Architektur im Kontext / Architecture In Context

JovisVerlag

978-3-86859-297-9

1

Architektur im Kontext

Architecture In Context

Die Entwicklung urbaner Lebensräume

jenseits von Masterplan und Fassadendiskussion

Developing Urban Living Environments Beyond

the Master Plan and Facade Discussion

Kay von Keitz / Sabine Voggenreiter (Hg. / eds.)


2

Inhalt

Content


3

Kay von Keitz As Time Goes By – Der Faktor Zeit im Kontextdickicht 4

von Architektur und Städtebau

As Time Goes By – The Time Factor in the Contextual

Jungle of Architecture and Urban Development

Sabine Voggenreiter Die Stadt, die Unordnung, die Zeit und das gute Leben 20

City, Disorder, Time, and Good Life

Christoph Laimer Wer macht heute die Stadt von morgen? 40

Who are Today’s Creators of Tomorrow’s Cities?

Klaus Overmeyer Von Raumpionieren zu Raumunternehmen – 58

Strategien eines nutzergetragenen Städtebaus

From Space Pioneers to Space Entrepreneurs –

Strategies of User-Driven Urban Development

Andreas Denk Learning from Africa – 74

Zeit und Raum des konsekutiven Städtebaus

Learning from Africa – Time and Space

of Consecutive Urban Development

Oliver Bormann Aktuelle Verkehrslage – 96

Von der Rückgewinnung urbaner Infrastruktur

Current Traffic Situation –

Recovering Urban Infrastructure

Per Als Das Modell Kopenhagen – 110

Ein zukunftsweisendes Mobilitätskonzept

The Copenhagen Model –

A Future-Oriented Mobility Concept

Anna-Lisa Müller Stadtentwicklung und soziale Transformationen 130

Urban Development and Social Transformations

Regina Bittner Architektur der Migration 150

The Architecture of Migration

Elke Krasny Sei zeitgenössisch! 166

Be Contemporary!

Biografien 186

Biographies


4

Kay von Keitz

As Time Goes By –

Der Faktor Zeit im Kontextdickicht

von Architektur und

Städtebau

As Time Goes By –

The Time Factor in the Contextual

Jungle of Architecture and

Urban Development


Architektur kann doch immer nur in ihrem jeweiligen Kontext wahrgenommen, verstanden

und beurteilt werden?!“ Wer so auf die besondere Betonung der Kontextbezogenheit

von Architektur reagiert, der tut das natürlich völlig zu Recht. Die absolut

„freien“, in jeder Hinsicht solitären Entwürfe und deren Realisierungen existieren

höchstens in Form von Artefakten, für die wahrscheinlich die Bezeichnung „Skulptur“

am zutreffendsten ist. Und auch in solchen Fällen kann ein kulturelles, ikonografisches,

ästhetisches etc. Beziehungsgeflecht selbstverständlich nicht geleugnet

werden. Insofern mag ein Buchtitel wie Architektur im Kontext von manchen als beinahe

tautologisch oder zumindest als einigermaßen banal empfunden werden. Wer

jedoch die Diskussionen betrachtet, die über Architektur und Städtebau (also Architektur

in größerem Maßstab) geführt werden, vor allem wenn es um konkrete Realisierungen

geht, der kann feststellen, wie oft das existierende Konglomerat aus

unterschiedlichsten Zusammenhängen und Wechselwirkungen konsequent ignoriert

oder auf ein Minimum von Aspekten reduziert wird. Ein Phänomen, das bei allen

architektonischen Planungen und Entscheidungsfindungen zu beobachten ist – also

nicht nur bei Auftragsvergaben durch private Bauherren und Investoren, sondern auch

dann, wenn gewählte Gremien, Wettbewerbsjuroren oder engagierte Menschen in

sogenannten Bürgerbeteiligungsverfahren das ausschlaggebende Personal des jeweiligen

Entwicklungsprozesses darstellen. Daher lohnt sich ein etwas genauerer Blick auf

die scheinbar selbstverständliche, am Ende aber beeindruckend komplexe Kontextualität

architektonischen Handelns.

Vielleicht wird diese Komplexität auch gerne übersehen, weil sie in einem starken

Kontrast zu den allzeit gültigen Grundfunktionen und Konstruktionselementen steht,

aus denen das sprichwörtliche „Dach über dem Kopf“ besteht: Der Mensch schafft

sich vielfältig nutzbare Gehäuse, die gegen diverse äußere Einflüsse Schutz bieten

sollen, stattet diese mit Ver- und Entsorgungstechniken aus (die in Art und Umfang

natürlich Wandlungen unterliegen) und organisiert die einzelnen Bauwerke zu unterschiedlich

großen Strukturen. Das klingt erst einmal recht simpel – zumindest, was

die erforderlichen Betrachtungs- und Beurteilungskriterien angeht. Doch wir alle wissen:

Diese wenigen Basisparameter haben ganze Konvolute von Frage- und Problemstellungen

im Schlepptau, die aufgrund von zivilisatorischen Ausdifferenzierungen

zwangsläufig entstehen müssen. So haben wir es bis heute – und höchst wahrscheinlich

auch noch bis in die fernere Zukunft – einerseits mit solch archetypischen

Architekturelementen wie Wand, Boden, Decke, Tür, Fenster, Treppe, Weg, Straße

5


12

Kay von Keitz I As Time Goes By

Berlin-Kreuzberg, ca. 1900

Berlin-Kreuzberg, approx. 1900


Kay von Keitz I As Time Goes By

13

Berlin-Friedrichshain, Mainzer Straße, oben 1990, unten 2006

Berlin-Friedrichshain, Mainzer Strasse, 1990 (top), 2006 (bottom)


14 Kay von Keitz I As Time Goes By

Berlin-Gropiusstadt, 1970er Jahre

Berlin-Gropiusstadt, in the 1970s


Kay von Keitz I As Time Goes By

15

As Time Goes By – The Time Factor in the Contextual Jungle of

Architecture and Urban Development

“Obviously, we have to see, understand, and assess architecture in its respective context?!”

Those who react to a specific emphasis on context in architecture in this way,

are, of course, absolutely right. Totally ‘independent’, in all respects solitary, designs

and implementations exist, at best, in the form of artefacts, for which the term ‘sculpture’

seems to be most accurate. But, even in those cases, one cannot deny the existence

of a cultural, iconographic, aesthetic, etc., network of references. Hence, some

may feel that a book title such as Architecture in Context is almost tautological, or, at

least, slightly banal. But if you look at the current discussions about architecture and

urban development (which is architecture on a larger scale), in particular in relation to

concrete realisations, you will find that the existing conglomerate of different relationships

and interactions is often completely ignored, or reduced to a minimum of

aspects. This phenomenon can be observed in all architectural planning and decisionmaking

processes: not only when projects are commissioned by private clients or

investors, but also when elected committees, competition jurors, or engaged members

of the public are the ones who, by following a citizen-participation procedure, have a

say in the development process. Therefore, it is worth taking a closer look into the

seemingly obvious, yet indeed impressively complex, context of architectural practice.

Perhaps this complexity is so often overlooked because it contrasts strongly with

the eternal basic functions and construction elements that form the proverbial ‘roof

over our heads’: we create buildings for various uses; to protect ourselves against

external influences, we equip these buildings with utility and disposal technologies

(whose type and scale are, of course, subject to change), and organise individual

buildings into differently sized structures. At first, this sounds pretty simple, at least in

relation to the necessary analysis and assessment criteria. However, we all know that

those few basic parameters come with a long tail of convoluted questions and issues,

which are, perforce, a consequence of highly differentiated civil societies. Hence, on

the one hand, we still have to deal (and most likely will have to continue to do so in

the foreseeable future) with archetypal architectural elements such as wall, floor, ceiling,

door, window, stairs, path, street, or square, while, on the other hand, we are confronted

with a flood of technological and design issues to address (or try to address)

both practical and symbolic requirements, which are not only constantly changing, but

also increasing.

Of the many references playing a role in architecture, the time factor must be

attributed crucial, if not the highest, importance: the question of time, both in terms of

concrete, event-related incidents, and of spans, in which processes and developments

happen, automatically touches on a number of other issues such as functional requirements

and challenges, technological possibilities and projects, social conditions and


20

Sabine Voggenreiter

Die Stadt, die Unordnung,

die Zeit und das gute Leben

City, Disorder, Time,

and the Good Life


Kontext Stadt, Kontext Zeit

Lange Zeit haben wir gedacht, die Gestaltung der Städte sei ein Fall für die staatliche

und städtische Stadtplanung, die als Teil des politischen Systems am ehesten soziale

und weitreichende demokratische Perspektiven für die Städte und zum Wohle aller

Bewohner als „Inhaber“ oder „Teilhaber“ einer Stadt mit den Mitteln moderner und

differenzierter Planungsmethoden entwickeln könnte – jenseits oder auch gegen das

profitorientierte Immobilienentwicklungsbegehren Einzelner. In diesem Glauben aber

sind in großem Maßstab die eklatantesten irreversiblen Missplanungen der letzten

Jahrzehnte passiert, auch und insbesondere, weil die offizielle Stadtplanung die Macht

dazu hatte, diese durchzusetzen, aber auf der anderen Seite nicht über die Fähigkeit

verfügte, offen, nachhaltig, kontext- und ressourcenbezogen Stadt in menschlichem

Zeitmaß, Stadt als Prozess und in kultureller Komplexität zu planen.

In den großen Fehlern der Stadtplanung bilden sich holzschnittartig die mächtigen

Planungsgesetze der 1960er, 1970er, 1980er und 1990er Jahre ab: Die Stadtgestalt

und die gesellschaftlichen Funktionen sollten jenseits jeden Maßstabs sichtbar sein.

Die Planungsgesetze demonstrierten Macht, Ordnung und Kontrolle, vor allem dort,

wo sie den Anspruch der Daseinsvorsorge im Wohlfahrtsstaat reklamierten.

Man hatte es wohl gut gemeint mit den neuen Ansätzen des Städtebaus. Machbarkeit

war die Losung, und einher mit dem „Machbarkeitswahn“ der Planer ging das

Einbetonieren der planungstechnokratischen Botschaft in die Gesetzgebung und in

die politisch gewollten, ausführenden Stadtentwicklungsplanungen der größeren und

mittleren Städte.

Auf der Basis dieses starren Schemas der Gesetzgebung findet auch die aktuelle

Stadtplanung statt, und gegen diese Wand rennt auch heute jede kreative oder dynamische,

jedenfalls zeitgenössische und kontextorientierte Architektur, Stadt- und

Freiraumplanung an.

Diese Art Planung und Gesetzgebung hat das Bild der Stadt, in der wir heute leben,

geprägt: Ob in Köln oder Berlin, in Frankfurt am Main, aber auch in Kaiserslautern,

in Dortmund oder in vielen anderen Städten. An die Wohnsilos und die Verkehrsschneisen

konnten wir uns nicht gewöhnen, aber mit der Qualität der Architektur der

1950er und 1960er Jahre wie auch nachfolgender Dekaden konnten wir uns paradoxerweise,

auf Umwegen, anfreunden.

Die vergehende Zeit hat diese Architekturtypen in den Kontext des Stadtbilds

eingezeichnet, in dem sich Schicht auf Schicht legt und unterschiedliche „archäolo-

21


32

Sabine Voggenreiter I City, Disorder, Time, and the Good Life

City, Disorder, Time, and the Good Life

City Context, Time Context

For a long time, we thought that city planning was a case for governmental and

municipal bodies: beyond, or against, the profit-oriented, real-estate greed of individual

developers, these bodies, as part of the political system, would be most likely

to use modern and differentiated planning methods to develop social and far-reaching

democratic perspectives for our cities, and for the good of all citizens as ‘owners’ or

‘co-owners’ of the city.

However, in the last few decades, this belief has led to the most blatant and irreversible

planning failures, especially because, on the one hand, official planning

authorities had the power to push these projects through, while, on the other hand,

they were unable to conceive of an open, sustainable, context and resource-related

way of city planning, using humane time scales and understanding the city as process

and cultural complexity.

Redundantly engraved on these huge mistakes of official city planning are the

powerful planning regulations of the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s: the city’s

gestalt and societal functions had to be visible beyond all measure. Those regulations

demonstrated power, order, and control, in particular in those cases, where they

reclaimed the idea of the welfare state.

Let’s assume that the intentions behind the new approaches to urban development

were good ones. ‘Feasibility’ was the buzzword, and the planner’s feasibility mania

was accompanied by casting the planning-technocratic message in laws and rooting it

firmly in the politically endorsed urban planning departments of large and mediumsized

cities. Current urban development is also based on these rigid laws, thus representing

the wall hit by each creative or dynamic, or at least contemporary and

context-oriented, planning of architecture, city, and open spaces.

This rigid type of planning and regulations has shaped the image of the cities in

which we live today: it could be Cologne, Berlin, or Frankfurt, but also Kaiserslautern

or Dortmund, or any other city you care to mention. While we have not been able to

get used to sprawling concrete tower blocks and urban highways, we have, paradoxically,

come to like the quality of architecture from the 1950s and 1960s, as well as

from subsequent decades.

The passing of time has chiselled these types of architecture into the context of the

cityscape, in which layer builds upon layer, and where different ‘archaeological’ types

of construction unintendedly correspond with each other to the benefit of the city. In a

current context, even planning failures can become attractive and reveal new potential:

a small twist in perspective, a step aside, a new appropriation, conversions and

new interpretations – over the course of time, existing structures develop a new

dynamic.


Sabine Voggenreiter I City, Disorder, Time, and the Good Life

33

Hence, today, the feasibility mania as expressed in concrete has not recast the city

in a new form, filled the gaps, and patched up the breaks, but has, instead, added new

breaks to the city. Thank you very much.

Ambivalent City: Power and Powerlessness

Context-sensitive development is one thing, but living, experiencing, and understanding

the city in context, and, in this sense, reclaiming and making the city contemporary

is an altogether different, and more important, thing. The final control over the

city does not lie with the planners or official planning authorities, not with the legislators,

architects, and designers, and neither with the project owners and profit-makers:

it lies with those who inscribe their existence, lives, personality, and creativity into the

city, over the course of time.

This ambivalence in the current situation of urban development seems to have

reached its peak now: on the one hand, opaque urban planning authorities have, helplessly

and with premature obedience, handed over the terrain to globally operating

real estate investment trusts or large regional developers; on the other hand, official

planning authorities are cautiously beginning to use region-sensitive and participatory

planning instruments. What is all too plain to see is that official urban planning has

long lost the ability to keep apace with the city’s inherent and continuous change and

dynamics. Given the ecological, ethical, social, and economic upheaval that cities are

faced with today, there is general doubt as to whether top-down administrative methods

with their out-of-control regulations and legal interpretations can still be effective,

particularly as they progress at a snail’s pace, lagging far behind current and increasingly

accelerating developments: official urban planning is only reacting instead of

actively shaping the city.

Since the 1950s, something has gone utterly wrong in the design of cities, and it is

paradoxical that, since then, planners have been equipped with the most modern technologies,

and resources have been as accessible as never before. However, this arsenal

cannot be deployed creatively: everything is subjected to the control craze of current

planning regulations. The overabundance of building regulations has stifled innovation

and creativity everywhere and has frozen the city into a closed system. Countless

rules have been drawn up for the catalogued planning context that relegate architectural,

economic, and social contexts to the fringes, in order to keep their effect on

urban infrastructures in check.

Paradox City: Rise and Decay

Another paradox of ‘urban planning by feasibility’ is that the elements of urban planning

are subjected to rapid decay, not only as part of a general change in values and

aesthetics, but also in their very substance: twenty or thirty years after completion,

many quarters have been left to fall into disrepair and are being demolished. The


40

Christoph Laimer

Wer macht heute die Stadt

von morgen?

Who are Today’s Creators

of Tomorrow’s Cities?


In der Diskussion um Städtebau und Stadtentwicklung spielt die Opposition von Topdown

versus Bottom-up oder, anders formuliert, New Towns versus informellen

Städtebau eine zentrale Rolle. Top-down-Positionen verbuchen dabei zumeist die

mächtigeren Unterstützer auf ihrer Seite, da Staat und Kapital Profiteure sind. Topdown

bedeutet Großaufträge, zentrale Kontrolle, Festigung von Machtstrukturen und

ideologischen Positionen. Bottom-up hingegen wird gerne mit Unprofessionalität,

unklaren Strukturen, diffusen Verantwortlichkeiten und schlechter Qualität in Zusammenhang

gebracht. Sieht man sich die Positionen genauer an, verschwimmen diese

Zuschreibungen relativ rasch: Es braucht – wie so oft – „the best of both worlds“.

Wie also sollen sich unsere Städte weiterentwickeln? Und welcher Stellenwert kommt

dabei der Frage der Gestaltung zu?

In den 1960er Jahren erreichten Stimmen, die sich gegen den funktionalistischen

(Top-down-)Nachkriegs-Städtebau aussprachen, erstmals eine breite Öffentlichkeit.

Jane Jacobs’ einflussreiches Werk The Death and Life of Great American Cities aus

dem Jahr 1961, das sich zum Dauerbestseller entwickelt hat, oder Alexander

Mitscherlichs Die Unwirtlichkeit unserer Städte von 1965 sind populäre publizistische

Interventionen aus dieser Zeit. Der französische Soziologe Henri Lefebvre,

dessen Werk gerade in den letzten Jahren wieder höchste Aufmerksamkeit zuteil wird,

schrieb 1967 in einem Aufsatz erstmals von einem „Recht auf Stadt“ und sprach sich

damit für die kollektive (Wieder-)Aneignung des städtischen Raumes durch seine

Bewohner und Bewohnerinnen ebenso aus wie für die selbstbestimmte Gestaltung des

Lebensumfeldes in einer Stadt für alle. 1

Aktivitäten gegen Kahlschlagsanierungen, Wohnungspolitik, Stadtautobahnen und

der Kampf um selbstverwaltete Räume prägten ab den 1960/70er Jahren Initiativen,

die sich für mehr Gestaltungsfreiheit und Mitspracherecht in der Stadtplanung und in

ihrem persönlichen urbanen Lebensraum einsetzten. Die breite Palette neuer sozialer

Bewegungen (Feminismus, Ökologie, Frieden, Schwulenrechte etc.), die wir heute

zumeist als NGOs oder Parteien kennen, verorten ihre Ursprünge ebenfalls in dieser

Zeit der gesellschaftspolitischen Umbruchstimmung.

Die noch im funktionalistischen Nachkriegs-Städtebau verwurzelten Stadtverwaltungen

reagierten auf solch ungewohnten Widerspruch zuerst meist mit Unverständnis

ob der Undankbarkeit ihrer Bürger und Bürgerinnen. Nach einer ausgedehnten

Schrecksekunde folgten in Städten wie Wien oder Berlin jedoch neue Konzepte wie

die „sanfte“ oder „behutsame“ Stadterneuerung. Die bis dato Top-down strukturierten

41


50 Christoph Laimer I Wer macht heute die Stadt von morgen?

Transparent am Centro Sociale in Hamburg während des „Recht auf Stadt“-Kongresses im Juni 2011

Banner at the Centro Sociale in Hamburg during the ‘Right to the City’ congress in June 2011


Christoph Laimer I Wer macht heute die Stadt von morgen?

51

Polizeiaufgebot bei Demo gegen ein geplantes Shopping-Center an der Alten Rindermarkthalle in

St. Pauli, Hamburg

Police presence during a demonstration against a planned shopping centre at the Alte Rindermarkthalle in

St. Pauli, Hamburg


52 Christoph Laimer I Who are Today’s Creators of Tomorrow’s Cities?

Who are Today’s Creators of Tomorrow’s Cities?

The opposition of top-down versus bottom-up, or, to put it another way, of the New

Town movement versus informal urban planning, plays a central role in the discourse

on urban planning and development. Top-down positions tend to have more-powerful

supporters, since authorities and profiteers are the beneficiaries of this approach. Topdown

means big projects, central control, consolidation of both power structures and

ideological positions. Bottom-up, on the other hand, tends to be associated with

unprofessionalism, unclear structures and responsibilities, as well as poor quality. But

if you take a closer look at these positions, then those attributions blur pretty quickly:

as is often the case, what you need is the best of both worlds. So, how should our cities

be developed? And, how important is design in this context?

In the 1960s, the voices opposing functional (top-down) postwar urban planning

received substantial public attention for the first time. Jane Jacob’s influential 1961

work The Death and Life of Great American Cities, which has become a permanent

bestseller, and Alexander Mitscherlich’s 1965 book Die Unwirtlichkeit unserer Städte

(The Inhospitality of our Cities) are two popular publicist interventions of the time.

The French sociologist Henri Lefebvre whose work has been receiving much attention

over the last few years, first called for a “right to the city” in a 1967 essay, thus

advocating both collective (re)appropriation of urban space by its inhabitants and

autonomous design of living environments in a city for everyone. 1

From the 1960s and 1970s onwards, activities against demolition and reconstruction,

housing policies and urban motorways, as well as the fight for user-managed spaces,

have been the hallmark of initiatives fighting for more design freedom and the right to

have a say in urban planning and their personal urban environment. The broad spectrum

of new social movements (feminism, ecology, peace, gay rights, etc.), most of

which have today become NGOs or parties, also has roots in that era of socio-political

upheaval.

Still rooted in the functional postwar urban planning approach, local authorities

initially responded to this new opposition with incomprehension at the ungratefulness

of their citizens. After a long drawn-out moment of shock, cities such as Vienna and

Berlin came up with new concepts such as ‘soft’ or ‘gentle’ urban renewal. The topdown

planning concepts were facing a new situation that necessitated changes in the

usual procedures of urban planning departments if they wanted to maintain the established

power balance.

Based on an impetus similar to the one found with those who criticised top-down

urban planning, in 1970, the Austrian-American designer Victor Papanek argued that

it was high time to take users seriously and put them at the centre of the development

process. In his book Design for the Real World: Human Ecology and Social Change,

he called for a halt to using design to generate the highest possible profits for the con­


Christoph Laimer I Who are Today’s Creators of Tomorrow’s Cities?

53

sumer goods industries and instead start serving users’ needs. “Form follows user”

was Papanek’s credo. Papanek himself is considered the intellectual father of the Do-

It-Yourself movement and sustainable design. 2

The same objections against tying the hands of, and patronising, the individual and

against a homogenous society of consumption and control are reemerging today.

They are being levelled against an all-pervasive ‘consumer society 2.0’ that would

have been unimaginable in the 1960s and 1970s. Thanks to its superior abilities of

adaptation, the capitalist system has succeeded in using the criticism against the uniform

and authoritarian postwar mass consumer society of the 1960s to optimise its

own structures and, again, profit from the situation: the former one-for-all approach

has developed into a world of consumer goods that pretends to have the right product

for all possible desires and needs, and has spawned an economic model that turns

everything and everybody into a commodity by using, as its basis, an ideology that

glorifies the market.

Current social criticism has rediscovered the above-mentioned critics from the

1960s and 1970s, using their ideas in a new context. Henri Lefebvre’s “right to the

city” is today used the world over by urban activists as both an inspiration and a unifying

credo. The German edition of Papanek’s major work was republished in 2009,

but is again out of print. His ideas still inform concepts such as participatory design,

open design, collaborative design, etc. 3

The cracks showing at the surface of the neo-liberal social system have become

ever deeper throughout the last few years. There are many reasons for this, only two

of which will be mentioned here that are important for the future of urban planning:

firstly, the new social criticism that also understands itself as a criticism of consumer

culture and is primarily characterised by new alliances and, secondly, the criticism

levelled against the profoundly unequal distribution of societal wealth. What unites

these two aspects is the idea of informal urban planning or urbanism.

DIY Urbanism

Informal urban development as practiced in shantytowns and favelas has been fascinating

urban planners and architects for many years: they admire the (necessary) initiative

and the creative use of available materials necessitated by deprivation and

poverty. However, those harsh living conditions and the benefits of a water closet are

often forgotten when marvelling at the innovative solutions and the creative recycling

of waste materials. In this context, the urban planner and architect Alexander Jachnow,

using the example of Mexico City, points towards the Mafia-like structures in

those informal settlements, and towards the profound influence exerted by political

parties, facts that tend to escape external observers. According to Jachnow, in these

areas, DIY urbanism often results in cheap and hazardous land being densely populated,

whereas (expensive) areas released for housing development are built-up only


58

Klaus Overmeyer

Von Raumpionieren zu

Raumunternehmen –

Strategien eines

nutzergetragenen Städtebaus

From Space Pioneers to

Space Entrepreneurs –

Strategies of User-Driven

Urban Development


Zwischen Gewerbehöfen, Ateliers, Veranstaltungsorten und leeren Betriebsgebäuden

liegt das Theater Pathos München. Bislang galt dieses Theater als typische kreative

Zwischennutzung in einem der wichtigsten Münchener Entwicklungsgebiete zwischen

Innenstadt und Olympiapark – mit absehbarem Ende. Die Stadt lobte 2012

einen städtebaulichen Wettbewerb für das Gelände aus und wollte damit der enormen

Nachfrage nach Wohnraum gerecht werden. Der Startschuss für neue Stadtquartiere

läutet meistens das Ende der Zwischennutzungen ein, doch in München wurden die

Raumpioniere „über Nacht“ zu Schlüsselfiguren der weiteren Entwicklung. Der prämierte

Entwurf des Berliner Architekturbüros Teleinternetcafé zusammen mit TH

Treibhaus Landschaftsarchitektur aus Hamburg 1 schlägt eine wegweisende Strategie

vor. Teile des Gesamtareals können zügig erschlossen und mit Wohnungen in hoher

Dichte bebaut werden. Im Gegenzug wird eine fünfeinhalb Hektar große Teilfläche

zum „Kreativlabor“ erklärt. Hier sollen zwar auch Wohnungen und Gewerbeeinheiten

mittelfristig gebaut werden können, wo und wann, bleibt aber zunächst offen. Dafür

sollen intakte Bestandsgebäude nach Möglichkeit erhalten werden. Zwischennutzungen

wie das Theater Pathos sollen eine langfristige Perspektive bekommen und eigene

Ideen zur Gestaltung des Labors umsetzen können.

„Für uns ist das eine Riesenchance“, meint Angelika Fink, künstlerische Leiterin

des Theaters. „Zum ersten Mal wird der Wert unserer Arbeit ernst genommen. Auf der

anderen Seite müssen wir Verantwortung für Dinge übernehmen, die bisher nicht zu

unserem Job gehörten: Wir lesen bauliche Gutachten, besprechen mit Anwälten die

Vor- und Nachteile unterschiedlicher Organisationsformen, initiieren öffentliche Veranstaltungen

zum Gelände oder müssen uns über Finanzierungsquellen, Pachthöhen

und Investitionspläne Gedanken machen.“ Für die Zwischennutzer auf dem ehemaligen

städtischen Betriebshof stellt sich damit eine besondere Herausforderung. Kümmerten

sich die Projektmacher bislang um die Nutzung und den Betrieb einzelner

Gebäude und Grundstücke, so setzt die Transformation eines mehrere Hektar großen

Geländes nun Kompetenzen in Planung, Organisation, Ökonomie und Steuerung

voraus.

Wie in München gibt es mittlerweile in vielen Städten Projekte, in denen Be -

stands nutzungen in die städtebauliche Entwicklung eingebettet werden sollen. In

Hamburgs HafenCity wurde der Masterplan im östlichen Bereich zu Gunsten einer

nutzergetragenen Entwicklung, des Kreativ- und Kulturquartiers Oberhafen, geändert.

2 In Rotterdam haben vom Eigentümer selbst eingesetzte „Anti-Hausbesetzer“,

59


68

Klaus Overmeyer I From Space Pioneers to Space Entrepreneurs

From Space Pioneers to Space Entrepreneurs –

Strategies of User-Driven Urban Development

The Munich Pathos Theatre is situated among commercial units and studios, empty

buildings and event venues. Until recently, the theatre was seen as a typical creative

interim solution in one of Munich’s most important development areas, located

between the city centre and the Olympic Park. Hence, the end of the theatre’s useful

life seemed inevitable. In 2012, the city initiated an urban planning competition for

the area to meet the enormous demand for housing. Kicking off initiatives to develop

new urban quarters tends to be the death toll for interim-use projects but, in Munich,

the pioneers who had breathed new life into abandoned buildings suddenly found

themselves the leading actors in the area’s development. The prize-winning design by

Berlin-based architectural practice Teleinternetcafé, in cooperation with TH Treibhaus

Landschaftsarchitektur, based in Hamburg 1 , proposes a trailblazing strategy: parts of

the area can be developed quickly, with residential buildings constructed in a dense pattern.

But there is also a 5.5-hectare part of the area earmarked as a ‘creative laboratory’.

New residential and commercial units will also be built in the ‘laboratory’ area,

but when and where exactly remains open for the time being. Instead, existing buildings

that are in good order will be preserved where possible. Interim uses, such as the

Pathos Theatre, are to be given long-term perspectives and users will be enabled to

implement their own ideas for the design of the laboratory. “This is a huge opportunity

for us” says Angelika Fink, the theatre’s artistic director. “For the first time, the

value of our work is being appreciated. On the other hand, we have to take on responsibility

for things that, so far, have not been part of our job: we read building surveys,

we discuss the pros and cons of different organisational forms with solicitors, we set

up public events related to the development of the area and we have to think about

funding sources, about the level of rents and about investment plans.” Thus, the

interim users of the former city-owned commercial complex are faced with a very

special challenge. While they have, so far, concerned themselves with using and managing

individual buildings and sites, the transformation of an area of several hectares

demands skills in planning, organisation, and in business and strategy matters.

Projects like the one in Munich, where existing forms of use are being integrated

into urban development, can be found in many cities nowadays. In Hamburg’s Hafen-

City, the eastern part of the master plan was changed in favour of a user-driven development,

the Oberhafen Creative and Cultural Quarter. 2 In Rotterdam, a group of

‘anti-squatters’, who were initially authorised by the owner himself to prevent squatting,

have taken over an office building 3 during the peak of the Dutch credit crunch,

and in Basle, citizens set up an association during the tendering procedure for the

city’s largest development area at the Rheinhafen. The association’s aim is to use the

publicly accessible spaces. 4


Klaus Overmeyer I From Space Pioneers to Space Entrepreneurs

69

All of these projects are still in the start-up phase. Only very few of them have a

clear idea about what the respective area will look like in ten or fifteen years’ time,

nor do they know exactly what role the current project members will have in the

future. What needs to be specified and controlled, and what needs to remain open and

malleable? How strongly will those projects have to be oriented towards the common

good and who can skim off the added value? Further open questions are how the ratio

between new and existing buildings will be balanced and who will make the crucial

decisions: will it be the users, the owners, the investors, the politicians, or the

developers?

What all of these projects have in common – and this indicates a paradigm change

in urban planning – is that they are concerned with user-driven development of a

relatively large area and not so much with mere interim uses, or the preservation of

individual buildings. Urban pioneers become DIY urbanists, 5 that is, they become

auto nomous project developers who, from being users of a shared space, evolve into

self-organised networks that initiate public debates on those spaces, combine public

and commercial projects, and develop alternative financing models for further

investment.

What these projects also show is that the users are neither addressed as potential

rent-paying leaseholders nor as potential owners. They are instead challenged to be

autonomous urban developers who improve urban quarters with their ideas, their

commitment and their willingness to take on responsibility. As a rule, such experimental

developments are only possible when the usual market-driven exploitation

mechanisms are excluded. In most cases, the areas concerned are publicly owned and

there is a political mandate to support alternative transformation processes; or, the

property market is in such a crisis (as is the case in The Netherlands) that even private

investors are willing to hand over their land to DIY urbanists, hoping that this will

result in fresh impulses for new development opportunities.

Urban Development and Urban Pioneers Who Want to Stay Put:

A Difficult Relationship

The conflict that arises in the context of making interim uses permanent is a recurring

phenomenon in many urban development projects, especially when there is a suitable

stock of existing buildings and when urban pioneers have already created a situation

that has generated a lot of public interest. The causes for conflict are obvious: the

existing use does not conform to the planned density and, hence, will not generate the

projected return on investment for developers. The following different models of

development processes, with their very different framework conditions that have a

major influence on the consolidation strategies of interim uses, will show what those

conflicts may look like.


74

Andreas Denk

Learning from Africa –

Zeit und Raum des

konsekutiven Städtebaus

Learning from Africa –

Time and Space of Consecutive

Urban Development


75

Die Unzufriedenheit, die sich allerorten zeigt, wenn vom Städtebau der Gegenwart

gesprochen wird, hat sehr unterschiedliche Ursachen. Je nach Interessenlage unterscheiden

sich die Argumente. Der derzeit meist genannte, aber zu wenig differenzierte

Grund ist der Unmut interessierter Teile der Bürgerschaft über die unzureichenden

Möglichkeiten der Partizipation bei der Gestaltung ihrer Umgebung. Diese oftmals

eher rhetorische Figur verrät viel über das Misslingen demokratischer Prozesse an

sich: Stadtplanerische Vorhaben sind durch die gesetzlich verankerten Mitbestimmungsformen

eine der wenigen Möglichkeiten, bei denen Bürger einer parlamentarischen

Demokratie ihre Meinung und ihr Urteil unmittelbar gegenüber einer

Regierungsinstitution äußern können. Dass dies inzwischen bei auch noch so kleinen

Projekten mit bisweilen überzogener Schärfe passiert, deutet an, wie groß die Frustration

über die eigene Macht- und Einflusslosigkeit bei vielen Bürgern inzwischen

geworden sein muss. Denn diejenigen, die sich bei solchen öffentlichen Anhörungsverfahren

zu Wort melden, sind engagiert. Viele andere haben den Versuch einer Partizipation

entweder nie unternommen oder als von vornherein sinnlos verworfen.

Verlust der Heimat

Der Unmut richtet sich – bei einer vermutlich kleineren Gruppe – auch gegen die

Ausdrucksformen der zeitgenössischen Architektur. Diese Haltung gipfelt im Urteil,

dass die Architektur der Gegenwart nicht mehr in der Lage sei, durch Anmutung und

Komplexität städtische Räume zu bilden, die eine lebenswerte Stadtlandschaft entstehen

lassen. Bei den entsprechenden Gegenmodellen geht es entweder – im besten Fall

– um den Erhalt historisch gewachsener Situationen oder – im schlechteren Fall – um

die künstliche Wiederherstellung solcher Situationen mittels historisierender Stadtfragmente.

Auch diese unbedingt voneinander zu unterscheidenden Positionen haben

einen gemeinsamen Hintergrund. Es ist ein oft nur unbewusst oder emotional empfundenes

Unwohlsein, das durch die rasante Veränderung der Städte bewirkt wird. Das

Recht auf den Erhalt einer gewohnten Umgebung ist höchstens psychologisch oder

ethisch begründet. In den rechtlich abgesicherten Prozessen der Stadterneuerung, der

Verdichtung und der Stadterweiterung spielt es eine untergeordnete Rolle, die fast

immer mit dem Hinweis auf das Interesse des Gemeinwohls über Bord geworfen

wird. Die Beschleunigung dieser Entwicklung in den letzten hundert Jahren hat zur

Folge, dass Regionen der Stadt im Laufe eines Menschenlebens mehrfach unter verschiedenen

Paradigmen verändert werden – sodass sich also ein ortsstabiler Stadtbe-


84 Andreas Denk I Learning from Africa

Potenzielle African-Time-Zonen in Köln: Quartiere um Sudermannplatz, um Brüsseler Platz und um Chlodwigplatz

Potential African Time zones in Cologne: neigbourhoods around Sudermannplatz, Brüsseler Platz,

and Chlodwigplatz

May 2011

April 2008

Selbsthilfehäuser des Architekturbüros Technical Team für den Stadtteil Kambi Moti in Nairobi, Kenia

Self-help housing by Technical Team architects for the Kambi Moti quarter in Nairobi, Kenya


Andreas Denk I Learning from Africa

85

Schematische Darstellung eines möglichen konsekutiven Städtebaus am Kölner Gürzenich

Schematic representation of a potential consecutive planning project at Gürzenich, Cologne


88

Andreas Denk I Learning from Africa

Learning from Africa –

Time and Space of Consecutive Urban Development

The dissatisfaction that we can observe everywhere when talking about contemporary

urban development arises for a variety of very different reasons, with differing arguments,

depending on what kind of interests are at stake. Currently, the most cited, yet

not sufficiently differentiated, reason is the discontent expressed by interested parties

of the population, relating to the lack of opportunities for participation in the design of

their environment. This often merely rhetorically applied concept reveals a lot about

the failure of democratic processes as such: due to legally prescribed forms of participation,

urban development projects represent one of the few opportunities for citizens

to express their opinion in direct communication with governmental institutions. The

fact that this is, at times, being done with a somewhat exaggerated acrimony, even

when only the smallest projects are concerned, indicates the extent of frustration felt

by many citizens in relation to their perceived powerlessness, because those that

speak up at these events are the ones who are really involved. Many others have either

never tried to participate or have dismissed participation as being pointless in the first

place.

Loss of Home

For a supposedly smaller group, the dissatisfaction is also levelled against the forms

of expression in contemporary architecture. This attitude culminates in the judgment

that contemporary architecture is unable to produce an ambience and complexity that

would create a cityscape worth living in. In the corresponding opposing models the

issue is, at best, related to preserving situations that have developed historically or, at

worst, to artificially restoring such a situation by using historicising urban fragments.

Although fundamentally different, these two positions share a common background:

an often only subconscious or emotional unease generated by the rapid changes our

cities are undergoing. The right to preserve a familiar environment can at best be

argued on psychological or ethical grounds. In the legally secured processes of urban

renewal, with increased density and urban expansion, it only plays a minor role and is

almost always dismissed by pointing to the greater common good. The acceleration of

this development over the last one hundred years has resulted in parts of the city being

changed according to different paradigms over the course of a person’s lifetime, and

hence, those who have stayed at the same place have to put up with constant changes

in their environment, meaning the idea of ‘home’ has become an empty concept.

Additionally, there is, in fact, a tendency towards streamlined masterplans. Even

when created by outstanding architects, some of the new quarters display the same

typologies, perspectives, and constructions of space that, regardless of (or because of)

high-end materials and furnishings, rarely become truly interesting parts of the city.


Andreas Denk I Learning from Africa

89

One of the reasons for this is that concepts are being ‘smoothed down’ in favour of

creating a higher degree of acceptance when marketing areas. A current case in point is

the Killesberg Höhe in Stuttgart. The original masterplan for the former site of the

Stuttgart trade exhibition, conceived in 2008 as both a creative quarter and a counterpart

to the neighbouring Weißenhofsiedlung, has been turned into an upscale quarter for

‘premium residential living’ due to replanning measures for an Austrian investor.

Instead of a socially mixed quarter, this has resulted in creating an island for the welloff.

Despite facilities such as a retirement home, a nursery, shops, and restaurants

(significantly, a discount supermarket was relocated into the basement level), the complex

is characterised by a deliberate boredom resulting from its social monostructure. 1

‘Displacement’ and ‘De-Mixing’

A third level of criticism results from socio-economic considerations and relates to

concerns about the future of the city as a functional community. Especially in

Europe’s booming cities, the influx into the core areas has created segregation. The

immense pressure on the inner city property markets is increasingly leading to prices

and rental fees that only high and top earners can afford. The full scale of the resulting

displacement cannot yet be determined. However, what has been noticeable for a long

time is that popular inner city quarters are affected by such a degree of

‘de-mixing’, and that other parts of the city must consequently become social and

ethnic enclaves. Legal regulations for social benefits only allow for housing benefits

that force people to move to less expensive and, hence, often peripheral quarters. This

displacement mechanism is forcefully driven by the interests of the real estate sector,

which, in correspondence to the interests of inner city investors, increasingly invests

in the gentrification of attractive existing structures in the city, instead of creating new

housing.

The Helplessness of Cities

This situation of conflicting political, psychological, economic, and social issues in

contemporary urbanism is receiving public attention. However, to improve the situation,

a strong and politically backed planning authority is needed. But the municipal

budgets are drained to such a degree that the staffing of planning offices is hardly

capable of managing or initiating more complex projects. This lack of resources often

results in a political decision to favour business development over urban development.

Today, even the directors of urban planning departments often find themselves in the

role of mere enablers of policies that are mainly targeted at attracting investors and

ensuring investment in the city; policies that, for this very reason, claim to be for the

‘common good’. Therefore, many communities have implemented a system of ‘project-related

urban planning’, meaning the planning authority will only take action if

an investor has signalled interest in a project. The quality of such projects is not


96

Oliver Bormann

Aktuelle Verkehrslage –

Von der Rückgewinnung

urbaner Infrastruktur

Current Traffic Situation –

Recovering Urban Infrastructure


Stadtverkehr

Verkehr und Stadt sind seit jeher untrennbar miteinander verbunden. Sie bedingen

sich gegenseitig. Seit der Industrialisierung jedoch befeuert der technische und wissenschaftliche

Fortschritt eine rasante Entwicklung der urbanen Bevölkerung und

neuer Verkehrsmedien, die in den Großstädten gewaltige strukturelle Probleme

aufwarfen.

Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts war die Umgestaltung von Paris durch George Eugène

Haussmann eine radikale Antwort auf die damals sich verschärfenden Zustände in der

Stadt. Ziel war es, Verkehr, Kanalisation, Ordnung und Kontrolle in der Metropole zu

etablieren. Die planerische Rosskur an Stadtkörper und -bevölkerung, heute undenkbar,

war nur aufgrund der fast uneingeschränkten Machtfülle des von Napoleon III.

eingesetzten Haussmann möglich und wurde zum Vorbild für den Umbau vieler

europäischer Städte.

Mehr als 50 Jahre später, im „Sonnenaufgang der Moderne“ der 1920er Jahre,

machte sich ein großer Bewunderer Haussmanns daran, die Ville Contemporaine, die

„Stadt der Gegenwart“, noch weitaus radikaler zu denken. In der Forderung nach

einem raumordnenden, die Enge und das Chaos der alten Stadt auflösenden Instrument

ersetzt Le Corbusier die ihm verhasste „Korridorstraße“ durch die „Autostraße“,

denn der Lösung verkehrlicher Probleme wurde essentielle Bedeutung beigemessen

und „die Stadt der Geschwindigkeit ist die Stadt des Erfolges“. 1

Etwas später, im Jahre 1933, findet die Straße ihre neue Bestimmung in den unter

Federführung von Le Corbusier formulierten 95 Leitsätzen der berühmten Charta von

Athen, und zwar als monofunktional gedachtes Systemelement:

80. Die neuen mechanischen Geschwindigkeiten haben den Rhythmus des Stadtlebens

zerstört. Sie bilden ständige Gefahrenquellen, führen zur Stauung und Lähmung

des Verkehrs und schädigen die Gesundheit.

81. Die Grundsätze des städtischen und vorstädtischen Verkehrs müssen überprüft

werden. Eine Rangordnung der möglichen Geschwindigkeiten ist aufzustellen. Die

neue Bezirkseinteilung des Stadtgebietes entsprechend den vier Hauptlebensfunktionen

bringt diese in harmonischen Zusammenhang, der durch ein zweckmäßiges

Netz großer Verkehrsadern gesichert wird. 2

97


104

Oliver Bormann I Current Traffic Situation

Current Traffic Situation –

Recovering Urban Infrastructure

Urban Transport

The concepts of ‘traffic’ and ‘city’ have always been inseparably linked: they are

interdependent. However, since industrialisation, technological and scientific progress

has fuelled the rapid development of both urban populations and new modes of transport,

which has created huge structural problems in big cities.

During the mid-nineteenth century, George Eugène Haussmann’s redesign of Paris

was a radical response to the increasingly worsening conditions in the city. The aim

was to establish traffic and sewage systems, as well as order and control. Deeply

affecting both cityscape and population, such a drastic design intervention would be

unthinkable today and was only possible then because, appointed by Napoleon III,

Haussmann enjoyed almost unrestricted powers. His design became the model for

reconstructing many European cities.

More than fifty years later, in the 1920s’ ‘sunrise of modernism’, one of Haussmann’s

great admirers set about to develop far more radical concepts for the ville contemporaine,

the contemporary city. Demanding an instrument that would structure

space and resolve the cramped and chaotic conditions of the old city, Le Corbusier

replaced the corridor road, which he detested, with the car road, since solving traffic

problems was of vital significance and, according to him, “a city made for speed is

made of success”. 1

A little later, in the guidelines of the famous 1933 Athens Charter drawn up under

the leadership of Le Corbusier, the road is attributed a new purpose as mono-functional

system:

(80) The new mechanical speeds have disrupted the rhythm of urban life, creating

permanent danger, causing traffic jams and harming health. (81) The principles of

urban and suburban traffic must be revised. A classification of available speeds must

be drawn up. The reform of zoning that brings the key functions of the city into harmony

will create between them natural links, which, in turn, will be reinforced by the

establishment of a rational network of major thoroughfares. 2

Inebriation

The destroyed cities of post-war Germany provided the chance for a fresh start and

hence, The Auto-Friendly City, the title of the 1959 book by architect and city planner

Hans Bernhard Reichow, became the mission statement of many urban planners. Reichow’s

intention to enable both cars and pedestrians to move through the city

smoothly and safely, is, however, not reflected in the title, which went from being a

celebrated concept to becoming a term of abuse. But besides the strictly rational

aspects of traffic planning (which only became a discipline in its own right in the sec-


Oliver Bormann I Current Traffic Situation

105

ond half of the twentieth century), since Futurism, avant-garde architects had displayed

an enormous fascination with the dynamics of traffic and with the speed

provided by new modes of transport. Modern infrastructures created new urban

spaces and automotive aesthetics inspired architectural forms. For example, in 1956,

West Berlin’s Ernst-Reuter-Platz was seen as a beacon of modern city planning:

orchestrated traffic and the proud display of technological and architectural progress.

Increasing automobility became both the symbol of, and the key to, a free, selfdetermined,

and comfort-oriented society as already, and almost prophetically, anticipated

by American architect Frank Lloyd Wright in his Broadacre City concept at the

beginning of the 1930s. Transportation and traffic increasingly changed and dissolved

the city’s gestalt until even the city itself became mobile: the utopian Walking City,

designed in 1964 by the UK architects’ group Archigram and Ron Herron, which

sported insect-like constructions of enormous size moving through the landscape like

autonomous organisms.

Hangover

Little has remained from these euphoric beginnings. Omnipresent mobility and spaceconsuming

roads became the epitome of inhuman, self-referential, and city-destroying

infrastructural planning. In the 1970s, modernism’s euphoric spirit of change and

progress was replaced by increasing scepticism towards the drastic (and literal) incisions

into, and transformation of, cities. The ‘auto-friendly city’ became a dystopian

image, despite the continuing and fetish-like love of the automobile. This was a schizophrenic

situation, since there is no adrenaline rush from driving down motorways

with no speed limit, and there is no convenient second or third family car without

noise, exhaust fumes, and enormous space requirements in urban and rural areas.

Hence, public perception of the theme shifted and so did the attitude of the planners.

Today, no stone is left unturned in an effort to camouflage, or even completely

hide, traffic. Using decks over motorways, noise barriers, and millions of trees, the

necessary, yet pervasive and ugly, infrastructure is to be shielded from our perception.

Additionally, every urban planning discussion of the last few years has seen the recital

of the demand for greater networking and ‘joined-up’ transport.

The problem in conceiving and designing infrastructural elements, be it roads,

bridges, dams, rainwater reservoirs, or landfills, arises from the initially understandable,

yet technocratic, approach of low-complexity, mono-causal functionalism. “The

street is no longer a track for cattle, but a machine for traffic, an apparatus for

its circulation, a new organ, a construction in itself [...]“, stated Le Corbusier as early

as 1925. 3

With the dominance of the base function over all other properties, modern roads

have lost their granularity and multi-functional affordances in favour of optimised

traffic flow, which is often just wishful thinking in the first place. In a nutshell: the


110

Per Als

Das Modell Kopenhagen –

Ein zukunftsweisendes

Mobilitätskonzept

The Copenhagen Model –

A Future-Oriented Mobility

Concept


Gegenwärtige Situation und zukünftige Herausforderungen

Im Vergleich zu vielen anderen Städten hat Kopenhagen mit deutlich weniger Verkehrsproblemen

zu kämpfen. Doch auch in der dänischen Hauptstadt sind die verschiedenen

Verkehrsträger extrem hohen Anforderungen ausgesetzt. Das Straßennetz

hat die Grenze der Belastbarkeit erreicht, und die Kapazitäten des öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs

wie auch die der Hauptrouten des Radwegenetzes reichen während

der Stoßzeiten nicht mehr aus. Dazu stellt der drastische Anstieg der Einwohnerzahl

ein großes Problem für die Zukunft der Stadt dar. Bis zum Jahr 2025 wird die Einwohnerzahl

um 20 Prozent (circa 100.000 Einwohner) ansteigen. Das bedeutet, dass

innerhalb des Stadtgebiets zukünftig circa 600.000 und im Großraum Kopenhagen

mehr als 1,4 Millionen Menschen leben werden. Diese Situation stellt für das gesamte

Verkehrs- und Transportsystem eine große Herausforderung dar und erfordert eine

Reihe an grundlegenden Verbesserungsmaßnahmen, insbesondere im Bereich des

Radwegenetzes und des öffentlichen Personennahverkehrs.

Angesichts dieser Situation hat die Stadtverwaltung den sogenannten „3/3-Plan“

zum verkehrspolitischen Ziel erklärt. In diesem Plan ist festgelegt, dass maximal ein

Drittel aller Fahrten auf den Individualverkehr per Pkw entfallen soll und dass sowohl

der öffentliche Personennahverkehr als auch der Fahrradverkehr jeweils mindestens

ein Drittel des Gesamtverkehrs ausmachen sollen. Was die Fahrten innerhalb des

Stadtgebiets betrifft, ist dieses Ziel bereits erreicht worden, doch für Fahrten zu und

von den Außenbezirken trifft dies nicht zu. Hier dominiert immer noch der Autoverkehr.

Um dem zu begegnen, versucht die Stadt, die Bedingungen für Radfahrer zu

verbessern und baut das öffentliche Verkehrsnetz unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Effizienzsteigerung

aus. Zu den Maßnahmen, die mehr Menschen zur Nutzung öffentlicher

Verkehrsmittel bewegen sollen, gehören die neue Metro und moderne Schnellbusse

mit hohem Qualitätsstandard bei gleichzeitiger Priorisierung des Bahn- und Busverkehrs

(BRT, Bus Rapid Transit). Weitere wichtige Faktoren sind das sogenannte TOD-

Prinzip (Transport Oriented Development), das unter anderem die Errichtung großer

Bürogebäude nur innerhalb eines 600 Meter großen Entfernungsradius zur nächsten

Bus- oder Bahnstation vorsieht, ein engmaschiges Planungskonzept sowie die verbesserte

Integration von Fahrradverkehr und öffentlichen Transportmitteln. Diese Maßnahmen

sollen Autofahrer zum Umdenken motivieren und den Umstieg vom Pkw auf

die Nutzung öffentlicher Transportmittel fördern.

111


120 Per Als I Das Modell Kopenhagen

Ganzjähriger Fahrradverkehr in Kopenhagen – auch im Winter

Year-round cycling in Copenhagen, even during the winter


Per Als I Das Modell Kopenhagen

121

Der umgestaltete Hafen in Kopenhagen mit der Brücke Bryggebroen, eine der wichtigsten Verbindungen

zwischen Ost- und Westteil – ausschließlich für Fußgänger und Fahrradfahrer.

Copenhagen harbour redesign with Bryggebroen bridge, one of the most important connections between

the city’s east and west; for pedestrians and cyclists only.


122 Per Als I The Copenhagen Model

Vernetzte Fahrradschnellwege inklusive Luftpumpstationen in Kopenhagen

Connected high-speed cycling lanes with tyre pump stations in Copenhagen


Per Als I The Copenhagen Model

123

The Copenhagen Model –

A Future-Oriented Mobility Concept

Status and Challenges

Compared to many other cities, Copenhagen has significantly fewer traffic problems,

with less congestion, and less time wasted in traffic jams. But all modes of transportation

are under pressure: the car network is stretched to its limit, the public transport

system lacks capacity during rush hours, and the cycle network lacks capacity on the

principal arteries during peak times.

One challenge for the future is that the population of Copenhagen is growing rapidly.

In 2025, the number of inhabitants will have grown by 20% – i. e. by around

100,000 people – to more than 600,000 inhabitants within the municipal borders, and

with more than 1.4 million in the consolidated metropolitan region. This creates a

huge challenge for the whole transportation system, and will require substantial

improvements to the transportation networks, especially the cycle network and public

transportation.

The city’s comprehensive political goal is the so-called ‘3/3’ distribution: the aim is

that at most, one third of journeys should be made by car, at least one third by public

transport, and at least one third by bicycle. Journeys inside the city limits of Copenhagen

achieve this goal, but when those to and from the surrounding areas are included,

the goal is not met: too many trips are made by car.

To reach this target, the city is improving the conditions for cyclists and is expanding

public transport, and making it more efficient. New Metro capacity, high-frequency

buses, BRT (Bus Rapid Transit), and bus-priority measures are amongst the

initiatives we are using in order to make more people use public transport. But, also,

the use of the TOD (Transport Oriented Development) ‘station proximity principle’,

which requires that larger new office buildings be built within 600 metres of a station,

dense urban development and better integration between bicycle and public transport

are important factors in changing car drivers’ habits, and in persuading them to choose

public transportation instead of their car.

The Structural Framework

The public transport system of Copenhagen consists of buses, commuter trains, regional

trains, and the Metro. The fare system is common for all modes of transport, but the

system is organised into different public transport authorities/companies: the Metro

company is owned by the government and the two central municipalities in Copenhagen.

The company Movia, partly owned by the municipalities and partly by two

regions in eastern Denmark, is responsible for the buses. The commuter trains (S-tog)

and the regional trains are owned and operated by Danish State Railways (DSB).


130

Anna-Lisa Müller

Stadtentwicklung und

soziale Transformationen

Urban Development and

Social Transformations


131

Bemerkungen zum Zusammenhang von Gesellschaft und Stadt

Städte sind Orte menschlichen Zusammenlebens. Damit stellen sie ein Konglomerat

von materiellen, sozialen und geografischen Faktoren dar. Vor diesem Hintergrund

lässt sich verstehen, dass städtische Veränderungen immer auch mit gesellschaftlichen

Veränderungen zusammenhängen. Die Annahme, dass soziale und geografische

Bedingungen die Gestalt und Gestaltung von Städten beeinflussen, ist dabei sowohl in

der Wissenschaft als auch im öffentlichen Diskurs weitgehend akzeptiert. Kontroverser

wird die Frage diskutiert, inwiefern die materiellen Dimensionen von Stadt auch

die sozialen Strukturen einer Gesellschaft verändern. Einen solchen Ansatz verfolgen

derzeit internationale WissenschaftlerInnen, die, von den Science and Technology

Studies 1 und/oder der Actor-Network-Theory 2 inspiriert, Stadtforschung betreiben. 3

Ohne die Debatte, ob und in welcher Hinsicht letztere Perspektive eingenommen

werden kann, an dieser Stelle en détail zu führen, werde ich auf den kommenden Seiten

immer mal wieder darauf Bezug nehmen. Dies gilt insbesondere für die Frage, in

welcher Hinsicht sich der Zusammenhang von Stadt und Gesellschaft unterscheidet,

je nachdem, ob man die Stadt als gebauten Ort oder die Stadt als Ausdruck des Sozialen

zum Ausgangspunkt nimmt.

Ich werde im Folgenden anhand historischer und aktueller Beispiele zeigen, in

welcher Weise gesellschaftliche Entwicklungen mit städtischen Entwicklungen verbunden

sind.

Gesellschaft und Stadt

Unterschiedliche Gesellschaften weisen unterschiedliche Typen von Stadt auf. Diese

Stadttypen besitzen Merkmale, die wiederum auf die spezifischen Charakteristika der

Gesellschaft, in deren Kontext sie entstanden sind, zurückverweisen. Für die okzidentale

mittelalterliche Stadt illustriert der Soziologe Max Weber 4 diesen Zusammenhang

am Beispiel des Marktplatzes. Hier materialisieren sich verschiedene Dimensionen

von Gesellschaft: Der Marktplatz einer mittelalterlichen Stadt war – zu bestimmten

Tageszeiten in einer Woche – das Zentrum des Handels und der Treffpunkt der stadtfremden

Händler und Warenproduzenten mit den Bürgern der Stadt. Er war aber auch,

ebenfalls zu bestimmten – anderen – Zeiten, Aufmarschplatz des Heeres. 5 Ökonomie

und Streitkräfte als Dimensionen einer Gesellschaft hinterlassen so ihre Spuren in der

physischen Gestalt einer Stadt, die zum Teil bis heute sichtbar und in ihrer Nutzung

erhalten geblieben sind.


140 Anna-Lisa Müller I Stadtentwicklung und soziale Transformationen

Hafengebiet in Dublin nach Umgestaltung – mit Blick von den Grand Canal Docks auf den Grand Canal Square

Dublin harbour area after redesign, looking from Grand Canal Docks onto Grand Canal Square

Lindholmen Science Park im alten Industriehafen von Göteborg

Lindholmen Science Park in the old industrial port of Gothenburg


Anna-Lisa Müller I Stadtentwicklung und soziale Transformationen

141

Leipziger Marktplatz zur Messezeit um 1800, zeitgenössischer Kupferstich

Leipzig market square during trade exhibition, around 1800, copperplate engraving

Protestbewegung am Tahrir-Platz in Kairo am 11. Februar 2011

Protesters at Tahrir Square in Cairo, February 11, 2011


142

Anna-Lisa Müller I Urban Development and Social Transformations

Urban Development and Social Transformations

Remarks on the Correlation between Society and City

Cities are places of human cohabitation. Thus, they constitute a conglomerate of

material, social, and geographic factors. With this in mind, it is clear that urban

changes always correlate with social changes. The assumption that social and geographic

conditions influence the appearance and planning of cities is, by and large,

accepted in scientific circles as well as in public discourse. A rather more controversial

discussion point is the question as to what extent the material dimensions of a city

change the social structures of society. This approach is currently pursued by international

scientists who conduct urban research 1 inspired by science and technology studies

2 and/or the actor-network-theory 3 .

Without going into detail regarding the debate at this point – as to whether, and in

what respect, the latter is an acceptable point of view – I will continually refer back to

this point on the following pages. Especially, when considering in what respect the

correlation of city and society differs, depending on whether the city is perceived as a

basis for a constructed place or as the expression of social structures.

I will subsequently point out, by means of historical and current examples, in

which way social development is connected to urban development.

Society and City

Different societies exhibit different city types. These city types have features which

again refer back to the specific characteristics of the society in which they have developed.

Max Weber 4 illustrates this relationship in case of the medieval, occidental city

with the example of the market square. It illustrates various dimensions of society: the

market square was – at specific times of the day within the week – the centre of trade

and the meeting point for merchants and commodity manufacturers from out of town

with the citizens of the town. But it was at specific – other – times, also an area of

military deployment. 5 Economy and armed forces as the dimensions of society, thus,

leave their traces in the physical form of a city, and they are still partially visible and

being continuously used in this manner to this day.

Demographic Change and City

Another example clarifying the relationship of specific social developments and urban

forms are the so-called megacities. In this case, it is the demographic development

which changes cities. The term ‘megacities’ refers to cities with a minimum population

of ten million, allocated to a town centre and various peripherally located settlements.

In 2005, according to calculations by the United Nations, the cities of Tokyo,

Mexico City, and New York were regarded as the three largest megacities. For 2015,

Tokyo, Mumbai, and Mexico City are prognosticated as the largest megacities. 6


Anna-Lisa Müller I Urban Development and Social Transformations

143

In the case of this city type, a quantitative variable is used for definition purposes,

as cities referred to as megacities are markedly different in their respective qualities.

Thus, the supply of urban infrastructure in Tokyo is ensured in a way different from

Mexico City; and the relationships between the core city and the peripheral areas of,

for example, New York also differ from those of Mumbai. The social situation of the

inhabitants also varies greatly. Hence, a definition on the basis of urban characteristics

does not exist to date.

The fact that megacities are notably found in developing countries with altogether

increasing population, while the phenomenon of shrinking cities is a problem of

Western industrial societies with declining population, indicates a close connection

between social and urban transformation processes. Social change thereby triggers

practical changes: in the case of the megacities, the increasing population leads to

quantitatively growing cities, that is to say a larger amount of buildings and the like.

Furthermore, social change brings about a change in the utilisation and behaviour

patterns within a city.

Sociostructural Change and City

Unlike megacities, which are defined by quantitative properties, in the case of ‘creative

cities’, it is the sociostructural characteristics which serve as the coefficient of

determination. The on-going virulent debate of the past two decades regarding the

‘creative class’ and their preferred places for living and working, the creative cities,

are thus another current example for the correlation of society and city. In his book

The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community

and Everyday Life of the year 2002, the American political scientist Richard Florida

detected the development of a new social group with a considerable influence on the

– in his analysis first of all American – economy as well as on urban structures. Since

then, the debate on creative cities has been a central subject of international urban

research. It relates to the established transition of industrial societies towards service

or knowledge societies 7 in which the knowledge-based occupation replaces manual

labour.

The implications of this shift of industrial work towards knowledge-based work

can be observed exemplarily in cities, particularly in cities with an industrial harbour. 8

I would like to use two harbour cities in order to describe the urban consequences

of social change: Dublin and Gothenburg. Both cities are places where a transition

towards a service society is taking place. In 2006, 78.5% of Gothenburg’s, and 64.3%

of Dublin’s employees worked in the service industry. In this respect, both cities are

average in their countries. The difference between the two countries lies within the

fact that in Ireland, the proportion of employees working in the service industry has

continually risen since the 1970s, while employment figures have also been increasing

in the industrial sector and decreasing in the agricultural sector. In Sweden, however,


150

Regina Bittner

Architektur der Migration

The Architecture of Migration


Der in Jamaika geborene Soziologe Stuart Hall beschreibt seine Ankunftserfahrung in

den 1950er Jahren in London mit den Worten: „People like me who came to England

in the 50s have been there for centuries; symbolically, we have been there for centuries.

I was coming home.“ 1 Was er damit meinte, bezog sich unter anderem auf die

gebaute Umwelt, die er in London vorfand: Er war zutiefst vertraut mit den viktorianischen

Villen, Administrationsgebäuden und Kirchen, aber auch mit der Anlage der

Straßen und Plätze aus seiner Heimat Jamaika. Schließlich spielten Architektur und

Stadtplanung für das Britische Empire eine herausragende Rolle, um Kontrolle über

seine Kolonien zu erlangen.

Koloniale Städte, so der Anthropologe Anthony D. King, seien schon viel früher

durch die Anwesenheit unterschiedlicher Welten geprägt gewesen. 2 Transnationale

Räume, wie wir sie heute in den großen Metropolen, in denen „Welt“ auf besondere

Weise konzentriert ist, beobachten und die im Zusammenhang mit globaler Arbeitsteilung

und Migration entstanden, sind kein Phänomen des ausgehenden 20. Jahrhunderts.

Vielmehr waren große Städte wie Kalkutta, Singapur, Bagdad und London

schon seit Jahrhunderten intensiv in den Welthandel eingebunden und galten als Weltstädte,

die als Steuerungszentren der globalisierten Wirtschaft und Umschlagplatz

transnationaler Menschen-, Waren-, Ressourcen- und Dienstleistungsströme operierten.

Die kulturelle, ethnische und religiöse Vielfalt dieser Metropolen ging vor allem

auf ihre kolonialen beziehungsweise imperialen Positionen in der Weltordnung des

19. und 20. Jahrhunderts zurück.

Heute erweisen sich postkoloniale Städte als Orte, in denen wohl am sichtbarsten

und komplexesten „Welt“ verdichtet ist, auch und vor allem, weil sich in ihnen eine

lange Geschichte der Kolonialisierung und des Imperialismus materialisiert hat. Erst

jüngere urbanistische Studien haben begonnen, den Globalisierungsdiskurs der Stadtund

Architekturforschung zu historisieren, und kommen dabei zu wichtigen Einsichten

in die longue durée 3 des Welthandelns.

Eine besondere Rolle kommt dabei der Migration der Architektur zu, formte sie

doch mit ihrer Schwergewichtigkeit und Beständigkeit die Gegenwart anderer Welten

an diesen Orten und beeinflusste dadurch das Handeln, Orientieren und Bewegen in

diesen Städten. Während hier Bautypologien und Stadtmodelle im Zuge kolonialer

Eroberung in Bewegung versetzt worden sind, prägen andererseits auch Migranten im

Verlauf ihrer Wanderungsbewegung eigenständige Formationen des gebauten Raumes.

Ethnotowns, ob nun Little India in Singapur, Soho in New York oder Little Istan-

151


160

Regina Bittner I The Architecture of Migration

The Architecture of Migration

Jamaican-born sociologist Stuart Hall describes his arrival in the London of the 1950s

thus: “People like me who came to England in the 50s have been there for centuries;

symbolically, we have been there for centuries. I was coming home.” 1 What he was

referring to, among other things, was the built environment: from his home country

Jamaica, he was deeply familiar with the Victorian mansions, the administrative

buildings, and churches, but also with the layout of streets and squares. After all,

architecture and city planning had played a major role in the British Empire’s effort to

gain control over its colonies.

According to anthropologist Anthony D. King, colonial cities had, very early on,

been characterised by the coexistence of different worlds. 2 Transnational spaces, as

we can observe them today in the major metropolises, and in which ‘the world’ is

concentrated in a particular way, have developed in connection with the global division

of work and migration. Hence, they are not a phenomenon of the late twentieth

century. Rather, large cities such as Calcutta, Singapore, Baghdad, and London have

been intensively involved in world trade for centuries. They were seen as cosmopolitan

cities, representing the control centres of a globalised economy, and operating as

exchange hubs for transnational streams of people, commodities, resources, and services.

The cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity of those cities was predominantly

based on their colonial or imperial positions in the world order of the nineteenth and

twentieth centuries. Today, post-colonial cities are places with the most evident and

most complex compaction of ‘world’, mainly due to the fact that it was in these cities

where the long history of colonialism and imperialism had taken on material form.

Only in recent urban studies do we find the first historical considerations in relation to

the globalisation discourse in urban and architectural research, resulting in important

findings on the longue durée 3 of global relations.

In this context, the ‘migration’ of architecture plays a particular role, since its

weightiness and durability introduced other worlds into those places, thus influencing

the way people acted, oriented themselves, and moved through these cities. While

building typologies and urban models were transposed during the course of colonial

conquest, migrants, on the other hand, also create their own formations of built space.

‘Ethno towns’ such as Little India in Singapore, Soho in New York, or Little Istanbul

in Berlin are places in which migrant architecture manifests in specific ways.

Due to migrant economies, which have often developed from informal and familybased

businesses, ethnic quarters tend to have their own, independent urban structures,

often as a result of modifying and reusing existing buildings. Many studies on

ethnic quarters in Europe point out that it was due to these practices that, in many

cases, formerly neglected city quarters have received a new vibrancy. “The migrants

have saved those areas”, confirmed a high-ranking employee of the Federal Ministry


Regina Bittner I The Architecture of Migration

161

of Transport, Building and Urban Development in Berlin. In the Ruhr area, researchers

have observed a change in the population’s self-perception. What is happening is

an upgrade from being a disadvantaged part of the city to being an international urban

quarter. And, finally, the debate about building mosques in Germany is also part of

this larger context, although, in Germany, moving these places of worship from backyards

into public space has only been happening over the last fifteen years. In the built

environment, mosques are now a visible expression that Germany is an immigration

country, and that transnational migration has not only changed large post-colonial

metropolises like London and Paris but also cities such as Berlin, Frankfurt, Leipzig,

and Munich.

Only two possible interpretations of the correlation between architecture and

migration will be referenced here; a correlation that, at first, seems to contain a paradox,

since the built environment is fixed and immobile and expresses durability while

migration is associated with mobility and temporality. In this interpretation, migrants

are attributed a nomadic lifestyle. The figure of the nomad, who, as it were, always

moves outside their respective territorial regime, mirrors de-territorialisation per se

which is always portrayed as posing a threat to the existing territorial regime. Hence,

migration is usually treated as an interim state, aiming at arrival and settlement. These

argumentative figures are perpetuated in the debate on assimilation and integration,

using the argument that the search for work, for a better life, for education, and for

earning a living, would eventually lead to forms of settlement. This describes one

interpretation of the relationship between architecture and migration.

The second debate derives its arguments mainly from multiculturalism. In this

interpretation, ethno-towns are used as examples of a universal modus of settlement,

independent of origin and status. The new upgraded status of ethnic quarters, such as

London’s Chinatown, Singapore’s Little India, and Berlin’s Little Istanbul, as tourist

destinations is part of subsuming the hard-to-reconcile differences and conflicts that

have formed these quarters into a consumable format. In Berlin in particular, it was

possible to observe how the migrant economies have received a boost via the image

of an international and multi-cultural Berlin, while people’s precarious working and

living conditions, and insufficient access to education, have hardly been highlighted.

Thus, the architectural re-territorialisation in the context of migration neither happens

within the framework of the destination country’s dominant territorial logic, nor does

it follow an assumed universal logic of a ‘consumable’ multiculturalism. As architect

Stephen Cairns has pointed out, the argument of multiculturalism cannot be used to

describe the radical shift in the conventional understanding of architecture that may be

triggered by migration. 4 If current forms of settling down are essentially constituted

by migration, does this not pose a challenge to architecture-related concepts such as

stability, fundament, weightiness, and durability? These challenges seem to be related

to more fundamental questions, to which theories of assimilation or multiculturalism


166

Elke Krasny

Sei zeitgenössisch!

Be Contemporary!


Zeitgenössische Städte müssen vor allem eines produzieren: ihr Zeitgenössisch-Sein.

Sie müssen im Dauerwettkampf mit anderen Städten zeitgleich werden in ihrem Zeitgenössisch-Sein.

Dieser Wettbewerb führt zu raumgreifenden Manifestationen, in

denen zu den spektakulären Mitteln zeitgenössischer Architektur gegriffen wird. Der

Wettlauf, im Zeitgenössischen rechtzeitig anzukommen, lässt sich diagnostisch fassen

als Figur eines neuen Imperativs: „Sei zeitgenössisch!“ Dieser Imperativ stellt die

Anforderung, aus der selbstverschuldeten Ungleichzeitigkeit auszutreten. Singuläre,

skulpturale, kontextfreie Architekturen sollen der Garant für die Überwindung der

selbstverschuldeten Ungleichzeitigkeit werden. Die Differenz zwischen Stadt-Sein

und zeitgenössischem Stadt-Sein wird markiert durch den Einsatz von Architektur.

Architektur wird manifest. Der Imperativ „Sei zeitgenössisch!“ zielt darauf ab, dass

das Sein in der Gegenwart nicht ausreicht. Dieses Sein stimmt noch nicht mit dem

Zeitgenössisch-Sein überein. Die Leistung, manifestativ aus der Ungleichzeitigkeit

auszutreten, muss als Zeitgenössisches produziert werden. Die Funktion von Architektur

besteht darin, dieses Zeitgenössische herzustellen.

In diesem Essay werde ich einer Reihe ineinander verschränkter Fragen nachgehen,

welche die Spannungen zwischen dem Imperativ des Zeitgenössischen und der

Stadt prägen. Ich werde dies tun, indem ich Architektur in den Städten als Ausdrucksmittel

dafür begreife, wie zum einen das Zeitgenössische in den Städten physisch

gebaut wird und zum anderen wie das, was das Zeitgenössische durch die herrschenden

Verhältnisse der Gegenwart bestimmt, in dieses physisch Gebaute einwandert. Es

geht folglich um eine dialektisch nicht aufgelöste und in ihrer Komplexität weiter

bestehende Denkfigur des zeitgenössischen Imperativs, in den die herrschenden Verhältnisse

der Gegenwart einwandern und diesen vor sich her treiben. Daraus wird die

Frage folgen, wie man die beiden so selbstverständlich miteinander verbundenen

Worte „zeitgenössische Architektur“ voneinander dissoziiert. Diese gedachte Operation

der Dissoziation wird es mir erlauben, über zeitgenössische Architektur zu sprechen,

jenseits von Fragen des Stils oder der Periodisierung. Vielmehr gilt es, einen

Raum des Denkens zu gewinnen, in dem deutlich wird, dass die nahtlose Verbindung

des Eigenschaftsworts „zeitgenössisch“ und des Hauptworts „Architektur“ eine tiefgreifende

und einschneidende Operation ist, die als Voraussetzung das produziert, was

es für die im globalen Wettbewerb befindlichen Städte notwendig erscheinen lässt, auf

zeitgenössische Architektur zu bauen, um zeitgenössisch zu werden. Parallel zur Dissoziation

von „zeitgenössisch“ und „Architektur“ werde ich eine neue Assoziation

167


178 Elke Krasny I Be Contemporary!

Be Contemporary!

In this essay, I will explore a series of interrelated questions that define the tension

between the imperative of the contemporary and the city. I will do this by understanding

urban architecture as a means of expressing how, on the one hand, the contemporary

is physically constructed in cities and how, on the other hand, that which defines

the contemporary through the dominant conditions injects itself into those physical

structures. Hence, what we are dealing with is an intellectual concept of the contemporary

imperative that has not been solved dialectically and continues to exist in all its

complexity, since the dominant conditions pervade this imperative and drive it forward.

This, in turn, will lead to the question of how we can disassociate the two terms

‘contemporary architecture’ that tend to come together as a matter of course. This

imagined disassociation will allow me to speak about contemporary architecture

beyond questions of style or period. Instead, I want to capture a space of thinking that

highlights the fact that the seamless conjunction of the adjective ‘contemporary’ with

the noun ‘architecture’ represents a deep and incisive operation. An operation that produces

the preconditions which make it seem necessary for cities that are subject to

global competition to focus on contemporary architecture in their pursuit of becoming

contemporary. In parallel to disassociating ‘contemporary’ from ‘architecture’, I will

introduce a new association, namely a contemporary architecture charged with themes

and means of production that are different from the hegemonic ones. I will try to show

that there are signs of a different transnational development in contemporary architecture,

a development that, against the prevailing obligation to step outside of selfimposed

non-simultaneity, drives forward de-colonising movements.

But first of all, I would like to expand on both the ‘Be contemporary!’ imperative

and the concept of self-imposed non-simultaneity. At the end of the eighteenth century,

the philosophical movement known as The Enlightenment was in a state of confusion.

The movement had not yet defined its name and was, instead, still searching

for one. In this process, the Berlinische Monatsschrift played a decisive role as the

forum that published the corresponding debate. In 1784, the Berlinische Monatsschrift

published two essays that tried to answer the question ‘What is Enlightenment?’. The

Jewish philosopher Moses Mendelssohn wrote ‘On the question: What does Enlightenment

mean?’:

The words enlightenment, culture and education are newcomers to our language.

They currently belong only to literary discourse. The masses scarcely understand

them. Does this prove that these things are also new to us? I believe not. One says of a

certain people that they have no specific word for ‘virtue’, or none for ‘superstition’,

and yet one may justly attribute a not insignificant measure of both to them. 1

For Mendelssohn, education was divided into culture and enlightenment and he

associated culture with practice, and enlightenment with theory. From their relation-


Elke Krasny I Be Contemporary!

179

ship, he derived a political demand: “The education of a nation, which, according to

the foregoing clarification of terms, is composed of culture and enlightenment, will

therefore be far less subject to corruption.” 2

However, the essay that was to become far more famous was written by Immanuel

Kant: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed nonage”, he stated

in the December issue of the Berlinische Monatsschrift. 3 “The public use of one’s

reason must be free at all times, and this alone can bring enlightenment to mankind.“ 4

In 1785, Kant formulated the categorical imperative: “Act only according to that

maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal

law.” 5

I will use this formulation to explain, transposed through time, a contemporary

universal maxim with a similarly categorical effect. Today’s imperative reads: Be

contemporary! Imperial-colonial efforts to overcome a proclaimed lack of independence

through means of a time thrust has today been replaced by neoliberal and neocolonial

demands to overcome non-simultaneity in order to arrive at the competition

between cities in a homogenised, uniform present. Overcoming non-simultaneity

means to extinguish, to build over, that which stands in the way of simultaneous time,

of being on par with one’s own time. I localise the echo of the enlightenment imperative

– with its involvement in the colonial project in which the cosmos, nature and

polis that is society, were meant to be amalgamated into the cosmopolis – in the

imperative to become contemporary by combining the economy, technology and sustainability

in a contemporary form of cosmo-polis. The imperative of enlightenment

penetrated both time and space. Kant described Africans, Asians, and Americans as

morally immature races. 6 Here, in historical retrospection, the figure of non-simultaneity

is highlighted as both colonial and imperial power that intimately associated

itself with the knowledge project of the enlightenment, which, due to its universal

demand of enforcement, was essentially racist. Non-simultaneity became the measure

by which to assess the level of enlightenment. Attaining independence was an expansive

project and a knowing project. It knew about its own obligation to want to know,

to expand knowledge. Non-simultaneity and power combined to form both a political

and economic programme in direct connection with colonialism and capitalism. Leaving

dependence behind was a temporal programme of becoming independent. In the

enlightenment, the process of becoming contemporary came in the form of a claim to,

and instrument of, power, which had a chrono-political effect. Both time and space

were rearranged according to the logic of discrimination.

In his book Local Histories/Global Designs, published in 2000, Walter D. Mignolo

analysed the chrono-political hegemony of Western modernity and its demand for

modernisation:

I shall mention once more that my discomfort with modernity and Western civilization

(two faces of the same phenomenon) is not with Western modernity’s contribution


186

Biografien Biographies

Per Als

ist Chief Transport Executive der Stadt

Kopenhagen. Nach dem Masterstudium

für Stadtplanung an der Universität Aalborg

und für Public Affairs an der Princeton

University war er seit den 1980er

Jahren in leitender Position für das Dänische

Verkehrsministerium und den Internationalen

Verband für öffentliches

Verkehrswesen (UITP) tätig. Er ist maßgeblich

an der Gestaltung der Kopenhagener

Verkehrspolitik beteiligt, die sich

vor allem durch die Verbindung von

Verkehrsplanung und Nachhaltigkeit auf

ökologischer wie auch wirtschaftlicher

Basis auszeichnet und europaweit als

vorbildlich gilt.

Regina Bittner

ist Kulturwissenschaftlerin, Autorin und

Kuratorin. Sie studierte Kulturwissenschaften

und promovierte an der Humboldt

Universität Berlin. Seit 2003 leitet

sie das internationale Bauhaus-Kolleg,

ein postgraduales Programm zu internationaler

Stadtforschung. Außerdem kuratierte

sie zahlreiche Ausstellungen zu

Bauhaus und modernem Urbanismus.

Seit 2009 ist sie stellvertretende Direktorin

der Stiftung Bauhaus Dessau. Zu

ihren Arbeitsschwerpunkten in Forschung

und Lehre gehören Architektur

und Migration, transnationaler Urbanismus,

Stadt der Moderne sowie Studien

zum Weltkulturerbe.

Oliver Bormann

ist Architekt und Städtebauer. Nach dem

Studium an der Technischen Universität

Berlin und der Escuela Técnica Superior

de Arquitectura (ETSA) in Sevilla

ar beitete er bei den Architekturbüros

UNStudio in Amsterdam und bei Gewers

Kühn & Kühn in Berlin. Er war wissenschaftlicher

Mitarbeiter am Lehrstuhl für

Städtebau der Bergischen Universität

Wuppertal und der HafenCity Universität

Hamburg, außerdem beteiligt am

Forschungsprojekt „Zwischenstadt. Qualifizierung

der verstädterten Landschaft“

unter Leitung von Thomas Sieverts.

2002 war er Mitbegründer des Büros

process yellow in Berlin, das sich 2008

mit dem Züricher büro z zu yellow z

urbanism architecture zusammenschloss.

Andreas Denk

studierte Kunstgeschichte, Städtebau und

Geschichte in Bochum, Freiburg i. Brsg.

und Bonn. Er ist Architekturtheoretiker

und -historiker sowie Journalist. Seit

2000 ist er Chefredakteur von der architekt,

der Zeitschrift des Bundes Deutscher

Architekten BDA. Er lehrt als

Vertretungsprofessor Architekturtheorie

und Gebäudelehre an der Fakultät für

Architektur der Fachhochschule Köln.

Darüber hinaus konzipiert er Symposien

und Ausstellungen zu Stadt, Raum und

Architektur und begleitet diese auch als

Moderator oder Vortragender.


187

Kay von Keitz

hat Kulturwissenschaften und ästhetische

Praxis an der Universität Hildesheim

studiert. Er arbeitet in den Bereichen

Kunst und Architektur als freier Autor,

Herausgeber (u. a. En passant. Reisen

durch urbane Räume: Perspektiven einer

anderen Art der Stadtwahrnehmung) und

Ausstellungskurator. 1999 gründete er

gemeinsam mit Sabine Voggenreiter das

internationale Ausstellungs- und Veranstaltungsprojekt

plan – Architektur Biennale

Köln. Seit 2012 entwickelt er unter

dem Projekttitel „Der urbane Kongress“

gemeinsam mit Markus Ambach ein

grundlegendes Konzept sowie erste Realisierungen

für das neu eingerichtete

„StadtLabor für Kunst im öffentlichen

Raum“ der Stadt Köln.

Elke Krasny

ist Kuratorin, Kulturtheoretikerin und

Autorin. Als Senior Lecturer lehrt sie

„Contemporary Discourse in Architectural

Theory“ und „Kunst und öffentlicher

Raum“ an der Akademie der Bildenden

Künste Wien. Ihre thematischen Schwerpunkte

sind die komplexen Relationen

zwischen Architektur, urbanen Transformationsprozessen,

Landschaft, feministischer

Historiografie sowie Fragen zu

Repräsentation und Erinnerung. Die von

ihr kuratierte Ausstellung Hands-On

Urbanism 1850–2012. Vom Recht auf

Grün mit internationalen Beispielen

einer „Stadtentwicklung von unten“

wurde u. a. im Architekturzentrum Wien,

auf der Architekturbiennale in Venedig

sowie bei plan12 gezeigt.

Christoph Laimer

studierte Politikwissenschaften und Philosophie.

Er ist Gründer und Chefredakteur

der seit 2000 vierteljährlich in Wien

erscheinenden internationalen und interdisziplinären

Zeitschrift für kritische

Stadtforschung dérive. Außerdem ist er

Co-Kurator von „urbanize! Internationales

Festival für urbane Erkundungen“,

das sich jährlich für zehn Tage an der

Schnittstelle von Wissenschaft, Kunst

und Aktivismus der interdisziplinären

Auseinandersetzung mit urbanen Fragestellungen

widmet.

Anna-Lisa Müller

ist Soziologin mit dem Fokus Stadtforschung

und arbeitet als wissenschaftliche

Mitarbeiterin am Institut für Geografie

im Bereich Stadtgeografie an der Universität

Bremen. Nach dem Studium der

Soziologie, Neueren Deutschen Literatur

und Philosophie an den Universitäten

Konstanz und Växjö (Schweden) war sie

an der Universität Konstanz im Exzellenzcluster

„Kulturelle Grundlagen von

Integration“ tätig und promovierte 2013

an der Universität Bielefeld mit ihrer

Dissertation Green Creative Cities. Zur

Gestaltung eines Stadttypus des 21. Jahrhunderts.

Zudem war sie Fellow am

Kulturwissenschaftlichen Institut Essen

zum Schwerpunktthema „(Stadt-)Kultur

und öffentlicher Raum“.

Klaus Overmeyer

studierte an der TU München und TU

Berlin. Er ist Landschaftsarchitekt und

Stadtforscher und international auf dem

Gebiet der nutzergetragenen Raum- und


188

Stadtentwicklung aktiv. Er war Co-

Initiator des EU-Forschungsprojektes

„Urban Catalyst“ über Potenziale temporärer

Nutzungen in europäischen Metropolen.

2004 gründete er das Berliner

Urban Catalyst Studio, das sich auf die

Gestaltung und Nutzung von urbanen

Transformationsräumen spezialisiert hat.

Overmeyer erhielt 2003 den Deutschen

Landschaftsarchitektur-Preis und ist seit

2010 Professur für Landschaftsarchitektur

an der Bergischen Universität Wuppertal.

Aktuelle Forschungsschwerpunkte

sind „Raumunternehmen“ und „Nospolis:

Commoning urbaner Gemeinschaften“.

Sabine Voggenreiter

studierte Literaturwissenschaft, Philosophie

und Kunstgeschichte an der Universität

Marburg. In den 1980er Jahren

leitete sie die Pentagon-Galerie in Köln.

1989 gründete sie das jährlich stattfindende

Designfestival Passagen. Zusammen

mit Kay von Keitz initiierte sie

1999 das Ausstellungs- und Veranstaltungsprojekt

plan – Architektur Biennale

Köln. 2008 gewann sie mit Design Quartier

Ehrenfeld – DQE den Wettbewerb

Create.NRW und entwickelte zwei Jahre

später die „Initiative Urbane Agrikultur

Ehrenfeld“. 2012 wurde sie mit dem

Kölner Kulturpreis als „Kulturmanagerin

des Jahres“ ausgezeichnet. Sie kuratiert

Ausstellungen, veranstaltet Workshops

sowie Symposien und publiziert Texte zu

Design und Architektur.

Per Als

is chief transport executive of the city of

Copenhagen. He holds an MA in urban

planning from the University of Aalborg

and an MA in public affairs from Princeton

University. During the 1980s, he was

a senior executive at the Danish Ministry

of Transport and at the International

Association of Public Transport (UITP).

Per has played a key role in the design of

Copenhagen’s transport policy, which is

regarded as being exemplary in Europe

and stands out in particular by combining

transport planning with ecological

and economic sustainability.

Regina Bittner

is a cultural researcher, writer, and curator.

She read cultural studies and received

her PhD from the Humboldt University

in Berlin. Since 2003, she has been

director of the international Bauhaus-

Kolleg, a post-graduate programme in

international urban research. She has

also curated many exhibitions on the

Bauhaus and on modern urbanism. Since

2009, she has been vice director of the

Bauhaus Dessau Foundation. In her

research and teaching she focuses on

architecture and migration, transnational

urbanism, the modern city, and heritage

studies.

Oliver Bormann

is an architect and urban planner. After

studying at the Technical University of

Berlin and at the Escuela Técnica Superior

de Arquitectura (ETSA) in Seville,

he worked at the architectural practices

of UNStudio (Amsterdam) and Gewers


189

Kühn & Kühn (Berlin). He was a research

assistant in the urban planning department

at the University of Wuppertal and at the

HafenCity University Hamburg and he

also cooperated in the ‘In-Between City.

Qualifying Urbanised Landscapes’ project

headed by Thomas Sieverts. In 2002,

he cofounded the process yellow office

in Berlin that, in 2008, merged with the

Zurich-based büro z to form yellow z

urbanism architecture.

Andreas Denk

studied art history, urban planning, and

history in Bochum, Freiburg, and Bonn.

He is an architectural theorist and historian,

and a journalist. Since 2000, he has

been editor-in-chief of der architekt, the

magazine of the Association of German

Architects BDA. As an adjunct professor,

he teaches architectural theory and

building theory in the architecture

department at the Cologne University of

Applied Sciences. He also develops and

hosts, as well as speaks at, symposia and

exhibitions on themes relating to city,

space, and architecture.

Kay von Keitz

graduated in cultural studies and aesthetic

practice from the University of

Hildesheim. He works in the areas of art

and architecture as a freelance writer,

editor (e. g. En passant. Reisen durch

urbane Räume: Perspektiven einer

anderen Art der Stadtwahrnehmung) and

exhibition curator. In 1999, together with

Sabine Voggenreiter, he launched the

plan – Architecture Biennial Cologne

exhibition and event project. Since 2012,

he has been involved in the development

of the new ‘CityLab for Art in Public

Spaces’, which was established by the

city of Cologne: in their joint ‘The Urban

Congress Project’, together with Markus

Ambach, he has been working on both

the concept and first implementations for

the CityLab.

Elke Krasny

is a curator, cultural scholar, and writer.

She is a senior lecturer in ‘Contemporary

Discourse in Architectural Theory’ and

in ‘Art and Public Space’ at the Vienna

Academy of Fine Arts. Her thematic foci

are the complex relationships between

architecture, urban transformation processes,

landscape, and feminist historiography,

as well as questions of

representation and remembrance. She

curated the exhibition Hands-On Urbanism

1850–2012 which featured international

examples of grassroots urban

development and which was shown,

among others, at the Architekturzentrum

in Vienna, at the Venice Biennial of

Architecture and at plan 12.

Christoph Laimer

studied political science and philosophy

and is the founder and editor-in-chief of

dérive, an international and interdisciplinary

magazine for critical urban research,

published quarterly in Vienna since

2000. He is also co-curator of ‘urbanize!

International Festival for Urban Exploration’,

an annual ten-day festival focusing

on the interface between science, art, and

activism and on an interdisciplinary discourse

on urban issues.


190

Anna-Lisa Müller

is a sociologist focusing on urban

research. She is also a research assistant

at the Institute of Geography (urban

geography) at the University of Bremen.

After reading sociology, modern German

literature, and philosophy at the universities

of Konstanz and Växjö (Sweden),

she worked at the University of Konstanz

Center of Excellence ‘Cultural Foundations

of Social Integration’. In 2013, she

received her PhD from the University of

Bielefeld (Green Creative Cities: On

Creating 21st Century Cities). She was

also a fellow at the Institute for Advanced

Study in the Humanities (KWI Essen)

focusing on ‘City culture and public

space’.

Klaus Overmeyer

studied at the Technical Universities of

Munich and Berlin. As landscape architect

and urban researcher, he is internationally

active in the area of user-driven

urban development. He was co-initiator

of the EU ‘Urban Catalyst’ research project

focusing on the potential of temporary

forms of use in European metropolises.

In 2004, he founded the Berlin-based

Urban Catalyst Studio, specialising in

the design and use of urban transformation

spaces. He has received the German

award of landscape architecture 2003.

Since 2010, he has been professor of

landscape architecture at the University

of Wuppertal. Current research projects

are ‘Space Entrepreneurs’ and ‘Nospolis:

Commoning of urban communities’.

Sabine Voggenreiter

studied German literature, philosophy,

and art history at the University of Marburg.

During the 1980s, she was director

of the Pentagon Gallery in Cologne. In

1989, she established the annual Passagen

design festival. In 1999, together with

Kay von Keitz, she initiated the plan –

Architecture Biennial Cologne exhibition

and event project. In 2008, her Design

Quarter Ehrenfeld – DQE project was

recognised with the Create.NRW award.

Two years later, she developed the ‘Initiative

Urban Agriculture Ehrenfeld’. In

2012, the city of Cologne recognised her

work with the Culture Manager of the

Year award. Sabine is an exhibition curator,

she organises workshops and symposia,

and she writes on themes related to

architecture and design.

More magazines by this user