 Tour of the Area........ ................................................................................................ 18
3.2.2 Workshop...... ........... ................................................................................................ 19
3.3 Workshop Follow-up . ................................................................................................ 23
3.3.1 Documentation.......... ................................................................................................ 23
3.3.2 Follow-up ...... ........... ................................................................................................ 24

4 Differences Between the REVIT Planning Workshop and the
RESCUE-SAT Approach.......................................................................................... 24
5 Conclusion .. ........... ................................................................................................ 25
List of Illustrations
Fig. 1: Aerial view: Bad Cannstatt goods station and environs ................................. 2
Fig. 2: Mercedesstraße master plan, variant 1 (Baldauf office) ................................ 3
Fig. 3: Development feasibility study, variant A: Mixed use (Free Planning Group 7) 5
Fig. 4: Development feasibility study, variant B: Residential use
(Free Planning Group 7)................................................................................. 5
Fig. 5: 'Bridgeheads' as an interconnection approach to be realised in stages (Free
Planning Group 7) .......................................................................................... 6
Fig. 6: Opening of the event by the mayor in charge of construction for the city of
Stuttgart......... ................................................................................................ 11
Fig. 7: Widespread interest in the event was documented by its audience of more
than 100 ................................................................................................ 15
Fig. 8: The venue was a former textile factory .......................................................... 16
Fig. 9: The tour met with very great interest.............................................................. 18
Fig. 10: Lively discussions in the working groups ....................................................... 21
Fig. 11: Weighting objectives and indicators............................................................... 21
Fig. 12: The informal get-together on the spot offered opportunities for many an
interesting conversation ................................................................................. 22
Appendix
�� Letter of invitation, incl. reply form
�� Invitation flyer
�� List of objectives and indicators for discussion
�� Script
�� Minutes
�� Evaluation report (ZEFIR)
�� Indicator lists used for screening

Introduction
Particularly in densely-settled Europe, land is a precious resource. Brownfields and areas
that are not used optimally may be found in many cities. The EU project REVIT (Towards
More Effective and Sustainable Brownfield Revitalisation Policies), a part of the INTERREG
III B 1 programme, aims to develop effective strategies for revitalising these areas so as to
promote greater sustainability in urban development. To facilitate the effective
implementation of novel approaches in brownfield activation, new methods and tools will be
tested and evaluated under this EU project.
The exact contribution an area may make towards sustainable urban development should
always be evaluated against the background of a specific case and its context. Usage
concepts that prove sustainable in one area do not necessarily apply in another location. In
processes of planning and political design, due consideration must be given to geographical,
economic, political, and social framework conditions, development timeframes, and the
interests of players involved in the development of an area 2 . Consequently, revitalisation
involves a multitude of cooperation efforts and negotiation processes. Frequently, legal civicparticipation
regulations are inadequate to secure the proper involvement of local players,
and new ways of dialogue-oriented planning must be found 3 .
Prepared to confront the problem, the Stuttgart REVIT team declared themselves willing to
implement a pilot application. A Planning Workshop was conducted for the 'Bad Cannstatt
goods station' area to identify and discuss meaningful objectives and indicators of
sustainable development within the framework of a public dialogue. The team was able to fall
back on earlier experiences in dealing with sustainable development indicators that were
gathered in Stuttgart when the city participated in the 'Cities of the Future' research project
from 1998 to 2003. In the context, the RESCUE-SAT approach appeared an interesting
module supporting sustainable development.
On the one hand, this Manual describes the preparation, implementation, and follow-up of
the Planning Workshop as a pilot application under the EU project REVIT. On the other
hand, a brief evaluation of the lessons learned is to be found at the end of each chapter,
together with recommendations which the other project partners, namely Tilburg and
Hengelo (NL), Medway and Torfaen (GB), and Nantes (F) might wish to follow should they
want to hold their own public events on the subject.
When applying these recommendations, it should be remembered that they normally need to
be adapted to the specific administrative, political, and planning context of the locality and
should be implemented with due consideration of differences in local framework conditions.
While this Manual does provide hints and tips for important policy decisions regarding
planning, implementation, and follow-up, it cannot eliminate the need for specific adaptation
to the local situation.
This Manual was developed in cooperation with all members of the organisation team. This
being so, the recommendations given by the authors reflect different perspectives: The
internal administration perspective of various offices of the city of Stuttgart (Kirchholtes,
1 www.revit-nweurope.org
2 Susanne Glöckner, Gernot Pahlen, Martin Franz, Claus Kogelheide, Ziele und Instrumente für ein
nachhaltiges Flächenrecycling, in M. Altenbockum, E. Brandt, V. Franzius, Altlastensanierung und
Flächenmanagement, 40th update, September 2004, Heidelberg-München-Berlin 2004.
3 Kerstin Langer, Bettina Oppermann, Christiane Humborg, Win-Win-Lösungen im
Flächenmanagement. Kooperatives Flächenmanagement zwischen Wirtschaft, Verwaltung und
Bürgerschaft: Problemtypologien, Einigungspotenziale und Akteurskonstellationen in Baden-
Württemberg, research report, FZK Karlsruhe 2003.
1

Koning, Krieger, Schweiker), the scientific perspective of an external evaluator (Franz), and
the perspective of an external process designer and moderator (Langer).
1 The Political and Planning Context of the Stuttgart Planning Workshop
The political and planning context in which a participation process is embedded constitutes
an important element in the framework of process design. 4 For reasons of clarity, therefore,
the status of political decision-making will be described in the following chapter together with
the status of planning for the 'Bad Cannstatt goods station' area.
1.1 The Urban Development Problem and Related Political Decisions
The area surrounding the Bad Cannstatt goods station has been a focus of planning for
about 35 years. In the last few years, an incomparable variety of programmes and plans was
developed, their range extending from the 'Olympia 2012' master plan, which contains plans
for an Olympic village, via a structural concept from 2002 to the present master plan that was
adopted by the local council in June 2005. Thus, the area under investigation features a
particularly great development dynamic and attracts a high degree of political attention.
Numerous projects are in preparation, under construction, or completed already.
Fig. 1: Aerial view: Bad
Cannstatt goods station and
environs
In mid-2004, the office of Prof. Dr.-Ing. Gerd Baldauf was commissioned to develop the
concept of a master plan for the goods station and the adjacent area. This 'Mercedesstraße
master plan' was designed as a unified concept integrating the reform of the goods station
and the numerous facilities surrounding it (Hanns Martin Schleyer Hall, Porsche Arena, Carl
Benz Center, Gottlieb Daimler Stadium, SpOrt, Mercedes Benz World, the future city archive
on Bellingweg) as well as the 'Veielbrunnen rehabilitation area'.
After some preparation conducted jointly with the Economy and Housing Committee of the
local council, the Committee on Environment and Technology adopted the master plan on
07-06-2005, resolving to initiate the development-plan process to implement the planning
4 Bettina Oppermann, Kerstin Langer, Verfahren und Methoden der Bürgerbeteiligung in kommunalen
Politikfeldern, guideline by the Baden-Württemberg Academy for Technology Impact Assessment,
Stuttgart 2003.
2

goals (cf. local council document 336/2005). Further plans were to be based on the masterplan
variant which focusses on industrial use and provides for a qualified enlargement and
completion of the existing residential area (see Fig. 3 and 4). The Suttgarter Straßenbahnen
AG as the local transport operator was to review the question of including the area in its rail
service, giving due consideration to the future development of the region, the objective being
to improve the public transport service.
In the first construction stage, an area c. 5ha in size situated adjacent to the existing quarter
will be developed. To obtain more precise data as a basis for the development plan, a
'development feasibility study' was commissioned to cast the objectives of the framework
plan (scale 1:2500) in a more detailed and concrete shape for the first stage of construction
(scale 1:1000).
1.2 Guidelines and Objectives of the Mercedesstraße Master Plan
Fig. 2: Mercedesstraße master plan, variant 1 (Baldauf office)
The following fundamental restructuring steps are defined in the Mercedesstraße masterplan
concept for the area:
�� Amalgamation and optimisation of the existing historic building pattern in the
structure of Bad Cannstatt with the order principle of the sports grounds to form a
new set of urban coordinates.
�� Rerouting Benzstraße from its present position, oblique due to railway
installations, so that it abuts vertically on Mercedesstraße.
3

�� Continuation and geographical completion of the north-south block structure east
of Daimlerstraße by additional mixed-use areas.
�� Introduction of an open space and a commercial strip in parallel with the rerouted
Benzstraße to act as a double buffer towards the industrial and sports area.
�� Focus on commercial use in roadside areas exposed to emission, and on mixed
use in the inner quarters, without affecting existing commercial uses (e.g. DRK,
industrial security).
�� A system of pedestrian walkways ('broadway') leading to the sports area, closely
following the route of the old Benzstraße.
�� Definition of pedestrian thoroughfares for mass transit (festival and sports
grounds) with very spacious and open node areas on Mercedesstraße.
1.3 Guidelines and Objectives for the Feasibility Study on the Mercedesstraße
Development Concept (Construction Stage 1)
Based on the fundamental statements regarding structures and uses laid down in the master
plan, the planning area was developed in terms of geography and usage. The following lines
of development were defined in the development concept formulated by Free Planning
Group 7, which was commissioned to process the project further:
�� The most outstanding structural element will be the change in the layout of the
original green borderline from a mere spacer function to an inner quarter park with
pooled, attractive pathway links.
�� The 'broadway' pedestrian layout of the master plan will be modified to include
generous supplementary and functional spaces. The new Benzstraße will be
crossed by a wide pedestrian bridge ('humpback bridge') and laid out as a
symmetrical 'commercial boulevard'. Its design is intended to support the positive
character of the address for the use of residents.
�� All commercial facilities along the new Benzstraße as well as on Mercedesstraße
will be developed 'from outside', generating a graded inner development network
for higher-value uses.
�� Two inner usage and design options for the quarter were investigated, namely
development concept A, which focusses on mixed use, and development
concept B, which focusses on residential use.
4

Fig. 3: Development feasibility study, variant A: Mixed use (Free Planning Group 7)
Fig. 4: Development feasibility study, variant B: Residential use (Free Planning Group 7)
�� The layout of the new Benzstraße is symmetrical. Angled parking spaces on both
sides offering space for loading and unloading enhance acceptance and userfriendliness
for residents. Both the usage and the spatial configuration of the
building structure (building depth 40m) are flexible. Access (deliveries, parking) is
5

Summary
always from the new Benzstraße, keeping the quarter as a whole clear of
incoming and outgoing commercial traffic.
�� Creation of a generous spatial setting for the Hanns Martin Schleyer Hall to
accommodate large pedestrian flows. Its apron ('longitudinal square') for parking
and optional temporary uses forms a development highlight ('arched house') as
well as a spacious location on the long Mercedesstraße thoroughfare.
�� Creation of an overhead crossing to bridge the scattered railway installations. On
the western side, upward and downward access will be through an office,
residential, or public building with stairs and an integrated passenger lift at the
front end. The railway installations will be crossed by a covered walkway
accessed from the east through a public lift and stairwell.
�� With its axial alignment, the quarter park will form the hub of the new quarter on
the Neckar Park. Its layout differs in the two solutions, A and B. In both solutions,
the central area will be the new quarter square adjacent to the future city archive,
with the option of establishing further public uses there (e.g. school, child daycare
centre, civic and cultural facilities).
�� One feature in the development of the 'Neckar Park' landscape with the river in
the middle will be the addition of many bridgeheads. This interconnection
approach, which may be implemented in stages, permits tying in different uses
and locations. A pedestrian walkway and bike path connecting Stuttgart East and
the south of Bad Cannstatt will be created.
Fig. 5: 'Bridgeheads' as an interconnection
approach to be realised in stages (Free Planning
Group 7)
The Bad Cannstatt goods station area forms a part of the Stuttgart city landscape whose
development attracts a great deal of political and public attention.
When the REVIT Planning Workshop was held and objectives and indicators for the area
were defined, planning considerations had reached a stage of relative maturity, and
'development cornerstones' had been sketched out and debated on the political plane. The
master plan (see 1.2) was adopted by the local council in June 2005, while the content of the
development feasibility study (see 1.3) became available only at the time of the workshop
meeting, reaching the public debate for the first time as it had not been discussed in any
governing body before.
6

2 Objectives and Indicators of Sustainable Urban Development
In most cases, indicators are used to describe the economic development, the environmental
pollution, and the current social situation in a particular quarter. Similarly, indicators are
generally used to operationalise sustainability. Current EU directives, such as SEA 5 and
FFH 6 , further emphasise the growing importance of indicators and indicator-based monitoring
and controlling tools in zoning and regional planning. 7
In the process, it makes sense to distinguish between objectives and indicators, and to begin
by identifying general objectives that should be pursued to ensure sustainable urban
development, following this up by deriving indicators from these objectives. Besides,
pragmatic target definitions will be more readily accepted in the political sphere than detailed
sets of indicators. It is only in a second, concrete working step that objectives previously
identified should be given a more concrete shape by adding one or several indicators as
quasi-standards for target-compliance assessment.
One of the essential functions of quantitative indicators is to boil down complex situations
and developments into a few figures. This requires transforming complex situations into
'condensed information' describing the essentials. 8 Thus, the proportion between the built-up
area and the territory of a community indicates its building activity. However, this indicator
only partly reflects sustainability in a community's management of its territory as the built-up
area includes inner parks, which the population (quite rightly) perceives and esteems as
green areas for recreation. This goes to show that indicators, being a reduction of
complexities to essentials, always reflect only part of reality, and that further information is
mostly required for their interpretation.
The endeavour to ensure balance in the reflection of situations appears to go to the other
extreme as far as sustainable-development indicators are concerned: Indicator sets are
confusing because of the large number of indicators they contain, so that they miss the
original target of boiling matters down to essentials.
2.1 Experience with Indicators of Sustainable Development
Indicators of sustainable development have been a subject of discussion ever since the
scintillating term 'sustainable development' was coined. 9 While it is true that the debate about
sustainability indicators evolved from a discussion of economic, social, and environmental
indicators that began in the forties, 10 the handling of sustainability indicators is still in the
experimental stage. 11
5
EU Directive 2001/42/EC, Strategic Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes.
6
Flora, Fauna, Habitat Directive, 92/43/EEC.
7
Jörn Birkmann, Monitoring und Controlling einer nachhaltigen Raumentwicklung, Dortmund 2004, p.
54.
8
Winfried E. H. Blum, Indikatoren als Brücke zwischen Wissenschaft und Politik – aus globaler und
europäischer Sicht, in Winfried E. H. Blum, Antje Kämmerer, Reinhard Stock (Eds.), Neue Wege zu
nachhaltiger Bodennutzung, Berlin 2002.
9
For this reason, here is a reminder of the 'official' definition of the term given by the UN (Brundtland
Report, 1987): 'Development may be judged sustainable whenever it meets the needs of the current
generation without endangering the opportunities of future generations to satisfy their own needs and
choose their own lifestyle.'
10
Jörn Birkmann, Monitoring und Controlling einer nachhaltigen Raumentwicklung, 2004, p. 61.
11
Lothar Finke, Bodenindikatoren für eine nachhaltige Siedlungsentwicklung, in Winfried E. H. Blum,
Antje Kämmerer, Reinhard Stock (Eds.), Neue Wege zu nachhaltiger Bodennutzung, Berlin 2002.
11
Luca Montanarella, Indikatoren für nachhaltige Nutzung, in Winfried E. H. Blum, Antje Kämmerer,
Reinhard Stock (Eds.), Neue Wege zu nachhaltiger Bodennutzung, Berlin 2002.
7

So far, the discussion about sustainability indicators appears to show that
�� it is impossible to identify any single indicator capable of universal application, 12
�� different 'indicator sets' are applied in different reference areas, and
�� indicators are difficult if not impossible to use in comparing different areas.
To illustrate the sheer diversity of existing approaches, three out of a large number of
indicator sets published will be briefly introduced in the following:
�� 'Cities of the Future' indicators (DE)
�� SEEDA checklist (GB)
�� RESCUE-SAT (EU).
2.2 Urban / Zoning Plan Level: 'Cities of the Future' (DE)
In 1997, the Federal Ministry of Housing launched a research project entitled 'Cities of the
Future' which aimed to promote municipal action strategies for sustainable urban
development. 13 Among other things, research focussed on the development of suitable
'indicators of sustainable urban development'. Next to the four main players, namely Münster,
Heidelberg, Dessau, and Güstrow, Stuttgart was involved in the project as a reference city. 14
The objective was to develop a standard catalogue of indicators for nationwide use by local
governments in order to facilitate comparing different municipal strategies of sustainable
urban development and monitoring their effectiveness. The catalogue contains five
orientation values for urban development and 24 success indicators for sustainable
development. The urban territory and the development plan are used as reference
standards.
The following five 'target indicators' reflecting standards for sustainable urban development
were suggested for orientation:
�� Ratio between inner and outer built-up area < 3 : 1
�� CO2 emission < 50% until 2010 (reference year: 1996)
�� Drinking-water consumption < 110 litres per day and inhabitant
�� Non-recyclable refuse < 2.5 kilograms per week and inhabitant
�� Modal split environmental network: PMT (Private Motor Transport) > 2 : 1 (66% to
33%).
No standard objectives could be found for any of the 24 success indicators. What is more,
adaptations to specific conditions were made, which restricts comparability. Conclusion:
Success indicators serve to monitor planning-target compliance at the local level rather than
comparisons between municipalities.
Some sample success indicators:
12 Martin Franz, Paul Nathanail, A Sustainability Assessment Framework for Brownfield Regeneration,
in Bernhard Butzin, H.-P. Noll (Eds.), Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration in Europe - Improving the
quality of derelict land recycling, Materialien zur Raumordnung 66, Bochum 2005, pp. 18-30.
13 For more detailed information in German, go to www.staedte-der-zukunft.de .
14 Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart, Forschungsfeld „Städte der Zukunft“ – Indikatoren für die nachhaltige
Stadtentwicklung. Zwischenbericht 2001, local council document 914/2001 of 19-09-2001, with
enclosure.
8

�� Conservative land management – increase in built-up and traffic area (in hectares
per year)
�� Conservative land management – use of brownfields and conversion areas
(dimensionless).
2.3 Master Plan Level: 'SEEDA-Checklist' (GB)
In 2003, a plan to revitalise derelict port facilities was developed for the region of South East
England. 15 A sustainability checklist was developed and applied to evaluate sustainability in
these projects at the master-plan level. 16 The purpose of the evaluation was to demonstrate
the sustainability of planned developments. The list was developed by the public-private
South East England Development Agency (SEEDA), 17 which gave the checklist its name.
The list is divided into three subject segments, each with its own subdivisions: Economy (six
items, 32 sub-items, 27 detail items); social matters (seven items, 36 sub-items, 36 detail
items); and environment (ten items, 62 sub-items, 65 detail items). According to the Medway
regional government, the list was applied successfully. Its indicators may be transferred to
other project regions. However, this list is yet another highly specific tool inasmuch as it
reflects the situation in southeast England.
2.4 Finalised Planning Level: 'RESCUE-SAT' (EU)
A sustainability assessment tool (SAT) was developed under the RESCUE project
(Regeneration of European Sites in Cities and Urban Environments, 2002 - 2005) for
reviewing the sustainability of land recycling processes at the development-plan and/or
project-plan level. Led by the Montan property company, a total of 14 partner organisations
from France, Great Britain, Poland, and Germany were involved in the RESCUE project. Two
case studies were conducted in each country to serve as a basis for the development of a
systematic approach to sustainable area recycling, the definition of indicators, and the
identification of good practices. 18 The process was founded on the following definition of
sustainable brownfield recycling developed by RESCUE:
'Sustainable brownfield regeneration is the management, rehabilitation and return to
beneficial use of the brownfields in such a manner as to ensure the attainment and continued
satisfaction of human needs for present and future generations in environmentally sensitive,
economically viable, institutionally robust and socially acceptable ways within the particular
regional context.' 19
To operationalise this definition at the project level, suitable criteria consisting of 34
objectives and 61 indicators were developed to evaluate the brownfield recycling process
with regard to sustainability in urban development. As explained in the introduction to this
Manual, any such evaluation to determine which future use appears most suitable for a
15
Southeast England is one of nine English regions. Its government is located in Guildford.
16
The SEEDA checklist is to be found on the internet under www.sustainability-checklist.co.uk .
17
SEEDA, the South East England Development Agency, was founded 1999. Its fields of activity
include urban renewal, economic integration, economy promotion, qualification support, and general
welfare promotion. In addition, SEEDA has been entrusted with the implementation of large-scale
urban development projects, including the regeneration of around 280 hectares of brownfields in the
period from 1999 to 2004.
18
See www.rescue-europe.com .
19
David Edwards et al., Best Practice Guidance for Sustainable Brownfield Regeneration, Final
RESCUE Report, Nottingham 2005, p. 11.
9

specific brownfield depends on the geographical and socio-economic context of the area as
well as on the interests of the players involved in the decision-making process. For this
reason, it needs to be adapted to these background factors. For this purpose, the SAT
process includes a workshop at which sustainability objectives are discussed and prioritised.
Objectives are selected and weighted with the aid of questionnaires and group-work results.
Workshops are attended by professional players involved in the project as well as by
citizens. The authors of the SAT intended to ensure that the bandwidth of players
represented at such workshops should be as large as possible. Thus, the SAT tool becomes
part of civic participation at the project level. The approach of selecting area-specific
indicators reflects the maxim that there are no sets of indicators that can be applied
universally. At any level below that of the zoning plan, at least, the weights accorded to the
four dimensions of sustainability, ecological, economic, social, and institutional, crucially
depend on the location in question, the consequence being that they can be defined only for
specific cases.
The options and modalities of applying the SAT in concrete terms as well as of integrating it
in planning processes both institutionally and organisationally were tested only sporadically
under RESCUE. At the moment, the Ruhr city of Dinslaken is preparing to test it in practice.
Conclusion
It is desirable that objectives and/or indicators should be used on a regular basis to ensure
sustainability in urban development and development. The mere fact that suitable objectives
and indicators are being debated improves the integration of this aspect in urban
development and development. The measure of sustainability achieved in planning is thus
made transparent and public, effectiveness checks become possible, and urbandevelopment
measures begin to compete for maximum sustainability.
However, the fact that indicators are dimension-dependent and area-specific must be taken
into consideration in this context. Using indicators to compare different areas, particularly on
a small scale, is possible only in exceptional cases or, at least, only if the problem to be
solved is formulated in highly restrictive terms. On the level of city-quarter development, the
question remains whether any aspects and levels (scales) can be found at all that can be
compared with the aid of indicators.
On the master or project plan level, characteristic indicators must be selected on a case-bycase
basis. The REVIT Workshop in Stuttgart was a test of how such a concept and
organisation could be best embedded in an ongoing planning process.
'Indicator lists' from other projects form a good foundation as they may serve as checklists.
They cannot, however, eliminate the need for selecting indicators (or objectives and
indicators) and adapting them to each specific case. Moreover, as these lists cannot claim to
be complete, they need to be supplemented in many cases. Even so, adding yet more lists
does not appear to us to make sense.
10

3 REVIT Planning Workshop 'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station' – Guidelines and
Objectives for Sustainable Development
The following chapter forms the core of this Manual. It describes in detail both the conceptual
considerations and the activities and control measures involved in the implementation of the
REVIT Planning Workshop in Stuttgart. Each description of a major project phase ends in a
brief evaluation containing recommendations for European project partners who might want
to test similar activities within the framework of the EU project REVIT.
3.1 Workshop Preparation
3.1.1 Political and Administrative Preparations
Backing at the senior administration level
So far, public events and participation processes dealing with issues of urban development in
Stuttgart were mainly conducted in conformance with relevant legal regulations and
requirements laid down in the Building Code.
For this reason, events such as the REVIT Planning Workshop do not form part of the
administrative routine, so that any official who endorses them is a pioneer in the field.
Thus, it was all the more important to obtain political backing for the goals and contents of
the REVIT Planning Workshop before it was carried out. Especially top-flight administrators,
such as department and office directors and mayors, had to be involved in relevant
considerations from the start and convinced that a public dialogue can contribute towards the
qualification of a plan.
The backing given by senior administrators to the Stuttgart process was evident from the fact
that the invitation to the workshop was signed by the mayor in charge of construction, that
the same mayor officially opened the meeting, and that some working groups were
moderated by office directors.
Fig. 6: Opening of the event by the mayor in charge of construction for
the city of Stuttgart
The timing of the REVIT Planning Workshop within the political decision-making
process
Critics might say that the public debate about the objectives and indicators for the area was
timed very late as numerous cornerstones had already been finalised, the master plan
adopted, and planning considerations for the first stage of construction completed.
However, the timing of the Stuttgart event proved fortunate precisely because concrete
development concepts had been formulated, so that the future development of the area
11

could be discussed in a highly target-oriented and concrete fashion in the brief time
available. Had this not been the case, the discussion about objectives (and indicators)
certainly could not have been so purposeful.
Particularly where large areas with complex requirements regarding urban development and
traffic planning are concerned, it may be helpful to have important framework conditions
clarified beforehand by experts. Nevertheless, both planners and politicians should be willing
to accept deviations from existing considerations, provided they are well substantiated, and
they should be receptive towards any ideas voiced during the debate.
It is conceivable for such discussions to be held at an earlier stage in the process. However,
this makes sense only if public participation comprises a series of (possibly diverse) events /
process modules, affording opportunities for participation, possibly by different target groups,
at various times during the development of an area.
It may also make sense to hold a discussion later, e.g. at the time when the developmentplan
process begins, so that any fresh ideas may be incorporated directly.
Lessons learned and recommendations
�� Plan for adequate preparation time because of the need to harmonise matters and
obtain political backing.
�� Ensure political backing and cover by talking to senior administrators at an early date.
�� Better still: Involve the local council and obtain its commission to implement the
workshop so that the council feels even more obliged to take the results into account.
�� Notify and involve local political bodies (district advisory council) at an early time.
�� Select the time of the workshop carefully:
- An early timing means greater opportunities to influence matters and a discussion
mainly focused on objectives.
- A later timing means more concrete participation as development cornerstones and
preliminary planning concepts have been completed, as well as better options to
discuss objectives and indicators together.
�� From the start, keep an eye on the need to feed results back into the formal planning
process (schedule, further political decision) to safeguard the orientation towards
results, and to offer any further dialogues that may be needed at suitable times during
the process.
3.1.2 Internal Coordination and Harmonisation with External Agencies
To prepare the workshop, an organisation team was set up composed of representatives of
the most extensively involved offices and departments of the city of Stuttgart (Office of Urban
development and Development, Office of Environmental Protection), the external moderator,
and a scientific observer who would evaluate the workshop.
A total of three preparatory meetings were held which focused on:
1. Discussing an outline concept and responsibilities for the workshop
2. Developing an area-specific catalogue of objectives and indicators (draft)
12

3. Finalising the event, briefing co-moderators, discussing the evaluation, and clarifying
technical details
Cooperation during the implementation and preparation of the workshop was satisfactory;
duties had been clearly assigned by agreement.
The result orientation of the REVIT Planning Workshop contributed a great deal towards
motivating cooperation. It was clear from the start that the results of the target discussion
would be incorporated in the draft decision to initiate the development plan.
Motivation was further enhanced by the fact that
- the planning area had been mentioned frequently in the press and thus enjoyed a
great deal of public attention,
- the area features a lot of critical points, creating a demand for discussion, and
- experienced members of the city administration radiated optimism and backed the
planned event despite its noticeably experimental character.
Lessons learned and recommendations
�� Assign duties clearly at the start and communicate them as clearly to new team
members.
�� Schedule several meetings for preparation.
�� Define clearly the duties and requirements of external agencies and regulate them in
contracts.
�� Form 'mixed teams' composed of experienced and more junior members.
3.1.3 Selection of Objectives and Indicators
The preparation team thought it appropriate to prepare a list of suggested objectives and
indicators for the workshop to get the discussion off to a flying start.
Thus, one of the preparatory meetings was used to compile, in cooperation with competent
planners from the city administration, objectives and indicators implied or explicitly stated in
existing plans (master plan, Zoning Plan 2010, urban development concept, detail plans) as
well as in political decisions taken before. Existing indicator sets (SEEDA and RESCUE)
were similarly tested for their possible usefulness in the pilot application. Lastly, objectives
and indicators were selected that might be used at the master-plan level.
This preliminary selection was supplemented by the planners, who added further planning
considerations and target concepts, after which a draft version of the list of proposals was
forwarded to the offices concerned together with a request for additional suggestions.
Thus, when the time of the workshop came, a list of objectives and indicators had become
available that was handed out to participants (see Appendix). Admittedly incomplete, this list
ranked as a preliminary selection.
Objectives and indicators were broken down into six headings, namely:
�� Urban development
13

�� Planning process
�� Environment
�� Social matters
�� Traffic
�� Economy
Lessons learned and recommendations
�� Develop objectives and indicators from existing development plans, political
decisions, and available target and indicator sets and complement them as required
by additional visionary concepts for the planning area.
�� To be selected, objectives and indicators should be
�� conformable with the relevant scale (the master-plan level in this
instance),
�� meaningful for the area under consideration,
�� pragmatic (verifiability, availability of requisite data),
�� illustrative and easy to understand (communicability, marketing), and
�� capable of exerting a profound controlling effect and
�� meaningful for sustainable urban development.
�� Draft a preliminary list and harmonise it with various offices and departments.
�� Sort objectives and indicators by subject; do not break down too many headings into
sub-items.
�� Between 5 and a maximum of 10 characteristic objectives and indicators per heading.
�� Present your list of objectives and indicators in the workshop as an open list
containing preliminary selections.
3.1.4 Organisation
Invitation process (selection of and resonance by participants)
Participants were invited in personal letters by the mayor in charge of construction (see
Appendix). Addressees included interested citizens, representatives of the administration,
civil organisations (trade and industry associations), representatives of the real-estate
industry (investors, housing companies, project developers), representatives of the local
economy, and political representatives from the local council and the district advisory council.
In the press, only a brief announcement of the event was published in the official gazette of
the city of Stuttgart.
At the request of the city of Stuttgart and its senior administrators, therefore, the invitation did
not address the general public but targeted stakeholders or, in other words, the expert public,
with a particular focus on potential investors. Nevertheless, the event was open to interested
citizens, having been announced in the city gazette.
14

An evaluation of the attendance list shows that one in three participants was employed by
the city of Stuttgart. The city administration was so largely represented because, for one,
public discussions about plans are a relatively new process, engendering a great deal of
interest, while on the other hand, members of diverse offices had a personal interest in a
presentation of the most recent planning results. One in ten participants attended the event
as the representative of a political party, whereas no more than eight could be classified as
residents and/or citizens. The remainder was composed of business representatives,
planners, and scientists.
Women made up about one quarter of the audience of 100. Migrant, youth, and
environmental organisations as well as folklore and sports clubs were not represented.
During the discussions, some of their concerns were voiced by representatives of relevant
offices or by politicians. The eight citizens' representatives present were members of the
Veielbrunnen Citizens' Initiative. No unorganised citizens participated in the event. 20
To a large extent, the process succeeded in ensuring that the audience was, as desired,
composed of interested experts and investors. From the point of view of the city of Stuttgart,
it would have been desirable to reach a greater number of investors and involve school
directors and sports clubs more closely.
At more than 100 participants, the response to the invitation far exceeded its original target of
50.
Accommodation
Fig. 7: Widespread interest in the event was
documented by its audience of more than 100
The event took place in a former textile factory located on the fringes of the goods station
area. As this historic building is in the middle of being converted into the future city archive of
Stuttgart, the accommodation, while displaying great creative charm, required a great deal of
organisation to enable the event to be held there.
20 Cf. Appendix: Evaluation Report (ZEFIR).
15

Fig. 8: The venue was a former textile factory
Catering
Snacks and beverages were offered by the city of Stuttgart both during and after the fourhour
event. Later, an informal get-together was held in the vicinity, offering great scope for
bilateral talks and networking activities.
Equipment
The condition of the building called for more than just some technical organisation.
Microphones, beamers, laptops, and other infrastructural equipment required by the working
groups had to be installed in temporarily furnished rooms.
Lessons learned and recommendations
Invitations
�� In the run-up, define clearly what the subject is, who is concerned, and what the target
groups are, and arrange the process of invitation and the list of addressees
accordingly.
�� One person should be responsible for the invitation list and process which, however,
should be discussed jointly in some detail to avoid anyone being overlooked,
particularly when personal invitations are sent.
�� Focus on addressing groups that are important but difficult to reach.
�� Personal letters of invitation by senior administrators motivate people to attend.
�� If broader participation or the attendance of more unorganised citizens are desired, use
another invitation process (e.g. randomised selection for personal letters following
Peter Dienel 21 ), and broaden your PR activities.
21
Peter C. Dienel, Die Planungszelle. Eine Alternative zur Establishment-Demokratie, 3rd enlarged
edition, Opladen 1992
16

Venue selection
�� Match the venue to the target group. Examples:
��'Improvised' accommodation with a 'creative charm' (expert public, investors,
citizens)
��'More dignified' accommodation with an 'exclusive character' (investors,
politicians)
��'Plain' accommodation with an 'official character“ (politicians, citizens)
�� Choose your venue in the area under consideration to create an authentic impression.
�� Choose your accommodation so that extra rooms are available in the event of a wider
response, facilitating the formation of additional working groups for a more intense
debate.
�� If possible, events with large audiences should be followed by an informal get-together
with a generous amount of food and drink offered so that conversations can be
continued and the audience does not break up too quickly. Ultimately, this is also an
expression of gratitude for the interest of the audience and its participation in the event.
Technical equipment on the spot
�� Check room furnishings early.
�� Allow adequate time and assistance for setting up furnishings and technical equipment.
3.1.5 Public Relations
Except for a brief note that appeared before the event, no publicity was given to the REVIT
Planning Workshop in Stuttgart, although this would surely have been meaningful and
desirable from the city administration's point of view. However, the city was confronted by an
obvious dilemma in this regard: The development feasibility study presented at the workshop
contained up-to-date results that had not yet been discussed in the local council and,
therefore, were not known to its members. If the workshop had been 'shouted from the
rooftops', resentments might have resulted because it is a political faux pas to open a public
discussion about results that are not yet known to the local council.
On the other hand, it is generally desirable for the city to engage actively in public relations
because it
- promotes the project and the project area, thus enhancing its presence in the public
mind,
- directs the attention of further investors to the area, and
- everyone involved feels rewarded for their time when the project appears in the
media.
17

Lessons learned and recommendations
�� Active public relations encourage public attention, promote the area, and motivate
everyone involved.
�� The following options are available:
�� Articles (series) in the run-up to the event
�� Flyers, posters
�� Personal invitations to representatives of the press
�� Press releases published in the run-up
�� Press conference with VIPs at the end of the event
�� Press releases dispatched on the next day
3.2 Workshop Implementation
3.2.1 Tour of the Area
Immediately before the start of the workshop proper, participants were given an opportunity
to form their own impression of the goods station area on a tour guided by city employees.
The tour lasted about 45 minutes; the offer was taken up by c. 80-90 workshop participants,
corresponding to 75% of the total.
Fig. 9: The tour met with very great interest
Lessons learned and recommendations
�� The tour proved highly valuable as the authentic impression enlivened the subsequent
discussions and put participants on an equal footing with regard to their knowledge.
�� Large audiences may be split into several groups; make sure that guides are able to
make themselves heard.
�� A plan showing the route helps participants get their bearings.
�� Plan for stops along the route; explanations should be as non-judgemental as possible
to allow participants to form their own impression.
�� Additional commentators should briefly introduce themselves and their function.
�� Held immediately before the start of the event, a tour can be easily combined with the
workshop.
18

�� Duration: Depends on the size of the area; c. 45 minutes should be adequate even for
relatively large territories.
3.2.2 The Workshop
Day and duration
The workshop was held from 4 to 8p.m. on a Tuesday afternoon. The tour of the area began
at 3p.m. It was found that both the day and the duration were right for the target group.
Script
A script detailing the implementation of the workshop was prepared in the run-up by the
external moderator, listing each item on the programme, its function, the person responsible,
the equipment required, and related preparatory and follow-up activities (see Appendix). It
assisted internal harmonisation and served to facilitate the briefing of senior administrators
as well as the moderators and co-moderators of the working groups.
Programme
4.00p.m. Welcome and introduction to the subject
Mayor Matthias Hahn, Urban Development Department
4.10p.m. Objectives of the event
Kerstin Langer, KOMMA.PLAN
4.20p.m. Guidelines and objectives for the sustainable development of the Bad Cannstatt goods
station area – Mercedesstraße master plan / amendment of zoning plan 2010
Dr.-Ing. Detlef Kron, Director, Office of Urban development and Renewal
Development feasibility study for construction stage 1
Heinz Lermann, Free Planning Group 7
5.00p.m. Methods and standards of measuring sustainable urban development
- examples of different indicator sets
Nils Krieger, Office of Urban development and Renewal
5.15p.m. Discussion
5.30p.m. Break for snacks
6.00p.m. Discussion of objectives and identification of suitable indicators in three working
groups:
WG 1: Urban Development and Planning Process
Moderator: Dr.-Ing. Detlef Kron, Director, Office of Urban Development and Renewal
WG 2: Environmental and Social Matters
Moderator: Joachim v. Zimmermann, Director, Office of Environmental Protection
WG 3: Traffic and Economy
Moderator: Kerstin Langer, KOMMA.PLAN
7.30p.m. Concluding discussion; selection of most suitable indicators
8.00p.m. End of the workshop
19

Keynote presentations
later: Informal get-together
The function of the three keynote presentations given at the beginning of the workshop was
to
- put the REVIT area in perspective against the background of existing development
goals for the city of Stuttgart and describe the project's importance and opportunities for
urban development;
- describe the existing cornerstones for the development of the REVIT area (master plan)
as well as those still under discussion (development feasibility study) inclusive of a
visual impression of the future 'face' of the area; and to
- introduce briefly the functions and opportunities relating to objectives and indicators.
After a brief plenary discussion, participants were assigned to working groups in a
randomised process. The intention was both to avoid long-winded discussions about
assignments and to ensure that all three working groups would be approximately identical in
size and similarly heterogeneous in their composition, so that all interests involved would be
represented in each group.
Working group concept (duration: c. 90 minutes)
Working groups were held to discuss, amend, delete, modify, and weight the objectives and
indicators suggested by the preparation team.
For this purpose, a list of suggestions was first distributed among participants (see
Appendix).
Working group programme
In the run-up, the programme of the working groups was given a precise structure
harmonised within the moderator's team to ensure that the results eventually produced would
be comparable:
6.00p.m. Brief round of personal introductions
6.10p.m. Description of the procedure
Introduction of the objectives and their related indicators (by representatives of the city
of Stuttgart)
6.20p.m. Queries and discussion guided by 3 questions:
1. In your opinion, which objectives are of particular importance for the development
of the Bad Cannstatt goods station?
2. Are there any important objectives missing?
3. What indicators should be used to evaluate the development?
6.50p.m. Selection of the 3 most important objectives / indicators under each heading
7.00p.m. Discussion of results
7.30p.m. End of working group / return to plenary
There were two methods employed in the working groups, namely
20

- a moderated group discussion, followed by
- a personal weighting of objectives (and indicators) by affixing points to posters.
Fig. 10: Lively discussions in the working groups
The debate in the working groups centred around technical and political matters, while social
concerns may have been short-changed to some extent.
The fact that senior administrators were present in the working groups proved very helpful for
the discussions as well as for the subsequent communication of results in the political
sphere. At the same time, moderators found it difficult to maintain impartiality and discipline
because of their twin role as experts and moderators.
Some moderators felt that the time allotted to group work was too short. However, the survey
conducted among the participants revealed that a clear majority of all respondents regarded
the opportunities for personal comments in the working groups as 'adequate'.
In all working groups, the original lists of objectives and indicators were modified in the
course of the debate and prioritised at the end. For this purpose, participants were given
stickers to affix to posters depicting the objectives (3 points per heading).
Fig. 11: Weighting objectives and indicators
The weighting process yielded clear statements and priorities; thus, for instance,
'safeguarding a balanced social structure' was an issue independently highlighted in all
working groups.
21

Because of the tight schedule, the results of the working groups were merely presented in
plenary but not discussed. As the timeframe of the event did not permit amalgamating the
results of the various working groups, this was done afterwards in the form of a summary of
the most important discussion results drafted by the administration.
Fig.12: The informal get-together on the spot offered opportunities for many an interesting conversation
Pre-selection of objectives and indicators
In view of the complexity of the issue and the tight timeframe of the event, it was found very
helpful to have a list of suggestions with which to begin the discussion. In almost all groups,
the debate focussed on those objectives that were modified to a greater or lesser extent.
Lessons learned and recommendations
A survey among participants showed that the echo was largely positive. The informative part
was rated as good, while the opportunities for stating personal opinions in the working
groups were described as adequate and/or more than adequate. A clear majority would be
prepared to participate in another workshop of a like kind (for more details, see the
evaluation in the Appendix).
Day and duration
�� In the case of Stuttgart, both choices were well suited to the framework conditions
(experimental character) and well chosen for the target group envisaged.
�� To encourage citizens to participate in greater numbers, the event should be held in the
evening or during the weekend.
Programme design
�� Workshop objectives and procedures should be described clearly in the beginning.
�� Present objectives and indicators as well as working-group procedures in the plenary
before group work begins to provide orientation and ensure the same level of
information for everyone.
22

Keynote presentations
�� It is important to brief speakers to ensure that their presentations lead up to the subject
of debating objectives and indicators.
�� Before the event, notify speakers of the time limit (15-20 min.)
Group work concept
�� Keeping objectives and indicators separate is a rather academic endeavour in the
discussion. Working groups discussed both, which is fully justified in the view of the
organisation team. While participants tended to comment on fundamental objectives in
conjunction with some issues, there were others in which indicators appeared more
comprehensible than abstract objectives. A debate about what orientation appears
desirable in the development of an area can be based on both objectives and
indicators.
�� Some more time might be allotted to group work.
�� The discussion benefits from the expert support of senior administrators.
�� Given the limited time available for discussion, it is highly recommendable to include an
external moderator to ensure result orientation.
�� Make sure that the roles of experts and moderators are kept separate.
Pre-selection of objectives and indicators
�� It was found very helpful to have a clearly-structured list of suggested objectives and
indicators.
3.3 Workshop Follow-up
3.3.1 Documentation
The REVIT Planning Workshop was documented in detailed minutes. Copies were mailed to
all participants as well as all members of the local council, the urban-development committee
of the state capital of Stuttgart, and the Bad Cannstatt district advisory committee (see
Appendix).
Thus, the minutes served to
- visualise and finalise the results of the discussions,
- provide basic information for interested parties (e.g. internal inquiries),
- provide a basis for future discussions (may be quoted),
- indicate that the dialogue will continue,
- provide meaningful information for the local council, and
- condense the results in the form of a summary to prepare future political decisions and
to form a bridge leading to subsequent development steps (setup of a suitable project
organisation, further dialogue offers, marketing).
23

3.3.2 Follow-up
In the opinion of the organisation team, the handling of the workshop results in the
downstream process should be as follows:
- The local council, the urban development committee, and the Bad Cannstatt district
advisory council should be notified of the results.
- High-priority goals should be given consideration and cast in more concrete terms in
subsequent plans, particularly in the development-plan process. A summary of the
minutes has been included verbatim in the draft decision to initiate the development plan.
- Based on the lists of objectives and indicators, the administration should develop a policy
paper on 'modules for sustainable development' which should be adopted by the local
council to serve as a basis for urban-development and purchase contracts.
It is suggested to hold another workshop in mid-2006, to be based on the first draft of the
development plan for construction stage 1 as well as on the draft policy paper on
development modules. The intention is to continue and deepen the public discussion about
the objectives of sustainable development.
Lessons learned and recommendations
�� Make sure that minutes are easy to read. On the one hand, they are an indication for
the participants that their results are being taken seriously. On the other hand, the
minutes provide information for those interested parties that were unable to participate
in the workshop.
�� Identify the person responsible for the minutes before the event.
�� Formulate a condensed version of the workshop results for inclusion in local council
papers and other documents.
�� Appoint a member of the administration to look after the further implementation of the
workshop results as well as any downstream steps, such as organising the follow-up
workshop.
4 Differences between the REVIT Planning Workshop and the RESCUE Approach
The REVIT Planning Workshop in Stuttgart and the RESCUE approach fundamentally differ
in the timing of the workshop and the composition of its participants. While the RESCUE
approach features a workshop at a very early stage of the project, i.e. at a time when an idea
has been conceived but no master plan developed as yet, the REVIT Planning Workshop
was held after major aspects of the project had been defined in principle on the political
plane. From the RESCUE point of view, early timing is necessary to ensure that projectrelated
decisions can still be influenced by sustainability objectives.
Most of the participants of the REVIT Planning Workshop were decision-makers and experts.
Conversely, the RESCUE approach assumes that target selection should be essentially
based on a gathering of technical experts, decision-makers, and citizens. Both approaches,
RESCUE as well as REVIT, enhance reflectiveness through greater participation by citizens
and experts in RESCUE, and by experts alone in REVIT.
24

5 Conclusion
From the point of view of the city administration, the REVIT Planning Workshop in Stuttgart
was a highly successful event, having embedded the aspects of sustainability and dialogue
orientation in the development of complex areas such as the goods station on the political
plane, and paved the way for follow-up events and additional dialogue offers. The fact that
the event was held within the framework on an EU project did much to clear away initial
scepticisms and obstacles.
The mere fact that sustainability objectives and indicators are discussed will improve the
integration of the aspect of 'sustainability' in urban development and development. Thus,
indicators may play an important role as political signals. This holds particularly true for
process-related indicators as they show what control steps are required.
In addition, the Stuttgart workshop proved itself instrumental in incorporating expert
knowledge in the planning process. This may help to enhance reflectiveness with regard to
sustainability issues and the substantiation of decisions. 22
In urban development, indicators are normally used in ex-post evaluations forming part of a
monitoring process. 23 Stuttgart provides an example of how indicators may be used in the
planning process so that consideration may be given to sustainability goals even at this early
stage.
At the same time, the REVIT Planning Workshop showed clearly that a single event module
is not enough to deal with all relevant issues exhaustively and involve all target groups in a
satisfactory manner.
Thus, the workshop on objectives and indicators for the Bad Cannstatt goods station area
assumes the important role of a kick-off event to be followed by further 'tailor-made'
meetings.
The modules that might follow this event include
- an evening dedicated to investors,
- an event targeting the owners of adjacent properties, and
- a second REVIT workshop to formulate objectives and indicators more concretely, to be
held at some downstream stage in the development-planning process in the summer of
2006. Another subject might be the policy paper on 'modules of sustainable development
for the Bad Cannstatt goods station'.
22 Jürg Minsch, Peter-Henning Feind, Hans-Peter Meister, Uwe Schneidewind, Tobias Schulz,
Institutionelle Reformen für eine Politik der Nachhaltigkeit, 'Konzept Nachhaltigkeit', series published
by the Commission of Inquiry on the protection of man and the environment established by the 13th
Federal Diet, Berlin-Heidelberg 1998, p. 33.
23 Ibid., p. 144.
25

Appendix:
Letter of invitation, incl. reply form
Invitation flyer
List of objectives and indicators for discussion
Script
Evaluation report (ZEFIR)
Minutes
Indicator lists used for screening

Landeshauptstadt Stuttgart
Beigeordneter für Städtebau
GZ: St 7831-02.05
Bürgermeister
Matthias Hahn
Hausadresse:
Rathaus, Marktplatz 1
70173 Stuttgart
Postadresse:
70161 Stuttgart
Telefon (07 11) 2 16-23 00
Fax (07 11) 2 16-78 12
Invitation to the REVIT Workshop
'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station – Guidelines and Objectives for Sustainable Development'
Dear Sir or Madam,
You are hereby cordially invited to the workshop 'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station –
Guidelines and Objectives for Sustainable Development' scheduled for
Tuesday, October 18, 2005, from 4p.m. to 8p.m. in the building
of the future city archive, Bellingweg 21.
On June 7, 2005, the Stuttgart City Council adopted the Mercedesstraße master plan
which defines the fundamental guidelines governing the development of the area
around the Bad Cannstatt goods station.
At the workshop, we intend to discuss with you this master plan and its future formulation
in more concrete terms. Next to presenting relevant guidelines and objectives, it
will be our main concern to discuss with you the question of what indicators should be
used to measure the success and sustainability of the development of the Bad Cannstatt
goods station area.
For a description of the occasion and the programme please consult the enclosed documentation.
I look forward to welcoming you. Please reply, using the enclosed form
sheet, no later than October 4, 2005.
With kind regards
-
Matthias Hahn
Mayor
Enclosures

Please reply no later than October 4, 2005
Amt für Stadtplanung und Stadterneuerung
Abteilung Stadtentwicklung
Mr Krieger
Eberhardstraße 10
D-70173 Stuttgart
Phone: +49 (0)711 216 6291/2707; email: nils.krieger@stuttgart.de
Fax: +49 (0)711 216 3171
Sender: .................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
.................................................................................
REVIT Workshop 'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station – Guidelines and Objectives for
Sustainable Development' on October 18, 2005, 4 pm to 8 pm
I will participate.
We will send a delegation of …
I/we will join the guided tour of the area.
I/we ask to be excused but would like to be informed about the results.
I/we will join the party visiting the 'Cannstatter Tor' restaurant after the event.
...................................................................
Date, signature

REVIT WORKSHOP Bad Cannstatt Goods Station – Guidelines and Objectives
for Sustainable Development

PROGRAMME
REVITALISING INDUSTRIAL SITES
6 p.m. Discussion of objectives and
identification of suitable indicators in
three working groups:
Introduction: Guided tour of the area (meeting
point: Bellingweg 21, 3p.m.)
Susanne Wehle-Faiß, Office of Urban Planning and
Development
Bad Cannstatt
Goods Station
WG 1: Urban Development and Planning Process
Moderator: Dr.-Ing. Detlef Kron, Director, Office of
Urban Planning and Renewal
WG 2: Environmental and Social Matters
Moderator: Joachim von Zimmermann, Director,
Office of Environmental Protection
WG 3: Traffic and Economy
Moderator: Kerstin Langer, KOMMA.PLAN
4 p.m. Welcome and introduction to the
subject, Mayor Matthias Hahn,
Urban Development Department
Guidelines and Objectives for
Sustainable Development
4.10 p.m. Objectives of the event;
introductions,
Kerstin Langer, KOMMA.PLAN
7.30 p.m. Concluding discussion; selection
of most suitable indicators
4.20 p.m. Guidelines and objectives for the
sustainable development of the
Bad Cannstatt Goods Station area
8 p.m. End of the workshop; followed by
a get-together in the 'Cannstatter
Tor' restaurant, Bad Cannstatt
railway station
General moderator:
Kerstin Langer, KOMMA.PLAN
– Mercedesstraße master plan /
amendment of zoning plan 2010 Dr.-Ing. Detlef K
ron, Director, Office of Urban Planning and
Renewal
- Development feasibility study for
construction stage 1
Heinz Lermann, Planning Group 7
CONTACTS
Tuesday, October 18, 2005
4 p.m. to 8 p.m.
Nils Krieger Phone: +49 (0)711 216 6291
Fax: +49 (0)711 216 2672
nils.krieger@stuttgart.de
5 p.m. Methods and standards of
measuring sustainable urban development –
examples of different indicator sets
Nils Krieger, Office of Urban Planning and
Renewal
Stuttgart - Bad Cannstatt
Future City Archive Building
Bellingweg 21
Eberhard Koning Phone: +49 (0)711 216 3869
Fax: +49 (0)711 216 2672
eberhard.koning@stuttgart.de
5.15 p.m. Discussion
5.30 p.m. Break for snacks
Published by: City of Stuttgart,
Office of Urban Planning and Renewal
A project of the EU Community initiative
INTERREG III B NWE (2000-2008)
Status : 13-09-2005

WORKSHOP STRUCTURE
THE OCCASION
INVITATION
In the first part, the objectives of the master plan
and the feasibility study for construction stage 1
will be presented together with an overview of
common indicators of sustainability in urban
development.
Within the framework of the EU project REVIT
(towards more effective and sustainable brownfield
revitalisation policies), the state capital of Stuttgart,
together with its partner cities of Tilburg (NL),
Hengelo (NL), Medway (GB), Torfaen (GB), and
Nantes (F), develops ideas and concepts to
revitalise brownfields and/or areas that are not
used optimally. The objective is to enhance the
effectiveness and sustainability of brownfield
revitalisation. One of the major problems arising in
this context will be the development of tools for
effectiveness reviews. Based on existing sets of
indicators, sustainability objectives and indicators
will be defined which may be used to review the
sustainability of the chosen development process.
The EU project REVIT aims to identify ways of
developing brownfields more effectively and
sustainably. In Stuttgart, the project area is that
surrounding the Bad Cannstatt Goods Station.
On June 7, 2005, the Stuttgart City Council
adopted the Mercedesstraße master plan for
Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt. The master plan was
developed by the Baldauf planning office on behalf
of the Office of Urban Planning and Renewal. It
lays down guidelines and objectives for the future
development of the Bad Cannstatt Goods Station.
A feasibility study formulating more concrete
planning goals for the first stage of construction
has already been commissioned. Preliminary
results will be available by the time for which the
workshop is scheduled and presented there.
In the second part, three working groups will
discuss what objectives are particularly important
for the sustainable development of the Bad
Cannstatt Goods Station area, and what indicators
appear particularly suitable for future effectiveness
reviews.
HOW TO GET THERE
The workshop will serve to discuss the
development goals applying to the area of the Bad
Cannstatt Goods Station, and to identify suitable
indicators. It will be based on the Mercedesstraße
master plan and the development feasibility study
evolved from it for the first stage of construction.
The workshop's results, in turn, will form the basis
for more concrete planning specifications in the
development plan. In addition, they will form a
module of a REVIT manual containing
recommendations on the use of indicators for
sustainable urban development.
At the workshop, we plan to discuss the
development objectives for the area with interested
and responsible persons, with a focus on the
aspect of sustainable development. Particular
attention will be paid to the question of what
indicators appear suitable for use in future
effectiveness reviews.
You are cordially invited to participate in this event
and contribute your own ideas.
S-Bahn number
S1, S2, S3
Alight at 'Bad
Cannstatt Bahnhof´
Tram number U1,
U2; Alight at
`Wilhelmsplatz´
Bus number 56
Alight at
`Veielbrunnenweg´
PARTICIPANTS
I am looking for forward to an interesting meeting.
Interested citizens; representatives of
administration departments, civil organisations,
and clubs; representatives of the real-estate
industry (investors, housing companies, project
developers); representatives of the local economy;
representatives of the district advisory council and
the local council.
Matthias Hahn
Deputy mayor in charge of urban development

REVIT WORKSHOP Bad Cannstatt Goods Station – Guidelines and Objectives
for Sustainable Development
Development Objectives and Indicators
The following lists contain compilations of the objectives for the development of the
goods station area that were mentioned so far in the master plan and/or other municipal
development plans (FNP 2010, STEK, technical plans). In addition, they show
optional indicators/standards for effectiveness monitoring later on.
These lists were compiled by the team preparing the REVIT Workshop as a basis for
discussion in working groups 1-3.
General Objectives
�� To revamp the entire area as 'Neckarpark Stuttgart' under the 'river landscape of
the future' master project of the urban development concept;
�� to convert the Veielbrunnen and Reichenbachstraße areas into vigorous mixeduse
quarters;
�� to develop a new, mixed-use city quarter on the goods-station premises with a
focus on reinforcing the industrial role of the location (variant 1 of the Mercedesstraße
master plan); and
�� to secure and strengthen the regional importance of the location for sports, culture,
and leisure.

Working Group 1: Urban Development and Planning Process
Urban Development (Objectives from the FNP, master plan, etc.)
Objective
1. To conserve space ('compact' development)
through
a) location-optimised building density and
b) outstanding building quality
2. Mix of various uses ('urban'), short walking distances
3. Ample vegetation ('green') through
a) neighbourhood parks and playgrounds and
b) networking with open spaces nearby
Indicator / Standard
- GFZ 1.5 plus; 100 RU/ha
- Project development through
architecture contests
- Small plots; maximum number
of contractors and architects
- No ground-floor residences
- 20% min. of the development
area as (private or public) parks
and gardens
(1. - 3.: concept FNP 2010 'compact, urban,
green', master plan)
4. Conservation and reuse of existing buildings - Preserved buildings (customs
and uses meriting protection (master plan) office etc.)
5. Flexible use in blocks/buildings (master plan) - Flexible plot use
- High percentage of neutral
building structures
6. High quality of residential buildings, floor plans, - Greater height between floors
and the environment (master plan)
(e.g. 3.10m plus)
- Large balconies/roof terraces
(e.g. 20% floorspace)
- Generous stairwells
- Project development through
architecture contests
7. Promotion of new housing models such as buil- - E.g. 10% share in the total conding
communities (STEK)
struction volume
8. Development of a barrier-free quarter - E.g. min. 10% share of barrierfree
apartments
Green zone/'REVIT Park' to be developed as - High design standard through
an address/image factor
contests
- Tree-planting campaign, construction
stage 1

Working Group 1: Urban Development and Planning Process
Planning Process (Objectives from the FNP, master plan, etc.)
Objective
1. Secure and strengthen the involvement of citizens/stakeholders/investors
in the planning
process (RESCUE)
2. Safeguard information-flow and processmanagement
quality (RESCUE)
3. Ensure efficient cross-departmental project management
(RESCUE, PROSIDE)
4. Ensure quality management in downstream
planning (PROSIDE)
Indicator / Standard
- Number/audience of information
events
- Provision of funds
- Web appearance
- Info office
- Print info brochures
- Number of press reports
- Appoint project ombudsman
- 'One stop shop' for investors
- Project group with decision-
making competence
- Advisory council on design,
consultation of experts

Working Group 2: Environmental and Social Matters
Environment (Objectives from the FNP, master plan, etc.)
Objective
1. Secure share of parks in built-up areas, keep
sealing low (environmental report: surface sealing
in Stuttgart)
2. Avoid increasing troughs through development
(climate atlas)
3. Reduce background noise level caused by traffic
(noise abatement plan)
4. Conserve energy through low-energy housing
(KLIKS)
5. Promote renewable energy, optimise solar energy
use (KLIKS)
6. Avoid air, water, soil, and noise pollution during
the construction phase (SEEDA) and afterwards
7. Ensure sustainable remediation of inherited
pollution (RESCUE)
8. Create link to the Neckarpark Stuttgart, implement
the 'city on the river' project
9. Plant Mercedesstraße completely (avenue)
Indicator / Standard
- > 30% min. green area in residential
and mixed areas; > 15%
in industrial areas
- 4 - 6 floors (max. 6 floors)
- DIN 18005 – conform to noise
standards for mixed areas
- 30% or so below current heat
insulation standards
- 50% or so of the hot water consumed
annually to be heated by
solar energy
- Appoint experts for environmental
quality management
- No infringement of regulatory
soil pollution standards
- Increase permanently vegetated
area on the riverside
- Number, quality of Mercedesstraße
crossings
- Tree-planting programme

Working Group 2: Environmental and Social Matters
Social (Objectives from the FNP, master plan, etc.)
Objective
Indicator / Standard
1. Family-friendly quarter (STEK) - High proportion of families with
children
- High number of playground
1. Secure supply of basic social requirements
(AGSP)
2. Improve the accessibility of schools
3. Secure a balanced social structure (SEEDA)
5. Secure/provide rooms/assembly areas for
community purposes (SEEDA)
6. Secure/provide affordable housing (SEEDA)
streets
- Meet the kindergarden demand
in the quarter; 1 : 1 child/place
ratio
- Access maps for all schools
- Remove barriers from railway
underpass
- Safeguard minimum proportions:
� 10% building communities
� 50% owner-occupier flats
� 10% apartments for handicapped
and elderly persons
- E.g. 10% floorspace
- Cost per m² of living space e.g.
20% below comparable areas

Working Group 3: Traffic and Economy
Traffic (Objectives from the FNP, master plan, etc.)
Objective
1. City-conformable mobility; modify modal split in
the quarter in favour of the environmental network
(public transport, bikes, pedestrians)
a) for large public events
(FNP 2010, STEK traffic)
2. Restriction of parking space to the requirements
matrix
Indicator / Standard
- Proportion of network:
MPT traffic routes = 2 : 1
- a) Share of combination
tickets for events
- b) Proportion of season-ticket
holders among residents
- Residential: 0.8 P/WU plus optional
space for additional demand
- Industrial: 1 P/30 - 70m² of
floorspace
- Peripheral arrangement of residential
car parks
- 10-minute train intervals
3. Improve public transport service; objective:
regular service on the U11 line
4. Adequate easily-accessible bike-parking facili- - e.g. min. 2.0 roofed parking
ties
(10 point programme LM)
spaces/RU
5. Optimise public-space design (STEK) - Public space largely free of
parked vehicles
6. Create attractive pedestrian and bicycle con- - Railway through-passes suitnections
to the old town, Seelberg quarter (maable for handicapped persons
ster plan)
- Links with the Neckar-side bike
path (riverside promenade)
7. Traffic calming in residential areas (STEK, traf- - Traffic calming in all residential
fic)
8. Create attractive pedestrian pathways to public
transport stops
streets (7km/h)
- S-Bahn station
- Direct access
- Tram line
(STEK traffic, master plan)
- Pedestrian-friendly access
9 Upgrade Mercedesstraße as a leisure and cul- - Increase space for pedestrians
tural promenade (master plan, PROSIDE test - Lower proportion of through
plan)
traffic (currently c. 50%)
- Vehicle-speed (50km/h max.)
- Number/design of crossover
points

Working Group 3: Traffic and Economy
Economy (Objectives from the FNP, master plan, etc.)
Objective
1. Strengthen business location, create jobs and
locations for industrial plants (master plan, variant
1)
2. Economic viability of the project (master plan)
3. Affordable housing for large segments of the
population (STEK)
Indicator / Standard
- Flexible, small plots
- Low m² prize for high-value industrial
properties
- High proportion of growth in-
dustries
- No burden on the communal
budget
- Speedy implementation (max.
10 years of settlement time)
- Flexible urban fields and flexi-
ble use
- m² prize for owner-occupier
flats 20% or so below comparable
areas
- Proportion of council housing

Script – Workshop 'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station – Guidelines and Objectives for Sustainable Development' on 18-10-2005 (second draft)
Run-up Preparations
1. Define assistants for the following areas
- Catering please clarify
- Guest reception/badge issue please clarify; Sonja Hörster, co-moderator of KOMMA.PLAN, might assist
- Entertainment of foreign partners, if any Eberhard Koning
- 1 standby please clarify
2. Briefing
- Briefing of WG moderators Mr Kron and Mr von Zimmermann: by Mr Krieger and Mr Kirchholtes
- Briefing of co-moderators Krieger and Kirchholtes: by KOMMA.PLAN
- Briefing of moderators about the contents of the development feasibility study and the current political discussion: on 7-10 or 18-10, in the
morning (with Mr Lermann)
3. Materials
- Prepared posters showing objectives and indicators for the working groups: KOMMA.PLAN (Langer)
- Preparing one large framework plan for each working group showing the borders of the area under discussion
Preparation and Follow-up
Time Min Agenda Item Function Responsibility Event Format /
Equipment
Name signs (for panel and audience)
Check working rooms: seating, screens, flipcharts
for working groups etc.
Distribute OK cards (one colour/working group)
2pm Prepare room, check equipment Eberhard
Michael
KOMMA.PLAN
Programme on transparency
3.45pm 15 Arrival, small talk Informal welcome All
4pm 10 Welcome and introduction to the subject, refer Introduction Mayor Hahn Plenary
to REVIT
4.10pm 5 Programme overview
Orientation Langer Plenary/beamer
Workshop purposes:
Screen
1. Present existing guidelines and objectives
Microphone
2. Jointly and pragmatically identify indicators
Amplifier
for measuring the sustainability of development
in the goods station area
Briefly remark on how the results of the workshop
are to handled in the future
KOMMA.PLAN, Kerstin LangerGeorg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 28 D-81829 München langer@komma-plan.de Phone: +49 (0)89 / 90936818 1

Preparation and Follow-up
Time Min Agenda Item Function Responsibility Event Format /
Equipment
Round of introductions Langer OK cards Get OK cards ready
4.14pm 5 Brief presentation of
A) external guests, any REVIT partners, and
ZEFIR personnel, questionnaire announcement
B) introductions of plenary members; request
show of hands with OK cards
1. Who comes from the political field?
2. Who is from a civil or non-profit organisation?
3. Who is a project developer or contractor?
4. Who represents the city administration?
5. Who comes from Bad Cannstatt?
6. Who lives in the immediate vicinity of the
goods station area?
7. Who has studied the issue of indicators?
Dr. Kron Beamer Framework plan and invitation mailed before;
keep further copies ready if required
Present framework
conditions and contents
Beamer Hand copies out if necessary
Concretisation Heinz Lermann,
Free Planning
Group 7
Langer
4.20pm 20 Presentation Dr. Kron:
Guidelines and objectives for the sustainable
development of the Bad Cannstatt goods
station – Mercedesstraße master plan
4.40pm 15 Presentation Mr Lermann
Development feasibility study for construction
stage 1
Explain the subject Nils Krieger Beamer
4.45pm 5 Brief opportunity to ask questions of understanding
5pm 15 Methods and standards for measuring the sustainability
of urban development – examples of
indicator sets
Langer
5.15pm 15 Questions
Working group assignment
5.30pm 30 Break for snacks
Working groups Posters with indicator suggestions in an open list
Flipcharts
Screens
Kron/ Krieger
v. Zimmermann /
Kirchholtes
Langer/ Hör-
6pm 75 Discussion of objectives and identification of
suitable indicators in three working groups
ster/Öhler
7.15pm 15 End of working group session; return to plenary Hang up posters, brief consultation among moderators/co-moderators
KOMMA.PLAN, Kerstin LangerGeorg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 28 D-81829 München langer@komma-plan.de Phone: +49 (0)89 / 90936818 2

Preparation and Follow-up
Time Min Agenda Item Function Responsibility Event Format /
Equipment
Presentation of results Working-group moderators
7.30pm 30 Moderators report on discussions in the working
groups
- What objectives were regarded as particularly
important by the WG?
- Which objectives were amended?
- Which indicators were regarded as
particularly suitable?
Questions for other working groups
Open discussion
Acknowledgements, outlook, and farewell Orientation Mayor Hahn?
8pm End of meeting; informal get-together
Work in Groups (Suggested Procedure)
Preparation and Follow-up
Time Min Agenda Item Function Responsibility Event Format /
Equipment
6pm 10 Brief introductions by participants:
Moderator Handout Prepare handout with objectives and indicators
Name; function; what is your main concern with
regard to the Bad Cannstatt goods station (one
sentence)
6.10pm 10 Presentation of objectives and related
Moderator
indicators
6.20pm 30 Questions and discussion; 3 guiding questions: Feedback on guide- Moderator Flipchart Prepare posters with objectives and indicators;
1. What objectives do you regard as parlines and objectives
record argumentation in the minutes
ticularly important for the development Completion of indica-
of the Bad Cannstatt goods station? tors
2. Are there any major objectives missing?
3. What indicators should be used to
evaluate the development?
6.50pm 10 Weighting of the three most important objec- Snapshot of the mood Moderator Poster Get ready and issue point stickers
tives/indicators by points
in the group
7pm 15 Discussion about the general mood Moderator
KOMMA.PLAN, Kerstin LangerGeorg-Kerschensteiner-Str. 28 D-81829 München langer@komma-plan.de Phone: +49 (0)89 / 90936818 3

Minutes of the Workshop
Bad Cannstatt Goods Station
Guidelines and Objectives for Sustainable
Development
on 18-10-2005, 4p.m. to 8p.m.
in Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, future city archive, Bellingweg 21

Publication Data
Edited by: City of Stuttgart, Office of Urban Planning and Renewal
Organisation and implementation: Nils Krieger, Eberhard Koning, Office of Urban Planning and
Renewal; Hermann Kirchholtes, Office of Environmental Protection
Moderators: Kerstin Langer, Sonja Hörster, KOMMA.PLAN
Illustrations: Elke Zahn, Fotostudio Elke and Jochen Zahn, Munich; Gritta Geffers, Office of Urban
Planning and Renewal, Stuttgart
This project is sponsored by the EU Community initiative INTERREG III B NWE (2000-2008).
2

Table of Contents
1 Programme
Mayor Matthias Hahn: Welcome and Introduction to the Subject
2 Presentations and Discussion
2.1 Dr. Detlef Kron: Guidelines and Objectives for the Sustainable Development of the Bad
Cannstatt Goods Station – Mercedesstraße Master Plan / Amendment of Zoning Plan 2010
2.2 Heinz Lermann: Development Feasibility Study for Construction Stage 1
2.3 Nils Krieger: Methods and Standards to Measure Sustainable Urban Development –
Examples of Different Indicator Sets
2.4 Discussion
3 Working Group Results
3.1 WG 1: Urban Development and Planning Process
3.2 WG 2: Environmental and Social Matters
3.3 WG 3: Traffic and Economy
4 Summary
Appendix:
I Development Objectives and Indicators (tabular overview)
II List of Participants
3

1 Programme
4p.m. Welcome and Introduction to the Subject
Mayor Matthias Hahn, Urban Development Department
4.10p.m. Purpose and Structure of the Workshop
4.20p.m. Summary Presentations
Guidelines and Objectives for the Sustainable Development of the Bad Cannstatt
Goods Station Area – Mercedesstraße Master Plan / Amendment of Zoning Plan
2010
Dr.-Ing. Detlef Kron, Director, Office of Urban Planning and Renewal
5.15p.m. Discussion
Development Feasibility Study for Construction Stage 1
Heinz Lermann, Free Planning Group 7
Methods and Standards of Measuring Sustainable Urban Development – Examples
of Different Indicator Sets
Nils Krieger, Office of Urban Planning and Renewal
5.30p.m. Break for snacks
6p.m. Discussion in Working Groups
Discussion of objectives and identification of suitable indicators:
WG 1: Urban Development and Planning Process
Moderator: Dr.-Ing. Detlef Kron
WG 2: Environmental and Social Matters
Moderator: Joachim von Zimmermann
WG 3: Traffic and Economy
Moderator: Kerstin Langer
7.30p.m. Presentation of Results; Concluding Session
8p.m. End of the Workshop
Informal Get-together
General moderator: Kerstin Langer, KOMMA.PLAN
4

Welcome and Introduction to the Subject
Mayor Hahn welcomed the audience of more than 100,
emphasising the particular importance of the Bad
Cannstatt goods station area for the development of
Stuttgart. Within the framework of the EU project
REVIT, new ways of enhancing the effectiveness and
sustainability of brown field development were being
investigated. This workshop was intended to contribute
towards this investigation. Objectives as well as
indicators would be identified to serve as a basis for
monitoring later on.
The results would form the basis of the downstream
planning process. The next step would be a resolution to amend the zoning plan and generate a
development plan before the end of this year.
2 Presentations and Discussions
2.1 Guidelines and Objectives for the Sustainable Development of the Bad Cannstatt
Goods Station Area – Mercedesstraße Master Plan / Amendment of Zoning
Plan 2010
Dr. Detlef Kron
In recent years, an incomparable variety of programmes and plans had been developed for the
Bad Cannstatt goods station in a process that might almost be called 'evolutionary planning': Starting
with the 'Olympia 2012 master plan', which contained plans for an Olympic village, the process
had led, via a structural concept developed in 2002, straight to today's master plan that was
adopted by the local council in June 2005.
The development of the Bad Cannstatt goods station offered a splendid opportunity of coming
closer to the 'city on the river'. Forming part of the future 'Neckar Park', the goods station constituted
an important module in the 'river landscape of the future'.
Among other core elements, the master plan specified that
- the urban development concept up to Benzstraße would follow the diagonal layout of Bad
Cannstatt, whereas the areas reserved for sports would be arranged in a square pattern;
- a major point in the development concept would be the creation of escape routes;
- a lively mixed-use quarter would be developed with a focus on strengthening the commercial
sector; and
- the 'city on the river' project would be cast in more concrete shape.
The entire area would receive important impulses from projects such as the St. Anna Youth Centre,
condominium projects, and the Benz Museum which is about to be opened.
The development of the area was rendered somewhat difficult by the different terms of the existing
lease contracts for commercial use. However, the municipality was highly active in this regard,
conducting numerous negotiations and ensuring that large areas were now available for immediate
development.
5

Fig: Mercedesstraße Master Plan, Variant 1 (Baldauf office)
2.2 Development Feasibility Study for Construction Stage 1
Heinz Lermann
The area surrounding the Bad Cannstatt goods station had been a focus of planning for around 35
years, an indication that the area was either highly difficult or highly interesting to develop. By way
of preparing the development plan, Free Planning Group 7 had been commissioned to generate a
development feasibility study for the first stage of construction. In the context, the specifications
laid down in the master plan had been subjected to another intense scrutiny.
The following master plan specifications would be basically retained in future detailed planning
activities:
- the rerouting of Benzstraße to obtain a functional traffic layout as well as marketable plots
for construction;
- the fundamental arrangement of blocks;
- the inclusion of a green border within the quarter to serve as a buffer zone;
- the 'Broadway' as a bridge to the sports forum; and
- the creation of peripheral pedestrian axes.
In the course of the feasibility study, some of the essential features of the master plan were developed
and modified, so that it now provided for
6

- enlarging the green border to form a quarter park;
- creating a longitudinal square on Mercedesstraße;
- creating large function areas (e.g. at the site of the Hans Martin Schleyer Hall); and
- developing a flexible-use scheme (commercial/residential use) for Benzstraße.
Two variants of design and use were developed on that basis:
Variant A: 'mixed use', and Variant B: 'residential focus', resulting in two different forms of the master
plan:
'Mixed Use' Variant 'Residential Focus' Variant
Flexible periphery structures Flexible spatial structures
Generous block structures Loose peripheral structures
Park Quarter park
Integration of commercial uses Relocation of commercial uses
Multi-purpose square and arched bridge Multi-purpose square and arched bridge
Quarter car park (multi-storey)
In the 'residential focus' variant, buildings were arranged to benefit more from the sun, and the design
of the park was family-friendly.
The essential features of the updated development plan included
- a symmetrical spatial arrangement on Benzstraße featuring flexible building areas,
- a spacious pedestrian passage for efficient guidance of the traffic to and from event sites,
- a generous passenger bridge across the railway installations together with a 'stairwell' as
an additional design element for the future Neckar Park, and
- bridge heads (axis Fruchtsäule – 'camping island' – new Neckar footbridge – Villa Berg
park).
7

Fig: Development feasibility study, variant A: Mixed use (Free Planning Group 7)
Fig: Development feasibility study, variant B: Residential focus (Free Planning Group 7)
8

On the subject of indicators, Mr Lermann asked participants to keep in mind that there were three
goals which were of importance for the development and value of the new city quarter:
- same city – same quality
- equivalence of public and built-on areas
- the growth of the Neckar Park is based on many bridge heads.
Under these goals, the launch of the 'Neckar Park Bad Cannstatt' project might finally be initiated
after 3 decades of planning.
2.3 Methods and Standards of Measuring Sustainable Urban Development – Examples of
Different Indicator Sets
Nils Krieger
Indicators of the sustainability of urban development, such as those wanted for the Bad Cannstatt
goods station, might potentially serve three purposes. They might be instrumental in
- formulating planning objectives more precisely,
- enhancing transparency, and
- facilitating effectiveness reviews ('monitoring').
In the last few years, quite a number of scientific and pragmatic approaches had emerged for
defining indicators of sustainable urban development, ranging from extensive EU projects (SEEDA
and RESCUE) to projects on the national plane, such as ExWoSt (experimental residential and
urban development), a project of the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning.
The ideas and proposals developed for today's event were essentially based on the EU project
RESCUE because it was within the framework of this project that the suggestion was made to develop
customised indicators for individual projects, and to hold a workshop with important stakeholders
to discuss and modify these indicators.
Another novel feature in this workshop as a 'pilot action' within the framework of the EU project
REVIT was the use of indicators at the city-quarter level.
Under the ExWoSt research project, 5 orientation values and 14 success indicators for the sustainability
of urban development had been developed for practical use in local planning.
Some major starting points for sustainable urban development were formulated in the updated version
of zoning plan 2010 in Stuttgart including, for instance, the motto 'compact, urban, green', a
modal split of 50% private motorised transport and 50% public transport, and the objective of an
inner-to-outer development ratio of 4:1 for the further development of the estate. Similar indicators
were defined for the Stuttgart 21, Bosch Area, and Burgholzhof projects (modal split, heat emission
15% below the thermal insulation standard, plot size, etc.).
This being so, the following question stood out in this workshop: Which are the most essential objectives
and the most telling indicators for use as standards for the sustainable development of the
goods station area?
9

2.4 Discussion
Question: To begin with, workshop participants asked whether using this location for residential
purposes could be considered realistic in the first place. After all, it was questionable whether the
location could be used at all for residential purposes because of the level of noise emanating from
the festival grounds, for instance; whether its residential use would be actually accepted; and what
resident objective groups the location would appeal to.
Answer: Residential uses would be concentrated in the interior of the new quarter and screened off
from the festival grounds by structural features. The level of noise currently generated, which was
in part due to the present commercial use of the area, would have to be related to the level of noise
envisaged under the plan. Mr Lermann was convinced that the noise problem could be controlled.
The extremely successful development of the area next to the Munich Theresienwiese could be
cited as an example. Similarly situated immediately adjacent to a large festival ground (Oktoberfest),
the land was sold off quickly and at high prices. Noise might be a problem only in high-rise
buildings. Additional noise protection would have to be considered in these cases. Outside working
hours, however, the residential area might be expected to be quiet.
Mayor Hahn noted that the location was basically intended for mixed residential use. The area had
a great potential of developing into a high-quality location. The LEG, for instance, had rated it as an
area 'with a perspective' which, of course, needed a great deal more work done on it.
Question/answer: A question about the public-transport connections envisaged for the new quarter
was answered by Mr Lermann to the effect that while an extension of the U 11 underground had
been considered in the plan, talks with the SSB had given no clear indication of whether that extension
would actually be built. At the moment, the SSB thought it would be difficult to finance the
construction of a new line or the extension of the existing U 11.
Question: Another important aspect was the question of how to route festival-ground visitors in the
future to keep them from passing through the residential area.
Answer: Visitor routing was indeed important, and attempts had been made to consider the routing
of these vast flows of pedestrians both in the development concept and in the road layout.
Question: Workshop participants asked how a modal split of 50/50 could be achieved.
Answer: Dr. Kron commented that these were objective values, and that there was no guarantee at
present as to whether they could actually be achieved. Both the usage of and investments in public
transport crucially depended on the potential number of users in a given quarter.
10

Comment/demand: This being so, participants noted that it would be important to keep publictransport
pathways open from the start so as not to lose the option.
Question: A fundamental question addressed the implementation schedule: How could the quality
of the area be developed, and how could it be transformed into a location with a 'positive address'
if plots became available only gradually?
Answer: Mayor Hahn assured participants that many plots would become available fairly quickly in
spite of the existence of long-term leases, and that negotiations about numerous other plots were
progressing.
3 Working Group Results
After the presentations and discussions in the plenary,
the subject of suitable objectives and indicators for the
Bad Cannstatt goods station area was elaborated in a
one-hour discussion in three working groups.
Each working group was attended by about 20
participants. After a brief round of personal introductions,
objectives and indicators were briefly
explained by a representative of the city of Stuttgart.
After some initial misunderstandings had been cleared
away, working-group members discussed some
subjects at greater depth, proposals were made
regarding the reformulation of objectives, and additional
objectives and indicators were recommended for
inclusion.
In some working groups, the discussion had to
be broken off for lack of time, so that not all of
the objectives suggested could be discussed.
Nevertheless, objectives and indicators were
weighted at the end of each working group
session by allotting three points per subject to
each participant, to award as desired. Results
relating to the reformulation, amendment, and
weighting of objectives are shown in the
appendix to this documentation.
11

3.1 Working Group 1: Urban Development and Planning Process
Urban Development
The debate started off with a fundamental
question: Is there any chance of living in this
location?
Chief Magistrate Fischer explained his
reservations about residential use, his fears
about imbalances in the social structure,
and his anxiety that there might be no
demand. In the traditional perception of all
Cannstatt citizens, the area south of the
railway line is reserved for commercial use.
In the debate, it was pointed out that about
2500 people were living in the existing
residential area south of the railway line, and that the area was being rehabilitated. This being so,
the existing island of residential use should be reinforced and mixed use promoted in the new
quarter.
The Theresienhöhe in Munich and another area in the west of Zurich were pointed out as comparable
examples. In these cases, non-locations had been successfully converted into locations with
an attractive image, thanks to the particular quality of the open spaces and a network of park areas.
The study of the Free Planning Group was consulted with regard to the possible number of residential
units. Given four-storey buildings, about 450 residential units might be created for about
1000 residents. Mr Söding of the Auer and Weber office pointed out that the earlier master plan
had envisaged a markedly larger population, which appeared indispensable to safeguard the social
infrastructure and the viability of the quarter.
Several speakers endorsed a larger population, provided that a balanced social structure was assured.
The relatively high building density envisaged was to be accompanied by buildings and an urban
environment of comparatively high quality, which required the creation of quiet inner zones.
The quality of parks and open spaces was perceived as being of particular importance for the future
image of the area. No buildings were to be allowed to 'nibble away' at the park area, which
was to be linked to the Neckar by an attractive zone verte. It was considered important for the new
quarter to be well networked with the neighbouring city districts, particularly the old town of Cannstatt
and the Karlsbader Straße. A point of particular importance in this context is the quality of the
network nodes.
Separate routes were to be created to prevent conflicts during large-scale public events.
It was regarded as particularly important for the location that the infrastructure, including public
transport, should be ready in good time. An infrastructural centre should be created in the quarter.
While the area was being settled in stages according to plan, temporary uses should be permitted
and supported to promote the image of the quarter.
Conclusion:
- The balance of the social structure should be ensured, and more residential units should
be planned.
12

- High-quality open spaces and a good connection to the Neckar park are of crucial importance
for the attractiveness of the area. High priority should be given to networking the
quarter with the adjacent city districts.
- The requisite infrastructure (creche, civic centre, public transport) should be ready in good
time before the completion of the residential units.
Planning Process
This subject was addressed only briefly for lack of time. According to the points awarded, many
participants were in favour of intensifying the involvement of citizens, stakeholders, and investors.
The current workshop was welcomed as an element in the process. Further elements should follow.
As it was regarded as particularly important to secure top quality in buildings and open spaces, it
was suggested to create an advisory council on design.
3.2 Working Group 2: Environmental and Social Matters
At the beginning of the discussion, it was
emphasised that environmental and social
aspects are closely interlinked. Highquality
public spaces pervaded by parks
were seen as an important element linking a
healthy environment and an intact social
structure. It was emphasised that open
spaces should be seen as contributing
towards promoting the quality of the 'address'
and, by the same token, towards a
balanced social structure.
The aspect of social balance was discussed with great intensity. It was pointed out that the goal of
securing a balanced settlement structure called for attracting not only young families and senior
citizens but also singles with higher incomes. The proportion of apartments adapted to the needs
of handicapped and elderly persons might be increased to as much as 30%. Among the key concepts
mentioned in the various contributions were 'securing social peace', 'integration', and 'prevention'.
The importance of securing the supply of basic daily requirements as well as access to
different schools was emphasised.
The environmental goals of conserving energy and promoting renewable energies, while of great
importance with regard to sustainable development, might be subsumed under a single heading. In
addition, it was suggested to include district heating among the objectives. Existing technical interfaces
prompted the suggestion to subsume the environmental goals of ensuring adequate park
areas, controlling sealing, establishing a link to the Neckar park, and managing rainwater under the
heading of 'open-space development'. A noise abatement plan should be added to ensure conformance
with noise protection objectives.
Another environmental objective suggested was to provide a public rail transport system offering
good service. This objective was regarded as so important that it should not be left to be debated
only under the aspect of 'traffic and economy'.
13

As the suggested objectives 'avoidance of air, water, soil, and noise pollution' and 'sustainable
elimination of inherited pollution' were legal requirements that had to be implemented and/or observed
anyway, they were struck from the list of suggestions.
The points awarded by the participants reshuffled the ranking of the development objectives. The
conclusion of the working group on environmental and social matters was that the objectives
named below should be given particular priority. Participants were assured that lower-priority goals
would not be struck off the list entirely, although they would not be in the foreground of the coming
debate.
Environment:
1. Open-space development
�� Neckar Park
�� Networking of green zones
�� Vegetated areas (ecological function)
2. Reduction of the noise caused by traffic and public events
3. Conservation of fossil energy
Social Matters:
1. Safeguarding a balanced social structure
2. Ensuring the supply of basic social requirements
3. Family-friendly quarter
It was pointed out that the factor of time was an important overarching aspect. The development of
the area would proceed in several stages, which might require an occasional change of focus.
3.3 Working Group 3: Traffic and Economy
Public Transport Service
Participants regarded good-quality rail
service as an essential factor for the value
of the area as a location. In addition, they
demanded that public transport services
should be developed and, more importantly,
given due consideration before the
development concept was finalised.
Although there were doubts about the financing
of rail-transport solutions, it was
nevertheless important to keep the requisite
rights-of-way clear.
The argument that users would have to be
found before a service could be created (with regard to the U11 line, for example) was not accepted
because an attractive service would create its own demand. One case in point was the Munich
trade-fair quarter, where an underground link had been completed before the first residents
moved in. Accordingly, it was demanded that the SSB should be bound up in the planning process
14

from the start, and plans should be designed to ensure that a 'critical mass' of users would be
reached.
Two strategies were discussed regarding the attractiveness of the public transport service:
a) A rail link, which was clearly preferred by the participants, to be implemented by, for instance,
- creating a U11 extension with regular service, or
- a link between the U11 and the U4 line passing through the premises of Daimler Chrysler.
Trains would keep their doors closed and make no stops while passing through the facility, but the
service would be attractive nevertheless.
b) A bus service which
- would require a stop in the centre of the quarter. It would have to be investigated whether
the number 56 bus could be routed in a loop.
- might be a flexible shuttle bus which would link up with the S-Bahn, to be operated, if required,
by an alternative bus company instead of the SSB.
Pedestrian Traffic
Existing pedestrian walkways within the quarter should be designed more clearly and attractively.
Thus, for example, a major route was currently running through the parking lot of a discount shop.
A distinction should be made between everyday pedestrian traffic within the quarter and visitors of
public events. Workshop participants believed that it was urgent to create a clear routing and
guidance system for pedestrians to ensure the proper routing of S-Bahn passengers.
Parking
From the residents' point of view, a key question regarding the parking concept is that of how to
keep visitors of public events from searching for parking lots in the residential area. One option of
controlling this was to include no surface parking lots in the plan. To achieve this, a suitable
parking concept for residents would have to be considered. To keep adjacent residential areas
from being used as an alternative, it would be crucial to consider the existing residential area
and its supplementary areas as a whole.
It was pointed out that from the contractors' point of view, parking restrictions appeared as critical
as a total lack of surface parking lots or a multi-storey car park for residents. Residents critically
questioned what parking spaces would cost in such a multi-storey car park. Housing contractors
reported that in their own experience, rentals of € 50.- per month and a walking distance of 150m
constituted the critical limit. If these limits were adhered to, the solution might prove workable.
Participants also suggested to consider using commercial parking lots for alternative purposes to
save space and cost.
Economy
Participants pointed out that among the objectives and/or indicators suggested, a conflict might
arise between the objectives of 'no burden on the public budget' and 'creation of affordable residential
units'.
One of the key concerns of the working group was to keep the proportion of council housing low
to safeguard the balance of the quarter's social structure. The quarter might prove to be particularly
15

attractive to young urban professionals. Concerning the noise problem, one resident remarked that
permanent noise levels and festival noise should be clearly distinguished. Festivals generated
noise only in clearly circumscribed periods, which was bearable, while permanent noise would disappear
anyhow after current uses had been changed.
cause of its proximity to the DC plant, the location might potentially be used for commercial housing.
In this regard, one might cooperate with local enterprises, considering boarding-house concepts
as well as student residences. Bad Cannstatt was perceived as an outstanding location
which might prove suitable for experimental housing, giving it an immense potential which might
boost the urban development of Bad Cannstatt.
16

4 Summary
As a result of the discussions in the three working groups, the following objectives were accorded
top priority:
Top-priority Objectives:
�� Safeguarding a balanced social structure (e.g. through specially-designed residences, a
low proportion of council housing, and high-quality residential buildings erected at comparatively
low cost).
�� Securing high open-space quality (e.g. through an attractive link to the Neckar Park, networking
with adjacent city districts).
�� Timely provision of a good infrastructure (e.g. attractive public-transport service, daycare
centre for children, civic centre) to create a family-friendly quarter.
�� Observation of high ecological standards (e.g. conservation of fossil energy, reduction
of noise and air pollution, controlled surface sealing).
�� Increasing the number of residential units (e.g. as provided in the concept of the former
master plan). This appears necessary to reach the critical mass required for an independent
new quarter.
To improve the image of the quarter and ensure the quality of its development, it is necessary
to develop a suitable organisation for the project as well as a concept for offensive
marketing.
Organisation and Structure of the REVIT Workshop
After the end of the workshop, participants were asked about their opinion regarding the organisation
and structure of the REVIT workshop.
Answers showed that the echo was largely positive. The informative part was rated as good,
while opportunities to state personal opinions in working groups were judged adequate and/or
more than adequate. The mere fact that objectives and/or indicators for sustainable development
were being debated improved the integration of the aspect of sustainability in urban planning and
development.
A clear majority would be prepared to participate in another workshop of this kind.
17

Further Action Recommendations
In the view of the organisation team, the results of the workshop should be handled as follows:
- Both the local council and the district advisory council should be notified of the results.
- High-priority goals should be given consideration and cast in more concrete terms in downstream
planning, particularly in the development-plan process.
- Based on the list of objectives and indicators, the administration should develop a policy
paper on 'modules for sustainable development', which should be adopted by the local
council to serve as a basis for urban-development contracts.
It was suggested to hold another workshop in the spring of 2006 to deal with the first draft of the
development plan for construction stage 1. The objective would be to continue and deepen the
public debate about the objectives of sustainable development.
18

Appendix
I Development Objectives and Indicators
(reformulated and weighted on the basis of the working group handouts)
Urban Development
Objective Indicator / Standard Points
1. Ample vegetation ('green') through
20
a) neighbourhood parks and playgrounds - 20% min. of the development
and
area as (private or public)
b) networking with open spaces nearby parks and gardens
- Green tie-ins with the Neckarpark
2. Mix of diverse uses ('urban'), short walking - Small plots
17
distances
- Maximum number of contractors
and architects
- Flexible ground-floor use:
commercial, services, community
needs
3. High quality of residential buildings, floor
plans, and the residential environment
4. Promotion of new housing models such as
building communities
5. Conserve space ('compact' development)
through
a) location-optimised building density and
b) outstanding building quality
6. Develop green zone/'REVIT park' as an address
/ image factor
7.
- Greater height between floors
(e.g. 3.10m plus)
- Large balconies / roof terraces
(e.g. 20% floorspace)
- Generous stairwells
- Detailed development through
architecture contests
- E.g. 10% share in the total
construction volume
- GFZ 1.5 plus; 100 RU/ha
- Detailed development through
architecture contests
- High design standard through
contests
- Tree-planting campaign, CS 1
Elevate the social structure 5
8. Preserve and reuse existing buildings and
uses meriting protection
- Preserve buildings (customs
office etc.)
9. Quarter viability
� more inhabitants
4
10. Node quality 3
11. Good public-transport service 2
12. Flexible use of blocks / buildings
- Flexible plot use
1
- High percentage of usageneutral
building structures
13. Develop a barrier-free quarter - E.g. min. 10% share of barrierfree
apartments
14. Quiet block interiors 1
15. Permit temporary uses 1
KOMMA.PLAN 19
15
10
8
5
4
1

Planning Process
Objective Indicator / Standard Points
1. Secure and strengthen the involvement of - Number / audience of informa- 10
citizens / stakeholders / investors in the
tion events
planning process
- Provision of funds
- Web appearance
- Info office
2. Ensure quality management in the downstream
planning process
3. Safeguard effective cross-departmental project
management
4. Ensure information-flow and processmanagement
quality
Environment
- Advisory council on design,
consultation of experts
- 'One stop shop' for investors
- Project group with decisionmaking
competence
- Print info brochures
- Press coverage
- Appoint project ombudsman
Objective Indicator / Standard Points
1. Open-space development:
- >30% min. green area in resi- 17
�� Neckar Park
dential and mixed areas,
�� Public-park network
>15% in industrial areas
�� Vegetated areas (ecological function) - 100% of rainwater to remain in
the area
- Neighbourhood recreation
2. Reduce noise emission by traffic and public
events
3. Conserve fossil energy
- DIN 18005 – conform to noise
standards for mixed areas
- Noise-abatement plan
- 30% below energyconservation
standard (EnVO)
- Solar heating of 50% of the
annual hot-water consumption
- Light-energy conservation
programme
4. Good public-transport service - Rail link
- Regular service
5. Plant Mercedesstraße completely (avenue)
6. Avoid increasing the trough impact
through development
KOMMA.PLAN 20
10
6
3
10
- Tree-planting programme 1
- 4 - 6 floors (6 floors max.) 0
8
5

Social
Objective Indicator / Standard Points
1. Secure a balanced social structure Safeguard min. proportions
13
- 10% building communities
- 50% owner-occupier flats
- 10% (or better 30%?) apartments
for handicapped and
elderly persons
- Apartments for high-wage
earners and singles
- Integration of foreigners
2. Secure supply of basic social requirements
- Meet the kindergarden demand
in the quarter, 20% coverage
for children aged 0-3,
100% for children aged 3-6
- Shopping opportunities, retail
trade
- Meeting points
- Create school capacities
3. Family-friendly quarter - High proportion of families with
(many?) children
- High number of play streets
- Family-friendly, large one-floor
apartments
4. Secure / provide rooms / assembly areas for
community purposes
5. Improve the accessibility of schools
KOMMA.PLAN 21
10
- 5% of floorspace 3
- Access maps for all schools
- Remove barriers from railway
underpass
6. Secure / provide affordable housing
Cost per m² of living space
e.g.
- 20% below comparable areas
7. Improve social integration - Schools
- Clubs
7
2
2
1

Traffic
Objective Indicator / Standard Points
1. Improve public transport service; objec- - 10-minute train intervals on 19
tive: Regular service on the U 11 line, extension
to Mercedes Museum, bus number 56
the underground
2. Create attractive, uncomplicated access
walkways to public transport stops
- S-Bahn station
- Tram stations
3. Create attractive walkways and bike paths
to the old town, Seelberg quarter
- Direct access
- Pedestrian-friendly access
- Railway through-passes suitable
for handicapped persons
- Links with the Neckar-side
bike path / riverside promenade
4. Ensure binding involvement of the SSB
from the start
5. Traffic calming in residential areas - Traffic calming in all residential
streets (7km/h)
6. City-conformable mobility; modify modal
split in favour of the environmental network
(public transport, bikes, pedestrians)
a) for large public events
b) in the quarter
7. Optimise public-space design
8. Restrict parking space to the requirements
matrix
9. Provide adequate neighbourhood
bicycle racks
10. Upgrade Mercedesstraße into a leisure and
culture promenade
- Proportion of network: MPT
traffic routes = 2:1
- a) Share of combination
tickets for public events
- b) Proportion of season-ticket
holders among residents
- Public space largely free of
parked vehicles
- Residential: 1.0 P/RU plus
optional space for additional
demand
- Industrial: 1 P/30 - 70m² of
floorspace
- Peripheral arrangement of
residential car parks
2.0 roofed-over racks / RU min.
- Pedestrian promenade width
5.0m min. on both sides
- Reduce proportion of through
traffic (currently c. 50%)
- Max. vehicle speed 50km/h
- Number / design of crossover
points
KOMMA.PLAN 22
16
11
10
6
5
1

Economy
Objective Indicator / Standard Points
1. Balanced social structure 29
2. Affordable housing for large segments of
the population
3. Strengthen the business location, create
jobs, locations for industrial plants
4. Economic viability of the project
- m² price for owner-occupier
flats 20% or so below comparable
areas
- Low proportion of council housing
- Subsidies for owner-occupiers
only
- Flexible small plots
- Low m² price for high-value
industrial properties
- High proportion of growth industries
- Include suitable proportion of
'commercial housing'
- No burden on the communal
budget
- Speedy implementation (max.
10 years of settlement time)
- Flexible urban areas and flexible
use
KOMMA.PLAN 23
16
14
1

External Evaluation of the REVIT Workshop
'Former Bad Cannstatt Goods Station'
on 18-10-2005
Dipl.-Geogr. Martin Franz
Dipl.-Geogr. Nicole Okuniek

Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 3
2. PARTICIPANT SELECTION AND STRUCTURE 3
3. THE WORKSHOP 4
3.1 Site Inspection 4
3.2 Introductory Presentations 4
3.3 Working Groups 7
3.4. Objectives and Indicators 10
3.5 Final Session 12
3.6 Overall Evaluation of the Workshop by the Participants 13
4. FEATURES DIFFERING FROM THE RESCUE APPROACH 16
5. CONCLUSION 17
APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE 18
2

1. Introduction
This external evaluation of the REVIT workshop 'Former Bad Cannstatt Goods Station' on
18-10-2005 is mainly based on two methods. First, the workshop was observed directly
without active participation to gain an impression of the concrete manner of its
implementation. Second, participants were requested to answer standardised written questions
immediately after the end of the workshop. Copies of a one-page questionnaire about the
workshop were distributed. 55 out of a total of almost 100 workshop participants joined one
of the working groups. 31 of these 55 persons took the time to answer the questions.
The questionnaire was subdivided into six segments:
1. Communication of information during the workshop
2. Sustainability objectives and indicators
3. Working groups
4. Opportunities to state personal opinions and impact of personal contributions
5. Evaluation of the workshop in general
6. Statistical information
The following evaluation of each component will be based on direct observations as well as
on the results of the survey.
2. Participant Selection and Structure
Given an audience of almost 100, it must be said that the response to the workshop invitation
was very good, all the more so as no other media were used in its publication but personal
letters. An evaluation of the list of participants shows that one in three was employed by the
municipality of Stuttgart. One in ten participants attended the event as representative of a
political party. No more than eight participants could be classified as residents and/or citizens.
The remaining body was composed of representatives of the economy, planners, and
scientists.
Women accounted for about one quarter of the audience of around 100. Migrant, youth, and
environmental organisations as well as folklore and sports clubs were not represented. Some
of their concerns were voiced in the discussions by representatives of the relevant public
authorities and by politicians. The eight citizens' representatives present were all members of
the Veielbrunnen Citizens' Initiative. No unorganised citizens participated in the event. The
event must be categorised under expert participation.
3

The graph shows the composition of those workshop participants who filled in the
questionnaire. City administration representatives are clearly in the majority.
3. The Workshop
3.1 Site Inspection
A very positive aspect was the option of inspecting the site so that workshop participants who
were not familiar with it could form an impression. Most of the participants of the tour, which
lasted about 45 minutes, were welcomed personally by the guide, Mrs Susanne Wehle-Faiß.
No general introduction was given, although it would have formed the start of the workshop
for the participants.
The explanations given during the tour were very skimpy in part; moreover, they were given
by different persons who did not always introduce themselves, leaving a slightly disorganised
impression. Even so, the tour must be rated as successful because participants had an
opportunity to form a valid impression of the area. Defects in the explanations given at the
tour stops may be evaluated from different angles. On the one hand, the opportunity was thus
missed of giving the participants more in-depth information about the area; on the other hand,
the participants' views about the area were not influenced overmuch at this early stage. The
timeframe of 45 minutes appeared reasonable, and the tour was probably very agreeable for
the participants, partly because of the nice weather.
3.2 Introductory Presentations
The length and content of the introductory presentations appeared adequate. However, some
of them were not suitable for a lay audience as they required familiarity with technical matters
and terms. The methodology and objectives of the workshop and its working groups were not
explained adequately. This defect was remedied in the working groups, the consequence
being that not all participants received the same information. While an introductory round
would have made good sense, it was impossible to implement because of the size of the
audience.
4

The information given was rated as 'good' by most of the participants, with the scale of
possible responses ranging from 'too much' via 'good', 'adequate', and 'too little' to 'far too
little'. None of the participants opted for either the positive or the negative extreme ('too
much' or 'far too little'). Once again, differences in personal knowledge about the concrete
project must be taken into account in this context. Thus, for example, all participants from the
city administration rated the information given about the planning status, the properties of the
area, etc. as 'good' while the judgement of participants from the other groups was more
diverse.
Absolute values
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Communication of Information about the Area
good adequate too little
Information about the area
Source: ZEFIR 2005
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure group
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
The information about the sustainability approach was judged more heterogeneously than that
about the area itself. Choosing from the same scale of optional responses, 12 participants
rated it as 'good' (38.7 percent), including most of the city administration representatives. At
the same time, almost the same number of participants, namely 11 or 35.5 percent, rated this
information as no better than 'adequate'. Six participants, or almost one in five (19.4 percent),
thought that 'too little' information was given in the presentations about the sustainability
approach, and one participant even thought that it was 'far too little', while another abstained
from answering. No one thought that 'too much' information had been offered. There is a
remarkable connection between judgements and group membership. City administration
employees, politicians, and representatives of the Veielbrunnen Citizens' Initiative tended to
judge the information given about the sustainability approach more positively than company
representatives, planners, and representatives of pressure groups.
5

Absolute values
Evaluation of the Information Given about the Sustainability Approach
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
good adequate too little far too little no data
Information about the sustainability approach
Source: ZEFIR 2005
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
The explanations given about objectives and indicators were rated as 'good' by 64.5 percent of
those participants who filled in the questionnaire. The answer returned by almost one fifth
(19.4 percent) was 'adequate'. One participant thought that 'too much' information had been
presented, while another thought it was 'far too little'. As before, there is an obvious
connection between answers and group membership and, by the same token, the level of
personal knowledge. The only participant who felt that this part of the workshop was too
detailed was a member of the city administration. Conversely, the answer 'far too little' was
given by a company representative. Quite generally, it may be assumed that members of the
city administration, politicians, and residents who are active in the citizens' initiative are
better informed about the project than representatives of other groups. All evaluations should
be considered against this background.
Absolute values
10
8
6
4
2
0
Evaluation of the Information Given about Targets and Indicators
too much good adequate too little far too little
Information about targets and indicators
Source: ZEFIR 2005
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
6

3.3 Working Groups
Working groups were assigned to participants in a randomised process, the intention being to
distribute participants evenly among the various subjects, and to ensure an approximately
identical structure of participants in each working group. This worked out only to a limited
extent, as can be seen from the different sizes of the working groups and the different
distribution of participants among them. Very probably, this problem arose because only
about 55 percent of the participants joined one of the working groups, and some participants
opted for disregarding their working-group assignments.
Choosing from a scale of judgements ranging from 'very good' via 'good', 'satisfactory', and
'rather negative' to 'frustrating', most of the participants questioned rated this approach as
'good' or 'satisfactory'. None thought that the assignment to a specific working group had been
'frustrating'. Three respondents had a rather negative impression, while two even regarded the
approach as 'very good'.
Absolute values
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Evaluation of the Assignment to Working Groups
very good good satisfactory rather
negative
Working group assignment
Source: ZEFIR 2005
no data
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
It was surprising that the three working groups differed so much in character, which is
probably due to the different composition of their participants and the fact that they were
moderated by different persons.
Working group 1: Led by Detlef Kron and Nils Krieger, the 20 participants of this working
group addressed issues relating to urban development and the process of planning. The round
of personal introductions revealed that the group was composed mainly of representatives of
various offices of the Stuttgart municipality, members of Planning Group 7, and other
architects and town planners. While there was a young citizen present in the person of a
representative of 'Kurzschluss' 1 , his role in the workshop was confined to observation.
Because of the relatively homogenous composition of the members of working group 1, the
1 'Short Circuit': A network of art students who met in the building of the future City Archive at the same time as
the workshop, several representatives of which – all of youthful age and studying in Stuttgart – joined the
workshop as observers.
7

character of the debate was more that of a technical meeting among architects or town
planners. The discussion, in which a large proportion of the members participated, was
conducted throughout at a high level, not necessarily comprehensible to a layman. The debate,
which was lively, even addressed general objectives for the area which, properly speaking,
were not fit for discussion because they had been defined previously in the master plan. While
the discussion leaders were efficient and well-informed, they were not neutral. Both
moderators took part in the discussion and influenced its content. Another – positive – aspect
that deserves mention is the circular seating arrangement. It would have been desirable for
this working group to have had more time.
Working group 2: Led by Joachim Zimmermann und Hermann Josef Kirchholtes, this
working group had no more than 16 members. Its general subject was environmental and
social matters. The structure of its members was noticeably more heterogenous. Even so, the
debate in this working group took much longer to get really going than in the two others.
Remarkably, it was largely conducted by two or three members and the moderators over
prolonged periods. The further the time advanced, the greater the number of those who
actively participated in the discussion. The debate was characterised more by political and
less by professional planning features than in WG 1. As in WG 1, the leaders, though wellinformed
and efficient, did not appear as nonpartisan moderators but influenced the content of
the debate. Seats were arranged in rows. The discussion focused on subjects relating to
schools, children, and housing objective groups. Answering to a question about whether the
objectives and indicators should refer only to items that could be influenced by the city of
Stuttgart, Mr Kirchholtes stated that the discussion was entirely free from such constraints.
Ultimately, the debate had to be abandoned very abruptly to allow time for prioritisation.
Working group 3: The moderator of this 22-member working group was Kerstin Langer of
KommaPlan. Traffic and economy-related issues were addressed in a lively debate. As in
working group 2, the discussion had a somewhat political character. What was noticeable in
this case was the commitment of the residents. Four members of the Veielbrunnen Citizens'
Initiative participated in this working group. All in all, the structure of the working-group
members was highly heterogenous, which contributed greatly towards the liveliness of the
debate. Nonpartisan throughout, the moderator succeeded in enlivening the debate from the
start. Similar to working group 2, seats were arranged in rows. Several participants pointed
out that some of the objectives contradicted each other and asked who had developed them.
In all groups, the original objective lists were modified in the course of the discussion. Right
from the start, these objectives were not regarded as givens but as a basis for discussion. In all
three working groups, priorities were set at the end of the debate. To this end, participants
were given stickers to apply to posters depicting the various objectives.
A clear majority of respondents thought that the opportunities they were given in the working
groups to state their opinion were 'adequate' or even 'more than adequate'. Five believed that
they were not given enough of a chance to voice their opinion, rating the approach as 'all
right' or 'inadequate'. However, none of the participants thought they were given 'frustratingly
little' time and/or space.
8

Absolute values
10
8
6
4
2
0
Evaluation of the Opportunities to State Personal
Opinions in the Working Groups
more than
adequate
adequate all right too few
Opportunities for stating opinions in the working groups
Source: ZEFIR 2005
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
A breakdown by working group reveals differences in judgements about the opportunities to
state personal opinions: While the grades awarded to working group 3 were positive
throughout, the judgements of working groups 1 and 2 show evidence of criticism. Within the
framework of predefined responses ranging from 'more than adequate' via 'adequate', 'all
right', and 'too few' to 'frustratingly few', only the first four alternatives were chosen, with the
majority of respondents once again giving positive answers. No participant of any working
group thought that opportunities to make personal comments had been 'frustratingly few'.
Absolute values
10
8
6
4
2
0
Evaluation of the Opportunities to State Personal Opinions,
Broken Down by Working Group
more than
adequate
adequate all right too few
Opportunities to state personal opinions in working
groups
Source: ZEFIR 2005
WG 1: Urban
Deveopment and
Planning Process
WG 2:
Environmental and
Social Matters
WG 3: Traffic and
Economy
9

3.4. Objectives and Indicators
In the judgement of a majority of the workshop participants, the general use of sustainability
objectives and indicators in urban planning is a useful tool.
Sustainability Objectives and Indicators in Urban Planning
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percentage Percentage
Valid very helpful 8 25.8 26.7 26.7
helpful 13 41.9 43.3 70.0
conditionally
helpful
8 25.8 26.7 96.7
not helpful 1 3.2 3.3 100.0
total 30 96.8 100.0
Missing no data 1 3.2
Grand total 31 100.0
Source: ZEFIR 2005
Choosing from a scale of predefined responses in which sustainability objectives and
indicators in urban planning were graded as 'very helpful', 'helpful', 'conditionally helpful',
'not helpful', and 'counterproductive', the majority thought that these were 'helpful' or even
'very helpful' in some cases. Whereas residents and politicians maintained a rather positive
attitude towards sustainability objectives and indicators, the opinions of company
representatives and planners were divided. While two company representatives and two
planners thought they were no more than 'conditionally helpful', one representative of each
group thought it was 'very helpful' to use these objectives and indicators in urban planning.
Politicians had a similarly positive opinion about these tools, unlike one city-administration
employee, who thought they were 'not helpful'.
Absolute values
5
4
3
2
1
0
very helpful helpful conditionally
helpful
not helpful no data
Sustainability objectives and indicators in town planning
Source: ZEFIR 2005
Evaluation of Sustainability Objectives and
Indicators in Town Planning
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
10

It should be mentioned that workshop participants rated the general use of sustainability
objectives and indicators differently from their concrete application in the 'Bad Cannstatt
Goods Station' project, choosing from the same predefined response options. While the
majority or, more precisely, 70 percent of all respondents rated the general use of these tools
as 'very helpful' or 'helpful', their concrete application in the project was judged more
critically. The number of participants who assessed the application of objectives and
indicators within the project as 'very helpful' was somewhat lower, while the proportion of
respondents who rated it as 'helpful' remained the same. However, there were more
respondents who rated their use as 'conditionally helpful'.
Objectives and Indicators in the Project 'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station'
Valid Cumulative
Frequency Percent Percentage Percentage
Valid very helpful 5 16.1 16.1 16.1
Source: ZEFIR 2005
Absolute values
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
helpful 13 41.9 41.9 58.1
conditionally
helpful
13 41.9 41.9 100.0
Total 31 100.0 100.0
very helpful helpful conditionally helpful
Objectives and indicators in the project ´Bad Cannstatt
Goods Station`
So urce : ZE FIR 200 5
Evaluation of Objectives and Indicators in the
Project ´Bad Cannstatt Goods Station`
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
The reason given by participants for regarding the use of objectives and indicators within the
concrete project 'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station' as either 'very helpful' or 'helpful' was that they
assist in decision-making. At the same time, many participants averred that their assessment
of the use of objectives and indicators within the 'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station' project was
informed by factors that had nothing to do with the workshop. These factors were the reason
why their judgement was less favourable in this case. This emerges particularly clearly from
the reasons why objectives and indicators were only 'conditionally helpful' in the context of
this project. Some of the reasons cited will be quoted below by way of illustration.
11

� 'difficult location because of people looking for parking space or going to public
events'
� 'highly specific situation; general indicators apply only marginally'
� 'ultimately, implementation depends on political decisions and economic necessities'
� 'not concrete enough, too diffuse'
� 'planning is not coherent; too many isolated decisions based on investors' interests'
Almost two thirds of the workshop participants assessed the objectives previously selected as
'good' or even 'very good'. The reason most frequently given was that they covered all
essential points. Choices ranged from 'very good', 'good', 'satisfactory', and 'rather negative' to
'inadequate'. Those who rated the selection as 'satisfactory' or even 'inadequate' had the feeling
that certain aspects had not been given due consideration. The selection of objectives was
rated 'satisfactory' by one third of the respondents and as 'inadequate' by only one person. It is
to be noted in this context that only 12 of 31 respondents gave reasons for their answers.
3.5 The Final Session
In the final session, the results of the three working groups were presented briefly by their
moderators. It was not made clear what would be done about the results in the future. As there
was no time for a concluding debate, the time effectively spent in plenary debate was almost
nil. For this reason, it is amazing that the evaluation of the questionnaires should have shown
that the majority felt that sufficient time had been spent in plenary discussion. It is to be
assumed that participants included the discussions in the various working groups in their
judgement. In this context, it should be noted that all participating residents, who all belonged
to the Citizens' Initiative, were of the same opinion. Most of the residents were active in
working group 3. Most of the city-administration representatives, the strongest group in this
workshop, thought that the time for discussion was adequate, independently of the working
group they belonged to. Politicians and company representatives did not quite share this
positive view. Only half the politicians and planners and one in three company representatives
thought that the time for discussion was adequate. The predefined scale of five responses to
the question 'The discussion time was' ranged from 'more than sufficient', 'sufficient', and 'all
right' to 'not enough' and 'frustratingly short'. Once again, none of the respondents opted for
either of the two extreme positive and negative answers ('more than sufficient' and
'frustratingly short').
12

Absolute values
8
6
4
2
0
Evaluation of Discussion Opportunities
adequate all right too few no data
Plenary discussion
Source: ZEFIR 2005
Group breakdown
3.6 Overall Evaluation of the Workshop by the Participants
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
Most respondents would not trust themselves to judge whether their own contributions to the
discussion had any influence on the workshop. Predefined responses ranged from 'yes, great',
'yes, some', 'I cannot judge', and 'hardly any' to 'none at all'. The majority stated that they were
unable to judge. A scant third of the respondents believed that their influence was at least
small. Three people thought that their contribution had a great influence, whereas two others
thought that their chances of influencing the discussion were very low or zero. One
participant abstained from answering.
Absolute values
5
4
3
2
1
0
Evaluation of the Influence of Personal Contributions
yes, great yes, some I cannot
judge
hardly any none at all no data
Influence of personal contributions on the workshop
So urce : ZE FIR 200 5
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
13

The chances of the workshop itself influencing the 'Bad Cannstatt Goods Station' project were
judged more positively all round. No one was prepared to regard its influence as great, so that
nobody ticked the positive extreme in the predefined range of responses which said that the
results of the workshop would influence the development of the project very greatly. The
remaining responses included 'yes, some', 'I cannot judge', 'hardly', and 'none at all'. The view
of the majority was that the influence of the workshop on the project would be small. At the
same time, almost as many participants thought themselves incapable of giving an answer to
that question. Only three respondents were sceptical about the workshop's influence or
thought that it would have none at all.
Absolute values
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Evaluation of the Workshop´s Influence on the Project
yes, some I cannot
judge
hardly any none at all no data
Influence of the workshop on the project
Source: ZEFIR 2005
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
Some participants added written comments. Thus, for instance, one company representative
would have liked to see more integral elements covered in the plan, and issues such traffic,
energy, and water management addressed and/or considered. A respondent from the Stuttgart
city administration pointed out that a follow-up meeting might be important. Further positive
comments related to the option of contributing personal ideas and suggestions. The timeframe
of the workshop was regarded with a more critical eye. Another representative of the city
administration argued that more time would be required for more efficient formulations and
objective definitions. In his opinion, subjects were discussed only superficially. Experts on
individual objectives (e.g. energy, social matters) were missed as contacts who might have
facilitated a desirable learning process for all participants.
Yet another employee of the city of Stuttgart was even more critical, suggesting that the
format of the workshop should be reconsidered. In his opinion, creative elements were
lacking, and it would have been better to have fewer presentations. This participant thought it
was better to hold a two-day workshop or even a sequence of workshops for developing
approach concepts. In addition, participants should be given the option of migrating between
working groups. In concrete terms, the following questions should be discussed: 'Which
objectives are important for this location?'; 'What uses are important for this location?'; 'What
14

objective groups are important for this location?'; and 'How deeply is the area embedded in
the public awareness?'. Concluding his enumeration, he noted: 'The difference between what
we want and what is real is a planning problem!'
The overall impression was clearly positive. More than half of the participants who filled in
their questionnaires stated that their overall impression was 'good'. If we add those whose
overall impression was 'very good', the total corresponds to two thirds of all respondents.
Nine persons thought that the workshop had been at least 'satisfactory', and only one had a
rather more negative impression. No one thought that the workshop had been 'frustrating'.
Absolute values
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
very good good satisfactory rather negative
Evaluation of the workshop as a whole
Source: ZEFIR 2005
Overall Impression
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
Logically enough, it was found that a clear majority (25 of 31 respondents) would be prepared
to participate in another workshop of a similar kind. Only one participant answered no to this
question, while another three were undecided. These people stated that their participation in
another workshop would depend on whether or not they were interested in its subject, the
area, and the location.
15

Absolute values
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Willingness to Participate in Future Workshops
yes no
Participation in future workshops
perhaps
Source: ZEFIR 2005
4. Features Differing from the RESCUE Approach
Group breakdown
City administration
Politicians
Pressure groups
Enterprises
Residents
Planners
Others
To check the sustainability of area-recycling processes, an evaluation instrument called
'Sustainability Assessment Tool' (SAT) was developed under RESCUE. RESCUE defines
objectives and indicators for sustainable brownfield recycling. Objectives adapted to a
concrete plan and/or a concrete project are weighted within the SAT process, meaning that a
distinction is made between objectives of greater and lesser impact. Objectives are weighted
at one-day workshops in which various players involved in the recycling process as well as
citizens participate. Results obtained from questionnaires and working groups are used for
indicator selection and weighting.
The REVIT approach used in Stuttgart and the RESCUE approach fundamentally differ in the
timing of the workshop and the composition of its participants.
While the RESCUE approach features a workshop at a very early stage of the project, i.e. at a
time when an idea has been conceived but no master plan developed as yet, the REVIT
workshop is held after all major aspects of the project have been defined in principle on the
political plane.
Most of the participants of the REVIT workshop were experts from various fields. The civic
side was represented by no more than eight members of a citizens' initiative. Presentations
and discussions were held at a high level that was not really suited to a lay audience.
Conversely, the RESCUE approach assumes that objective selection should be based on a
gathering of technical experts, decision-makers, and citizens from various backgrounds.
In the RESCUE approach, weighting is based on questionnaires in which objectives are
operationalised. Weighting in the REVIT approach is done by applying adhesive markers to
posters depicting the various objectives and indicators. While the discussion in the RESCUE
approach is supposed to be confined to objectives, part of the discussion in Stuttgart dealt
with indicators as well.
16

5. Conclusion
It is desirable that sustainability objectives and/or indicators should be used regularly in urban
development and planning. The mere fact that sustainability objectives and indicators are
discussed will improve the integration of the aspect of 'sustainability' in urban planning and
development. In that sense, the REVIT workshop proved an efficient tool, a conclusion that is
corroborated by the positive assessment of the approach by the participants of the workshop.
At all events, such a workshop should include a tour of the area, which should be regarded as
part of the workshop itself and managed accordingly. It makes good sense to include clear
opening (welcome) and closing statements (farewell; next items on the programme) as well as
explanations on the spot. Care should be taken to ensure that the information given is based
on facts rather than opinions.
The REVIT workshop was intended mainly for experts. Hardly any citizens were present, and
all citizens' representatives were organised. Women, young people, and persons from a
migration background were underrepresented. Environmental, folklore, and sports
associations were not represented at all. This uneven composition limits the predictive
capability of the workshop with regard to sustainability. There are various methods to ensure
balance in the composition of participants (analytical tables for players or pressure groups;
relation diagrams) which coordinators may use to identify players who are important for the
process but not represented; to obtain a clear idea of the relationships existing between
diverse pressure groups; to examine different opinions about the relative importance of the
pressure groups involved; to identify mutual dependencies between pressure groups; and to
spot and/or pre-empt potential conflicts.
The randomised process used in assigning participants to the various working groups was
supposed to produce groups of equal size and comparable structure. The approach succeeded
only to a limited extent because no more than 55 percent of the participants joined one of the
working groups, and some participants ignored their assignments. Ways and means should be
considered of avoiding this contingency in future workshops.
Discussions in all three working groups were vivid and maintained a high level of content.
However, they took various lengths of time to develop. In working group 2, the discussion
had to be abandoned fairly abruptly.
Having non-partisan moderators – supported by expert city representatives – would have
surely been positive for all three working groups.
All in all, most participants felt that the event had been positive. The discussion showed that
some objectives which participants would have wished to see included in the planning process
could no longer be considered because they had previously been defined on the political
plane. This being so, it would make sense to hold such a workshop at an earlier time, when
more options are available.
17

Appendix 1: Questionnaire
1. Information
Was the information given on the items named below conformable with your previous knowledge?
1.1 The area (properties,
planning status)
too much good adequate too little far too little
1.2 The sustainability
approach
too much good adequate too little far too little
1.3 Objectives and indicators too much good adequate too little far too little
2. Sustainability Objectives and Indicators
2.1 What is your general very helpful helpful conditionally helpful not helpful counter-
opinion about the use of
sustainability objectives and
indicators in town planning?
productive
2.2 What is your opinion very helpful helpful conditionally helpful not helpful counter-
about the use of objectives
and indicators in the project
'Bad Cannstatt Goods
Station'?
2.3 Why?
productive
2.4 How would you judge the
previous selection of
objectives for this workshop?
2.5 Why?
3. Working Groups
3.1 Which working group did
you join?
3.2 How do you judge the
assignment of participants to
a working group?
3.3. Were you given adequate
opportunities to state your
views in your working group?
very good good satisfactory rather negative inadequate
WG 1: Urban Development and
Planning Process
WG 2: Environmental
and Social Matters
WG 3: Traffic and Economy
very good good satisfactory rather negative frustrating
more than
adequate
adequate
all right too few frustratingly few
4. Opinion Statements and Influence
4.1 Was there adequate time more than adequate all right too little frustratingly little
for plenary discussion? adequate
4.2 Did your contributions
influence the results of the
workshop?
yes, greatly yes, some I cannot judge hardly not at all
4.3 Will the results of the
workshop influence the
development of the project?
5. Workshop
yes, greatly yes, some I cannot judge hardly not at all
5.1 What is your overall
judgement of today's
workshop?
very good good satisfactory rather negative frustrating
5.2 Would you participate in
another workshop of the
kind?
5.3 Why?
yes no perhaps
6. Statistical Data
Which group do you belong
to?
City administration Politics Non-governmental
organisation
Pressure group Enterprise
Resident Others
����������������������_______________________________________________

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
1 City of Tomorrow
Field of research from experimental residential building and town planning (ExWoSt)
funded by the Federal Office for civil engineering and regional planning (BBR)
Indicator Measurement category
1.1 Economical Land Managment
1.1.1 Settlement and traffic area - settlement and traffic area Overall settlement and traffic area in square kilometre and portion of the total city area
increases marginally, area of recreation increases intensely in percent; changing in portions of the initial value (absolute)
1.1.2 Intensity of land use - the existing settlement and traffic areas Sum of all inhabitants ("poplation authorised to stay" - first and secondary residence)
are utilised more intensely
and employees (employees subject to social insurance contribution at their place of
work - definition of the Federal Statistical Office) per square kilometre of the city area;
changing in portions of the initual value (absolute)
1.1.3 Protection areas - the nature in the city is protected
Sum of: Protection areas Natura 2000, Nature Protection Areas and National Parks in
increasingly
square kilometre per inhabitant
Changing in portions of the initial value (absolute)
1.1.4 Re-use of brownfields - brownfields are re-used increasingly, Idle reuseable settlement areas (areas of industry, conversion, traffic and of other
the increase of settlement areas is reduced
infrastructures) as portion of the total settlement and traffic area; changing in
percentage points
1.1.5 Increase of settlement area interior:exterior - development of Changing of the index of settlement and traffic areas; the value for the initial year is
settlement took place predominantly in the interior zone indexed to 100
1.1.6 Brownfield mobilisation in asset - the areas reserved for Portion of the areas dedicated to be covered with buildings in the areas of settlement
buildings are utilised efficiently and consequently
and traffic existing at the starting date; changing in percentage points
1.2 City compatible mobility management
1.2.1 Kilometres covered by bus and rail - the kilometres travelled Number of kilometres, which have been covered by bus and rail (as far as existent) per
by public transport have increased clearly
year; data in changing of the initial value
1.2.2 Density of passenger cars - the stock of locally registered Registrated passenger cars per 1000 inhabitants; changing in percent of the initial
passenger cars has increased only marginally
value
1.2.3 Total length of the bycicle tracks network - the offer of inner- Length in kilometres per square kilometre of settement and traffic areas; changing in
city bycicle tracks is improved
percent of the initial value
1.2.4 Use of passenger cars in the city - the citizens of the city use The use of passenger cars in relation to the other modes of locomation (public
their cars less often than in the past on all inner-city ways transport/bycicle/on foot) on all inner-city ways (Modal Split); changing in percentage
points
1.2.5 Settlement area opened up by public transport - the
Portion of the settlement and traffic areas within the radius of 300m bee-line from stop
settlement area is almost totally opened up by bus and rail on the total settlement and traffic area
1.2.6 Safety to traffic (road casualties) - participation in road traffic Number of the injured in road traffic relating to 10,000 inhabitants per year; changing in
has become more safe
percent of the initial value
1.3 Preventing environmental protection
1.3.1 Residual waste - the volume of not-recycled waste is reduced
and the total volume of waste diminishes clearly
1.3.2 Consumption of drinking water - the inhabitants need less
trinking water
1.3.3 Carbon dioxide discharge of municipal real estates - to
diminish
1.3.4 Electric power consumption of private households - the private
households get by with less energy
1.4 Socially accountable accomodation
1.4.1 Moves away to the hinterland - the migration of the resident
population decelerates
Kilogramme of residual waste per inhabitant and year (for statistical reasons also small
trade); changing in percent of the initial value
Litre of drinking water per inhabitant and day, average value on the base of the annual
consumption; changing in percent of the initial value
Kilogramme of discharged carbon dioxide per year relating to the number of
inhabitants; changing in percent of the initial value
Kilowatt hour per inhabitant of the volume which power companies annually provide for
standard consumers; changing in percent of the initial value
Number of inhabitants who give up their residence in the city and move to the
hinterland; relating to the total number of inhabitants authorised to stay in percent;
changing in percentage points
Sum of all housing benefits in Euro, which annually are paid to all beneficiaries of
housing benefits in the city; changings in percent of the initial value
1.4.2 Housing benefits - living in the city required less public
subsidy
1.4.3 Primary care - the primary care could have been improved Portion of the settlement and traffic area, which is equipped with facilities of primary
care (health, alimentation, education, leisure) within a radius of 300m; changing in
percentage points
1.4.4 Burglaries in domiciles - living in the city has become safer Cases of all burglaries registered by the police (according to the criminal statistics of
the police)
1.5 Location assuring bussiness development
1.5.1 Unemployment rate - the unemployment could have been
reduced
1.5.2 Sum of commuters - the work-related volume of traffic could
be reduced
1.5.3 Floor space required by jobs - the settlement area for working
is utilised more intensely
1.5.4 Local economic structure - the city has a multifaceted and
solid economic structure
Unemployed persons in percent of the dependent civil earning persons, i.e. employees
who are subject to social insurance contribution or marginally employed, civil servants
and unemployed (definition of the Federal Statistical Office); changing in percentage
points
Relation of the sum of the commuters travelling in und out the city relating to the
number of the city's inhabitants; only the numerator of the quotient is to be quoted, the
denominator is always 1000
Number of employees at the place of work per square kilometre of settlement and
traffic area; changing in percent of the initial value
Number of the employees who are subject to social insurance contribution at the work
place in the five largest enterprises of the place in relation to the number of all
employees being subject to social insurance contribution at the work place; changing
in percentage points

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
2 RESCUE Indicator list
Management of soil and contamination
1. To reduce negative environmental impacts on the site and on the neighbourhood including
human health risks
2. To minimise waste and maximise recycling and reuse of soil and debris
3. To ensure cost effectiveness and technical feasibility
4. To improve social acceptance through identification of all stakeholders and risk communication
5. To provide decision support tools for risk based land management
Management of existing buildings and infrastructures
6. To retain buildings and infrastructures as much as possible
7. To reuse building and construction components as much as possible
8. To recycle construction or demolition waste as much as possible
9. To minimise energy demand and produce renewable energy on the site
10. To minimise water demand and reduce waste water production
Land use and urban design
11. To promote land use functions that match regional socio-economic demands and needs
12. To integrate the reuse of brownfield sites into a regional land management
13. To integrate the reuse of brownfield sites into the urban development
14. To achieve benefits and prevent adverse impacts on the local neighbourhood
15. To generate and safeguard employment and economic development
16. To promote land use functions that suit the natural and man-made environment of the site
and ist neighbourhood
17. To save resources
18. Permeability
19. To provide adequate access
20. To achieve high design quality
21. To create and maintain flexibility and flexible urban design
Planning processes and citizen participation
22. To obtain a better quality of information
23. To obtain a better quality of information flow in the process
24. To have a fairer discussion process and a better resolution of conflicts
25. To increase the legitimacy of the decision making process
26. To improve the efficiency of the process in terms of duration and costs
27. To empower citizens, especially those representing non-organised interests
28. To delegate responsibility to lower decision levels and to stimulate a sense of ownership
Project management in brownfield regeneration
29. To adopt an interdisciplinary project team approach
30. To facilitate efficient project delivery
31. To promote and manage stakeholders participation
32. To provide a framework for transparencyin decisions, flow of information and improved
communication structures
33. To protect human health and safety during Fieldwork
34. To adopt an approach that integrates social, economical and environmental aspects

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
3 SEEDA Sustainability Checklist
3.1 Environmental Themes
Theme Sub-Theme Sub-Sub-Theme Description
Environmental Management,
Training, Education
Other
Support
Embodied and operational
Use Combined heat and power An estimate of the amount of energy (as a % of the total ) supplied to the development from CHP
plant fuelled by fossil fuel.
Efficiency
Energy efficient street lighting Assess the proportion of street lights that are low energy (high pressure sodium high intensity
discharge lamps, i.e. SON) or run off renewable energy. If the proportion of lights is over 80%,
Energy
best practice has been met.
Passive solar design Good passive solar design can reduce energy use and increase comfort. Good passive solar
design is achieved where the rooms which are occupied most (e.g. living rooms, general office
space) are located on the southern side , and effective solar shading is in place to prevent
overheating. Best practise is achieved when >80% of the development is designed for good
solar design.
Retrofitting of solar devices Measures that can be taken to allow easy retrofitting should the owner or subsequent legislation
require it. This is achieved through designing roof orientation for use by solar systems. Best
practise is met where 80% of the development is designed in such a way.
Assessing the potential for renewable energy Consideration of the availability, practicality and cost of including renewable sources should be
included in any development proposal.
Contribution from renewable energy (e.g. wind farm, hydro An estimate of the total amount of energy (in % of total) supplied to the development from a
scheme, photovoltaic bank, CHP operating on biomass or renewable source.
waste).
Minimising electricity distribution losses The distribution of electricity can affect the overall efficiency of generation process. By good
design, distribution losses can be minimised. For instance underground cables will usually have
lower losses than overhead lines. Best practise is achieved where all recommendations are
achieved.
Minimising heat loss in distribution system Heat loss from the distribution system can be reduced by careful design of both the layout of the
system and the system components (e.g. pipe runs and levels of insulation). Best practise
where pipe runs in all the development have been designed and insulated to optimum levels.
Renewable
Waste
Proximity to fixed public transport node 50% of the development footprint should be within 800km of a major fixed transport node for
best practise to be met.
Mode
Transport
1

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
Convenience of public transport 80% of the footprint of the proposed development should be within 200m of a transport stop that
receives a regular service for best practise to be met.
Bike routes Check that the proposal contains a network of safe bike routes around the development. If fully
provided, best practise has been met.
Environmentally friendly public transport (e.g. cycling, gas bus) If over 25% of the development is served by environmentally friendly public transport, best
practise has been met.
Distance (vehicle number x km)
Development location Developments that are largely (>80% of building footprint) within an existing public transport
corridor, growth point or node meet best practise.
Traffic assessment A traffic assessment is required where there are significant traffic impacts. It should include
accessibility to site by all modes, modal split of journeys to and from the site, measures for
improved public transport, reducing need for parking, social and environmental impacts and
mitigation measures and travel plans.
Traffic density
Spare capacity of existing public transport corridor Public transport corridors with spare capacity should be selected where possible because
increasing development on corridors already reaching their limits will not aid accessibility.
Other (Policy) Local transport plan Check that proposed development follows the principals and standards laid down in the
transport policy.
Other (Provisions)
Design and location of Bus Shelters For best practise to be met, >80% of the proposed development should be served by convenient
bus shelters.
Bicycle storage Check that the proposal contains secure bicycle storage places at local facilities and strategic
points. Full provision is best practice.
Other (Parking) Needs of users Transport needs should be provided for by balancing the availability / charging of car parking
with adequate public transport.
Use
Efficiency
Reduce/reuse/recycle
Water
Grey water / rainwater used in the development Calculation of the % of recycled grey water used in the completed development and the % of rain
water used in the development.
Grey water / rainwater used for landscaping purposes Calculation of the % of grey water / rainwater collected which is used for landscaping purposes.
Waste water
Flooding Designated 'at risk from flooding' area Check whether land being developed is in an 'at risk from flooding' area.
Sewage
Other (Drainage) Sustainable urban drainage
A ground survey should be carried out to determine the suitability for sustainable urban drainage.
Where a ground survey indicates suitable ground, best practise is met where the percentage of
permeable surfaces is >50% for the following areas:
· Car parks
· Amenity areas
· Pedestrian pavements
2

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
· Cycle ways / bridleways
· Swales and infiltration
Permeable conveyance systems (swales and filter drains) Best practise if >80% of conveyance systems for surface water are most permeable.
Passive treatment systems Where >50% of the surface water is dealt with via passive treatment systems (like detention
ponds, and reed beds), Best practise is met.
Best practice has been met if there is provision for local composting, within 300m and above
250m of the boundary of the development, in the proposed development site.
From crust
From soil Distance to the nearest composting / chipping facilities for
green material
Materials
From bio-mass
Check the proportion of materials specified that have a low environmental impact, proportion of
recycled materials specified and the proportion of materials from local sources. If a target of
80% has been set, best practise has been met.
Low environmental impacts ('energy infrastructure', 'water
supply and sewage systems')
Use
Low environmental impact materials (general infrastructure) Check the proportion of materials specified that have a low environmental impact, proportion of
recycled materials specified and the proportion of timber from well managed sources. If a target
of 80% has been set, best practise has been met.
Locally available low environmental impact materials Best practise is met where the proposal demonstrates that the specification of locally available
low environmental impact materials has been fully considered for buildings and for infrastructure.
Efficiency Flexible buildings Best practise suggests >25% of buildings should be flexible (i.e. can be converted from one use
to another, easily extended or modified, relocated with ease should the need for that building
change.)
Reduce/reuse/recycle Mineral extraction Check whether there are any existing mineral extraction licenses for land being developed.
Best practise is met where a target of more than 20% for recycled material (a) to (c) has been
set for:
· Road construction
Local reclaimed materials for infrastructure
· Pavement construction
· Car park construction
Waste
Other
Site free from sites earmarked by local authority for waste No waste management sites, or where waste used to produce energy, waste management
management
section not adversely affected.
Car parking standards Where the developer has negotiated with the local authority to effectively reduce the number of
car parking spaces to significantly below the local authority maximum while maintaining safety,
best practise has been met.
Land Use Use (buildings and
infrastructure including car
parks)
3

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
Flexible design of car parks Flexible car parking is hard standing parking that has been designed to have more than one use,
(e.g. it can become an amenity space such as a market square, picnic area etc.) If >20% has
been designed to have an alternative use, best practise has been met.
Efficiency
Brown and green site
Brown field land Percentage of brown field land developed in preference to green field where possible. Scoring
reflecting level of brown field land used.
Release of brown field land Percentage of Brownfield land released for redevelopment (i.e. existing building demolished and
replaced by a building with a smaller footprint.) Scoring reflecting level of brown field land used.
Site free from high grade agricultural land No development on high grade agricultural land. Intrinsic value of the land (Grades 1-3a).
Provision of green space If all opportunities to provide quality green space and landscaping features have been taken
throughout the site including boundaries, then best practise has been achieved
Green space
Reclamation Percentage of contaminated land reclaimed by the development. Scoring reflecting level of
contamination.
Decontamination Sustainable option for decontamination method. (i.e. not 'dig and dump' or 'cover layer')
Contaminated land
Site free from heritage and archaeological important sites etc No development on heritage / archaeological important sites.
Archaeological / heritage
significance
Other
Biodiversity action plan Local biodiversity action plan should be consulted to identify habitats and species which are in
need of support and how the development may contribute to their conservation.
Biodiversity
Ecology
Qualified landscape architect / ecologist Advice of a qualified landscape architect / ecologist should be sought and acted upon for best
practice to be met.
Increase in native tree and shrub numbers Best practice is met if there is >3 fold increase in the number of trees and shrubs.
Native trees and shrubs If >90% of the trees and shrubs specified are native species (with local provenance) and
represent a mixture of evergreen and deciduous varieties, best practise has been met.
Key/ rare species Wildlife corridor Best practise is met if a new wildlife corridor been added that links at both ends with an existing
corridor or natural feature.
Key and rare ecosystems / Site free from sites of high ecological value or wildlife habitats - No development on sites of high ecological value or wildlife habitats SSSI - Site of special
habitats
such as SSSI, SNOB etc
scientific interest, SNCO - Special nature conservation order.
Habitat creation / enhancement If more than one type of habitat has increased or improved in quality, best practice has been
achieved.
Protected sites
Conservation Best practise is achieved where >90% of the survey recommendations regarding the
conservation of natural habitats has been carried out.
Additional ecological features Best practice is met where more than one new ecological feature has been added (e.g. wetlands
or woods).
Other (Survey) Ecological survey For best practise to be met an ecological survey and evaluation of the site for proposed
development should be carried out by a recognised expert (e.g. someone recommended by the
Association of Wildlife Trust Consultancies). Best practice is met where this has been fully
achieved.
4

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
OF
• Crust
• Soil Steps to mitigate pollution Best practice is met if all reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate pollution to water, air and
land during construction and use.
• Bio-mass
• Water (catchments / Steps to mitigate pollution Best practice is met if all reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate pollution to water, air and
surface water/ ground water/
land during construction and use.
rivers/ lakes/ estuarine/ coastal / Sources of water contamination Review of the site and proposed development should be carried out to identify potential sources
marine)
of water pollution and steps to mitigate them. Best practise is met if all recommendations have
been acted upon, or there are no sources of contamination.
Pollution
Steps to mitigate pollution Best practice is met if all reasonable steps have been taken to mitigate pollution to water, air and
land during construction and use.
Screening Best practice is achieved where >60% of the main roads are screened from residential areas by
tree belts / tree covered embankments.
Sources of air contamination Review of the site and proposed development should be carried out to identify potential sources
of air pollution and steps to mitigate them. Best practise is met if all recommendations have
been acted upon, or there are no sources of contamination.
• Atmosphere (including
ODP and GHG)
Other
BY (quantities and toxicity)
• Physical (e.g.
radionuclide, electromagnetic,
dust, dirt, smog)
• Chemical (e.g.
acidification, pesticides)
• Biological (e.g.
eutrophication)
• Genetic
• Hazardous waste
Other
Outdoor artificial - Minimisation of light pollution Street lighting and any other lighting associated with the development (e.g. flood lights) should
be designed to minimise the impact on neighbours and reduce light pollution. Best practise is
achieved where all recommendations are adopted.
Sources of noise pollution (outdoor) Development should be designed to minimise sources of noise pollution through low noise road
surfaces and limited access of HGVs.
Thermal
Lighting (indoor/outdoor
natural/artificial)
Environmental
Quality
Noise (indoor/outdoor)
5

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
Acoustic attenuation measure in place (outdoor) Best practice is achieved where acoustic measures have been put in place for all generators to
minimise the impact of noise pollution. These measures should be designed by qualified
acoustic engineers.
Buildings designed to reduce impact of noise Development should be designed so residential buildings are sited away from noise generators.
All buildings should be designed to maximise acoustic performance (from outside sources).
Good practice is achieved where both have been done.
Odours (indoor/outdoor)
Development appearance in relation to building elements Are building details (e.g. windows, roof details etc) in context with the local surroundings and do
they enhance and complement the local character, landscape and open spaces.
Aesthetic (indoor/outdoor)
Development appearance in relation to building materials Are the materials chosen both attractive and in context with the local surroundings (in terms of
their colours, texture, variety and durability) and are materials obtained locally.
Reduction of visual impact / parking attractively incorporated If >95% of the parking has been designed to reduce impact / integrate well with design, best
practise has been met. Methods to reduce the impact of the car parks include screening (often
by planting of earth banks) or situation (siting parking at behind / underneath buildings or in
courtyards) etc.
Population and population
density
Other (Rating) BREEAM / Eco Homes Rating:
Entry required of % of buildings for each type expected to score a rating PASS, GOOD, VERY
GOOD, or EXCELLENT (development percentage should total 100)
· Homes
· Offices
· Factories / Light Industrial
· Retail
· Bespoke
Other (Durability) Impacts of climate change By increasing the design criteria, the damage can be limited (e.g. recognising that '50 year'
floods and storms are becoming more common). Increased design for structure (e.g. roof),
water retention and dispersal, increased temperatures, increased wind loads. Best practise is
achieved where 2 of these issues are addressed.
Aggregate impact on biophysical
sources, sinks and
regulatory systems (Urban
Ecology, Ecological Footprint)
Sustainability
Criteria
Other
6

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
3 SEEDA Sustainability Checklist
3.2 Economic Themes
Theme Sub-Theme Sub-Sub-Theme Description
Financial viability (viability under
market conditions)
Viability
Funding security (is there
funding)
Expenditure on improving
environmental and societal
performance
Environmental and societal
related R&D expenditure
Displacement (effect)
Service contracts
Other (Strategy) Meeting the up to date economic strategy Best practice is achieved if the proposal meets the guidance laid down in the strategy fully.
Other (Investment) Inward investment Best practised is achieved if the development has strong potential to attract inward investment
(e.g. there are already some businesses that wish to relocate behind the proposal).
Local monopoly (position of
profit and pricing)
Competition
Global monopoly (position of
profit and pricing)
Impact study A retail impact study should be carried out as part of any proposal to build significant new retail
premises, especially those designated as 'out of town'. If a study has been carried out and the
existing premises are likely to be unaffected / or have enhanced viability then good / best
practise has been met.
Pricing (developments influence
on local competition / prices)
1

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
Mixed land use Mixed use development should meet the requirements of the development plan.
Diversification (range of
employment types, products
and public services).
Business base Best practice is met if the new development has a strong potential to diversify the business base
of the area.
Viability of existing businesses Best practice is met if the development is likely o increase the viability of either existing
businesses or public transport.
Choice (customer availability)
Other
Range of business premises Best practice is met where within the development a range of business premises are designed
that allow for expansion to encourage both start up and existing businesses.
Business opportunities
Employment and
Skills
Expansion in identified growth sectors Best practiced is achieved if the development has reviewed the local authority's and SEEDA's
identified growth sectors and provided premises for these either as start ups or business
expansion.
Job numbers Permanent jobs Best practice is achieved if the development's ability to create permanent jobs (largely for local
people) is high.
Terms of employment
Investment in skills
Equal opportunities
Diversity Jobs protecting the environment The number of jobs created by a development will depend upon the size and nature of the
development. This aspect should therefore be tailored to suit the circumstances. If more than 3
jobs are likely to be created in protecting / managing the environment, best practice is achieved.
Training programmes Training opportunities Best practice is achieved if the development includes proposals to train local unemployed people
as part of the development process.
Other
Proximity of local employment sites to housing Consider the area of housing in the proposed development and calculate approximately the area
of employment sites (accessible by foot / cycle) within a 1 km radius of the centre of the housing
development. If area is >30% of the area of housing , best practice has been met.
Dependency
Transport
Proximity of housing to commercial development Consider the floor area of commercial buildings in the proposed development and calculate
approximately the area of housing within easy access of the commercial development (i.e. within
1km of the centre of the commercial development). If the area of housing is more than 60%,
best practice has been meet.
2

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
Density of built environment The development proposal should follow a clear strategy of increasing development densities in
line with access to public transport as outlined in policy guidance note 13.
Public transport
(Viable) new major transport node or interchange Where a development provides new a public transport corridor, new major public transport
nodes should be introduced. (e.g. like a train station or bus station).
Real time information systems If >80% of the bus stops and shelters have real time information, best practise has been met.
Freight traffic HGV offloading spaces Where HGV access is necessary, provision should be made to offload and turn round off the
main route through the development. If this has been provided in 80% or more of the cases,
best practice has been met.
Rail and water
Vehicle use Safe passage of vehicles The vehicle speed restraint should be a logical result of the design of buildings and street layout,
rather than being solely a highway engineering solution.
Other
Locally available low environmental impact materials Best practise is met where the proposal demonstrates that the specification of locally available
low environmental impact materials has been fully considered for buildings and for infrastructure.
(See environmental).
Local materials suppliers Best practise is met where the proposal demonstrates that there is a procurement policy in place
that will encourage local materials suppliers with environmentally friendly supply chains.
Financial
Social Benefits and
Costs
Community trust Best practice is achieved if funds are made available and staff resources are provided in an
initial period (at least 6 months) to facilitate the running of the community trust. The setting up
and running of a community trust can encourage and build community spirit.
Property costs Best practice is achieved if the development maintains the property values in and around the
development.
Non-financial Urban design audit Urban design audit, such as Placecheck, carried out by local community and developer takes
into account results in the design of the development.
Crime
Other
Planning Application Discussions held between the applicant and the local authority and all relevant information
regarding design discussed.
Advisory panel Expert design advisory panel used at appropriate times and advice acted upon.
Design statement A design statement should be submitted with the planning application.
Design skills All parties involved in negotiations between the local authority and developer should have an
adequate design skills.
Design Process
3

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
3 SEEDA Sustainability Checklist
3.3 Social Themes
Theme Sub-Theme Sub-Sub-Theme Description
Impact on Equity in distribution
of resources
Social Inclusion
and Equity
(External Impacts
of development
during the life
cycle)
Development integration Best practice is met if a development integrates well in most respects (e.g. uses, access,
boundaries, scale, relationship to local centre etc) with any existing development.
Contribution to Diversity
Community identity Best practice is achieved if priority in design has been made for the new development to
create a strong community identity due to the layout of the settlement, the provisions of and
identifiable centre and facilities etc in an area with no existing developments.
Mix of housing Development should contribute to the diverse mix of housing for the area, in terms of type,
size, tenure and affordability. This meets needs of cross section of community and
encourages greater social cohesion and better integration with existing community.
Impact on solidarity (i.e., the
social cohesion/bond within
communities)
Provision of affordable housing Should meet the requirements of the development plan and housing need surveys.
People interaction Best practise is met if the development is designed to enhance the interaction between
people with natural meeting points and opportunities for interaction.
Provision for facilitating community networks Best practise is met if provision has been made for facilitating community networks, this has
been written into the management plan and there are mechanisms in place to ensure this
happens.
Integration with development Should be sensitively integrated with the rest of the development in terms of aesthetics, and
distribution.
Accessible housing units Best practise where >20% of dwellings are designed for ease of disabled. (i.e. internal design
should consider positioning of sockets, work surfaces, appliances etc).
Incorporation of marginalised
section of society (e.g.,
disabled, elderly., etc)
Other
1

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
Site safety
Public safety
Employee safety
Safety and
Security
Housing design Best practice is achieved if >80% of the housing is to be built to 'Secured By Design'
standards.
Propensity for crime
Estate layout Good estate layout design can minimise opportunities for crime and increase perception of
safety. Best practise is achieved where advice of the police or other expert body has been
sought and incorporated into the layout design.
Parking space and walkway design Best practice is achieved if all parking spaces and walkways have been designed to be
'overlooked' by housing or offices wherever possible.
Public telephones Best practice has been met if over 80% of the bus shelters have public telephones within
20m.
Security lighting and cameras Best practice has been met if >50% of public places have security lighting and cameras.
(Psychological) Perception of
safety
Other
Site health
Employee health
Health and
Comfort
Public health Impact of construction process Best practice is met where the developer has signed up to the considerate constructors
scheme and has identified areas where noise may be a nuisance and taken steps to eliminate
these (e.g. restricted delivery hours, no waiting on roads of delivery vehicles, restricted hours
of work of noisy equipment and restricted working hours at weekends.)
Other
2

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
Layout of connecting roads, pavements and spaces Should achieve a balance between good access into and through the development, and the
provision of interesting and useful spaces.
Liveability Accessibility (i.e., the ability to
access key physical facilities
and services, e.g., transport,
shops)
Provision of safe pedestrian routes Check that the development provides a network of safe pedestrian routes around the
development and to the local facilities . If full provision is made, the recommendation has
been met.
Safe crossing points Check that proposal contains the provision of safe crossing points over all major roads near
to facilities and strategic points.
Proximity of local facilities to homes. The recommendation has been met for each of the
Proximity of local facilities to commercial development. The recommendation has been met if
the facilities (a), (c), (e), (f), (g), (i), (l) and (m) (facilities (b), (j), (k) are not relevant to
offices) are within walking distance of 60% (by number) of the offices / commercial premises.
Which of the following are within 400m of the development:
(a) Shop selling food and fresh groceries
(b) School: JMI = 20, Secondary = 10
(c) Playground / amenity area
(d) Local meeting place
(e) Medical Centre
(f) Chemist
(g) Leisure facilities including public house
(h) Childcare facilities (nursery / creche)
(i) Post box / phone box
(j) Religious building / place of worship
(k) Contemplative features (water garden etc)
(l) Cash point machine
For development to include community services to facilitate sustainable living best practice is
met if all the following schemes are implemented:
Services to facilitate sustainable living
(a) Car club / share scheme
(b) Local organic food box scheme
(c ) 'Village offices' (communal offices for working remotely)
Access to green space 80% of houses in the proposed development should have access to play space / amenity
space within 400m of their front door.
Dwelling Density Best practise will be achieved where 80% of the development is greater than 60 DPH, with
the same condition on noise attenuation. (DPH - Developments per hectare)
Adequacy of space
3

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
Grain of the development should be appropriate for the needs, Consideration should be given to surrounding and prevailing grain and the most appropriate
and in context with the surroundings
grain for the development.
Scale of development should be appropriate in terms of height The design should match the surrounding area as best as is possible.
and massing of the buildings
Legible development design Have gateways, landmarks, elevations, signage, memorable buildings or works of art been
introduced to create focal points and design.
Vitality The vitality of a development should be improved if the street frontage is designed to be
active.
Enhancement of existing area Best practice is achieved where the new development enhances the existing area in >1
respect by adding more facilities, amenity space or areas of natural beauty etc.
Aesthetics
Other (Enhancement of
existing - all 3 liveability
themes)
Employee involvement in
company decisions
Opportunities and fairness in
reward / promotion
Work and labour Conditions
Work/Life balance
Perceptions of fairness
Other
Employee
Satisfaction
Context appraisals of the site and area Appraisals on the grain, layout and scale should be carried out.
Pre-application discussions on design Discussions held between the developer and the local community and all relevant information
regarding design discussed.
Planning guidance Check that particular site meets a defined need and the policy objectives of the development
plan or other strategic planning guidance.
Design guidance for site or area Best practise where design guidance is produced by local authority and used by developer.
Company's involvement in the
community
Company's adherence to
sustainability regulations etc.
Design champion Design champion should be appointed by the company / local authority to ensure
sustainability issues are being taken into account.
Company's incorporation of
sustainability principles in its
purchasing and sub-
Corporate Social
Responsibility (of
the company
undertaking the
development,
maintenance etc.,
at the various
stages of the built
environment life
cycle)
contracting decisions
Community support Best practice is met if written support is obtained from many groups with little local objections
(e.g. parish councils, local councillors, local businesses etc) regarding ways in which the new
development can improve the quality of life for an existing community.
Stake holder involvement in
company decisions (Public
consultations and participation)
Community involvement Best practice is met if there is an ongoing programme of community involvement with the
development (e.g. participation and feedback days, information leaflets etc) using systems
like 'enquire by design' and ' planning for real', which are used at the earliest stages and are
designed to cover the whole construction process.
Other (Maintenance) Maintenance of community facilities Best practise has been met if a management plan has been developed and actions taken to
ensure the maintenance of all communities over the long term.
4

Planning Workshop Stuttgart
Indicator lists
Provision of opportunities for
employment and betterment
Quality of Life (of
those who will live
/ use the built
environment
product)
Provision of information pack to homes and businesses Best practice has been achieved when a pack which covers at least five of the following
topics has been provided to the householder:
Implications on information
access (I.e., education, mass
media etc)
(a) Public transport services
(b) Local facilities / amenities
(c) Energy efficiency
(d) Crime prevention
(e) Water conservation
(f) Refuse collection and composting
Impacts on Poverty
Cultural structures and
processes
Implications on political
structures etc. that maximise
one's involvement in decisions
relevant to him/her.
Home zones' For regeneration home zones should be included in the development. For new build, the
development should encompass the outcomes / objectives of home zones in residential areas
through good design. (i.e. vehicles do not have priority, speeds restricted to 10 miles / hour,
cyclists and pedestrians have priority and streets designed to be safe for children).
Impact on civil liberties and
freedoms
5