City, Building, Planning, and Culture - The Need for Action in Building Culture Policy

1. Catching up with other Countries - the "Federal Initiative for Architecture and Building Culture"2. Building Cultural Engagement at the State Level3. Opinion Formation, Knowledge Transfer, and Research Requirements4. Building Culture: Orientations and Areas of Action5. Building Culture in Concrete Terms and Perspectives for the Building Cultural Discourse

NotesReferences

Summary:Recognition that Germany was lagging behind other European countries in architectural and urban planning strategy prompted institutionalisation of the Federal Initiative for Architecture and Building Culture in 2000. This lent further, nation-wide impetus to the public discussion on architecture, "Städtebau" (urban planning) and urban design, on planning and building. Building culture has had little place in the general educational curriculum. Efforts to integrate the subject in school instruction are accordingly all the more important. If building culture is to increase its reach, active public relations is also indispensable. Public positioning on quality issues sharpens critical faculties. The current controversy on the deficient usability of the new Berlin Academy of the Arts, for example, provides a (negative) lesson in building culture. Attention must be directed not only towards spectacular projects but also to everyday architecture. The focus of building cultural activities is indisputably public space, its improvement and reinterpretation. In general, building culture policy needs to play a more decisive role in defending urban planning interests, identifying critical topics, addressing conflicts, providing early warning of building cultural aberrations, and networking the relevant professions more closely.

Over the past ten years, the terminology of the debate on city planning, "Städtebau" (urban planning) and architecture has become permeated by references to "culture," bespeaking value and use beyond mere utility. The expressions urban culture, building culture, and planning culture mark quality claims for which no binding standards and conventions have been developed. One reason has been the lack of a platform for discourse and dispute about what is to count in architecture and urban planning as ideal and exemplary. The concept "building culture," in particular, has meanwhile become a commonplace of social consensus, almost a synonym for quality. The "Federal Initiative for Architecture and Building Culture" launched in the autumn of 2000 by the Ministry of Transport, Building and Housing, now the Ministry for Transport, Building and Urban Development", has given countrywide impetus to public discussion on architecture, urban planning and design, on planning and building.

With effect from July 2004, the Federal Building Code was amended (paragraph 1 (6)(5) BauGB) to include "building culture" as a concern to be taken into consideration in preparing land-use plans. The building culture dimension also made an appearance in the 2004 Federal Government Urban Planning Report published in spring 2005: "giving cities a 'face' - culture

makes the city" is listed as one of twelve "new tasks for urban development" (BMVBW 2005: BBR, p. VI); and, although the "Initiative for Architecture and Building Culture" with its interest in quality assurance and a model role for the federal government as project sponsor in building cultural matters, the main part of the report still fails to take account of experience gathered in this new cross-sectional policy area.

The main focus of the initiative is to promote greater public and private engagement for quality in the built environment. In this context, "building culture" can be understood as formula for a higher level of quality in urban design processes with respect to task formulation, the development of solutions, the organisation of procedures and management of implementation, and the actual results of building and planning, including upkeep and operation. Economic structural change, demographic developments, and value change in society have transformed underlying conditions: "downsizing and upgrading" are the focal strategies for urban development without growth. Building cultural endeavours will therefore have to concentrate increasingly on existing building stock and on dealing with vacant sites and buildings.

 

1. Catching up with other Countries - the "Federal Initiative for Architecture and Building Culture"

Recognition that architectural and urban planning strategy in Germany is lagging behind other European countries prompted institutionalisation of the Federal Initiative for Architecture and Building Culture in the autumn of 2000. Backlog deficiencies included not only the lack of societal positioning on the importance of architecture, urban planning, and urban design; there was also a lack of programmatic, organisational, and physical infrastructure for nurturing more widespread interest in architectural, development and planning issues, for activating the public discourse, and for actually putting architectural and urban development quality assurance strategies into effect.

The Netherlands, Finland, France, and Britain are considered to lead the field (Kähler 2002, 126 ff.; Becker 2002, 665 ff.). As long ago as the 1990s they had put explicit national strategies on architecture and urban planning policy in place - with a strong educational component. On the initiative of the ministry of education, for example, Finland entrenched the right to a healthy and liveable environment in its constitution in 1998, and set up a comprehensive national architectural policy programme, which introduced a number of resolutions on educational issues - the target groups being youth and young adults (Schwalfenberg 2004, 1). In France and the Netherlands, too, architectural and urban planning issues have been part of the permanent repertoire of cultural education in schools since the 1990s.

The Netherlands founded the "Nederlands Architectuurinstituut" (NAI) in 1993 in Rotterdam, an institution that has won a high reputation. Every five years the Netherlands appoints a rijksbouwmeester , a sort of advocate for quality and advisor to the government. At the local level, numerous architectural centres ("architectuur lokaal") have been set up to serve as platforms for public discussion. Under the 1977 Architecture Act, France established the

"Centres d'architecture, d'urbanisme et de l'environment" (CAUE), platforms for information and consultation at the regional and local levels. In 2002, France set up a forum for architectural debate in the Palais de Chaillot in Paris, the "Cité de l'architecture et du patrimoine," combining the "Institut Français d'Architecture" (IFA) founded in 1980 with a library and an institute for urbanism. In 1999, the United Kingdom established a body to promote higher architectural and urban planning quality, the "Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment" (CABE) with the aim of "giving good architecture a place at the centre of the national self-image."

In Austria, too, architecture has been a subject of political discussion for a considerable time. Institutions for communicating architecture have played a bigger role than in Germany; in 2001 there were already nine "houses of architecture" in the states of the federation sponsored by the federal government. A broader debate on government architectural and building policy began in Austria at about the same time as in Germany. The Vienna Architecture Centre, set up by the Vienna municipality and the then Federal Ministry for Instruction, inaugurated its new premises in the Museum Quarter in October 2001. In 2002, the most important architectural organisations throughout Austria joined in establishing a platform for architecture and building culture, an advisory and communication agency to promote awareness of building culture in politics and among the public. In March 2004 a full-day meeting on "Architecture Policy and Building Culture in Austria" demanded that the federal government assume greater responsibility in its capacity as client, and called for the stabilisation of high educational standards and the safeguarding of existing architectural institutions.(1) 

In late 2002, the expert debate in Germany was dominated by the issue of a national position on building culture. At the Cologne "Building Culture in Germany" congress in December 2001, a short version of the (first) status report on the nationwide "Initiative for Architecture and Building Culture" was presented with a far-reaching catalogue of recommendations and measures; it was to be debated in the Bundestag in April 2002. The forward-looking, "urgent" recommendation of the status report to set up a "Foundation for Building Culture" at the federal level as a platform for "cultivating building culture in the public sphere" (Kähler 2001, 54 f.; Deutscher Bundestag 2002, 7) thus gained the public attention as a key infrastructural component of the federal government initiative.

The idea of establishing a Federal Foundation for Building Culture was justified with reference to the infrastructure available to other "awareness-dependent" policy areas. For example, the environmental field has the Federal Foundation for the Environment (DBU) and the Federal Environmental Agency; the conservation of historic monuments and heritage management have the German National Committee for the Conservation of Historic Monuments; the arts have the German Culture Council and the Cultural Foundation of the Federal Government. A Foundation for Building Culture would "encourage communication, and it would provide independent information - with the authority of federal legislation" (Ganser 2003, 5). As the central advisory body of the foundation, the First Convention on Building Culture met in Bonn on 4/5 April 2003 to discuss its functions and organisation.

The first steps towards establishing the foundation were promising. On 15 December 2004, the federal cabinet approved the bill for setting up the foundation and tabled it in Parliament. The Bundestag adopted the bill unanimously on 12 May 2005, so that its establishment could have

been expected by the end of 2005. But just over a month later the bill was thrown out in the upper chamber, the Bundesrat, where the Christian Democrats had the upper hand. Certain states insisted on defining building culture as art, which falls under the cultural competence of the states. The bill was sent to the mediation committee who adjourned the debate after two fruitless attempts at finding a compromise. The second convention planned for November 2005 in Berlin had to be postponed following the miscarriage of the project. The second report on the building culture situation was, however, presented in the second half of 2005 (BMBW 2005: Weeber/Weeber/Kähler).

After the general election and coalition negotiations in late 2005, new hope was found. Establishment of a Federal Foundation for Building Culture was laid down in the coalition agreement. On 3 May 2006, the federal cabinet approved the pertinent bill submitted by the ministry. And the federal government earmarked some six million euros for the period up to 2009 for setting up and operating the foundation.

In addition to the biennial Convention on Building Culture, the communication tools planned for the foundation include a two-yearly status report on building culture by an independent body, and a "black and white paper" presenting negative and positive examples. Also under discussion are the choice of a city as "capital" and thus as a "stage" for building culture, and a "national experiment" in building culture emphasising social, technological, and design innovation. The federal initiative supports a wide range of projects, measures, and activities that promote the public discourse and education on building culture, honour constructive and innovative contributions, enhance design quality, broaden the knowledge base, and improve the publicising of German architectural and engineering accomplishments and the international presentation of the country, for example at the Venice Architecture Biennale.

 

2. Building Cultural Engagement at the State Level

Since 2000, state governments, too, have begun to take action - with widely differing intensity - in the pursuit of an independent building culture policy through the media of long-established procedures and activities (state prizes and competitions, architecture days, open days for historic monuments or construction sites, public relations work, and Internet sites). State chambers of architects and engineers often act as motors and sponsors or at least as cooperation partners.

Beyond the state context, the conference of building ministers set up a building culture project group within the urban planning commission in July 2003; so far seven states have joined in.(2) A snapshot of the project group's work in 2004 on the basis of information from all state governments shows both the broad range of measures taken and the perceived obstacles to fostering building culture. Not surprisingly, the tight financial situation is cited with particular frequency, but there are also complaints about clients and developers that lack any sense of building cultural quality and about low public and media interest in the subject. Urban development promotion is stressed as a useful planning tool, and historical buildings and ensembles as important building cultural resources.

From the beginnings of the nation-wide initiative, North Rhine-Westphalia has shown a particularly consistent commitment to building culture - with a marked focus on urban planning. At the new year reception of the chamber of architects, the then North Rhine-Westphalian minister of urban development and housing, culture and sport declared building culture to be a "top priority" issue. In November of the same year, the "NRW Urban Building Culture Memorandum" appeared, setting out objectives and possible activities for the ten-year Urban Building Culture Initiative. The state initiative "aims to achieve quality investment in the building sector, to link public and private sector activities, to raise the profile of locations and enhance the durability of architecture and urban planning" (Vesper 2002, 30). As a central venue for addressing urban building culture and bundling state activities, North Rhine-Westphalia set up the "European House of Urban Culture" in Gelsenkirchen in May 2003.

Two things are striking about the North Rhine-Westphalian initiative: first, that NRW has apparently succeeded where others have not even recognised the problem, namely the need to link different fields of action, professional and policy areas; and, second, that key topics and problems have been tackled - as the titles of pilot projects and events show:

the series of state competitions "Stadt macht Platz - NRW macht Plätze" ("City Makes Space - NRW Makes Spaces") (2002 to 2006): the implementation of winning design and use concepts for public spaces is funded by means of the programme "Städtebauförderung" (urban development promotion grants); in the third round a two-phase procedure was adopted to include participatory aspects;

the chamber of architects' "1000 Gaps" pilot project (2003 to 2005): after taking inventory of vacant lots, the "Infill!" competition in October 2005 awarded prizes for concepts and projects for the exemplary use of "gaps" (infill sites);

the "NRWurbanism" meeting of the European House of Urban Culture with cooperation partners (2004): Are Urban Planning New Principles Needed in NRW? Can the principles of the American "New Urbanism" movement directed against urban sprawl be meaningfully transferred?;

the "Prize for Exemplary Commercial Architecture" competition staged by the European House of Urban Culture with cooperation partners (2004): the competition honoured commercial buildings and commercial ensembles outstanding in architectural quality and urban integration, in their satisfaction of user requirements and the demands of environmental protection and the conservation of the building stock and historic monuments;

the annual congress of the European House of Urban Culture with cooperation partners under the heading "[Building] Reality" (2005): discussion on the seemingly banal, like industrial estates, arterial roads, single-family homes, etc., with the aim of "analysing the scope for quality in everyday reality and to identify potential for building cultural improvements";

the "Possible Places - Image Worlds, Planners Worlds" workshop organised by the European House of Urban Culture with cooperation partners (2005): experiments in the exploration of space by different disciplines and professions (photographers,

photographic designers, planners, urban developers, architects), discussion on differences of view and working methods.

On the instigation of the Federal Initiative for Architecture and Building Culture, further states have positioned themselves with projects and measures, and sometimes with guidelines of their own on building culture. For example, the Mecklenburg-West Pomerania state assembly set up a "Mecklenburg-West Pomeranian Initiative for Building Culture" by a unanimous vote in June 2003, a project that had been initiated by the chamber of architects and engineers. Since 2003 Saxony has been awarding the "Saxon State Prize for Building Culture." In December 2002, the Thuringian government, together with the Thuringian chambers of architects and engineers, set up a foundation for "Building Culture in Thuringia"; a "Thuringian Inner-City Initiative" was also established, and the finance ministry awards a biennial "Thuringian State Prize for Architecture and Urban Planning." Rhineland-Palatinate and Brandenburg have been particularly active in this field.

In 2001, Rhineland-Palatinate founded the "Round Table on Building Culture" under the aegis of the ministry of finance and in cooperation with the chamber of architects, which by resolution of the council of ministers was reorganised under the name "Rhineland-Palatinate Dialogue on Building Culture." At its Berlin mission in November 2005, the state government presented the results of ten architectural competitions for the redesign of the entrance areas of major Rhineland-Palatinate historic structures. A kick-off meeting in December 2005 launched the "cooperative, educational, planning" school building competition "Schule bauen - bauen schult" ("Building Schools - Schooling through Building"), which is being monitored by the Wüstenrot Foundation. The aim of the competition is to gain "knowledge for the wide-ranging building and modernisation tasks of the years to come," especially in all-day school construction.

In late 2002, the Brandenburg government launched the discussion series "Building Culture Policy."(3) With two competitions for school pupils, the state government also turned to the younger generation to arouse interest in the urban environment: "Bau Stadt um" ("Renewing the City") (2002/2003) and "Ansichtssache Stadt" ("City - A Matter of Opinion") (2005). "Building Cultural Landscapes in Brandenburg" (focal theme 2006) involves key building-cultural projects and self-organised building cultural strategies in the regional context, with a wide range of projects in small towns and communities.(4) 

 

3. Opinion Formation, Knowledge Transfer, and Research Requirements

Seeing, understanding, and intervening presuppose knowledge, experience, and discernment. But architecture, urban planning and urban design have hitherto played little part in general education. Endeavours to integrate architectural, urban planning, and urban design issues in the school curriculum and where possible even in pre-school activities are consequently all the more important. The proposal of the first Status Report to introduce "design of the built environment" as a school subject (Kähler 2002, 50 ff.) was taken up in the Bundestag. The federal government

considered the recommendation "very important" in "addressing and furthering an understanding and knowledge of the built environment, architecture, and design through early treatment of this educational matter in schools and other educational institutions" (Deutscher Bundestag 2002, 5). Some progress has meanwhile been achieved in this area (Schwalfenberg 2004; BMVBW 2005: Weeber/Weeber/Kähler, 134 ff.).

Under the motto "Architecture macht Schule" ("Architecture Catches On"),(5) projects have been initiated by the chambers of architects in most states to "give children and youth access to building-cultural education." This takes place on several levels: work with pupils, art teacher training, cooperation with institutions of advanced teacher training, and the development of teaching materials and project documentation. Predecessor activities are the North Rhine-Westphalian projects "Kammer in der Schule" (KidS) ("Chamber at School"), which have been running since 1991, in which building problems in schools are solved in cooperation between architects, pupils, teachers, and parents. The pilot project "transform 2 r.a.u.m - Architecture at School" (September 2001 to November 2003) of the Bavarian Chamber of Architects, in which pupils dealt with self-chosen topics on the built environment, gave further impetus to a better understanding of the environment - also as a supplement to teaching curricula. "Türme für PISA" ("Towers for PISA") was initiated by the North Rhine-Westphalian Chamber of Engineers to counter technological frustration among school pupils. Since 2003, the chamber has been staging this annual, country-wide competition to "introduce pupil teams in play to building and engineering issues." The object is to build lightweight but optimally stable towers (Schwalfenberg, 3).

The national programme "denkmal aktiv - Kulturerbe macht Schule"(6) staged by the German Foundation for Monument Protection (DSD) under the aegis of the German UNESCO Commission, was established in the autumn of 2003 after a trial phase in 2002/2003 to encourage young people to engage in research and discovery. The aim of "denkmal activ" is to develop a "durable network of cooperating schools that integrate the conservation of historic monuments appropriately into the school curriculum" (Schwalfenberg 2004, 3). This programme, too, provides teaching materials.

Achieving agreement on quality is a process often highly charged with emotion and difficult to objectivize. There are several aspects to judging quality: expert and lay assessment differs, opinions, too, diverge between experts and the lay public, and, finally, notions of quality are subject to continual cultural revaluation. The gap between expert and lay judgment results firstly from a lack of prior knowledge among the public and secondly from the often incorrigible refusal of some professionals to communicate adequately with the lay public.

The users of the city do not as a rule share the reservations of the experts, they are happy to move into a "new city built in the old style" like the Kirchsteigfeld in Potsdam (Burgdorff 2004, 4). The so-called broad public enjoys things that bring tears to the eyes of most architects and planners, and vice versa - whether it be the urban surrogates of malls and theme parks or the ethnocentricity of historicizing new buildings. But the professional community is also divided: there is heated debate, for instance, on the pros and cons of retro architecture, of reconstructing destroyed buildings (e.g., palaces in Berlin, Brunswick, and Potsdam), and on the design principles of "New Urbanism."

The singular taste of many a client and architect producing such buildings has been regularly pilloried on the "last pages" of specialist journals. Experts are divided on whether this is justified. When the editors of the "deutsche bauzeitschrift" (db) presented and commented on such examples at a conference on architectural criticism (Dechau 2003),(7) the ensuing discussion denounced the procedure as intolerant. Bad examples can, however, serve as material for discussion and for illustrative purposes - in the training of architects, too - especially if the criticism is accompanied by well-founded arguments and (better) alternative designs: "What I've always wanted to demolish in Stuttgart" was one design assignment set students of the Technical University in Stuttgart.(8) 

In this context, the black and white book project of the Federal Foundation for Building Culture can prove interesting with its planned documentation of "successes and sins in building culture" (Ganser 2002, 45). Here, too, there is likely to be controversy about who is really able and entitled to judge the quality of architecture and urban planning on behalf of society. But the exchange, indeed the clash of arguments and public positions on quality issues helps to decipher design codes and sharpen critical faculties.

The discussion of architecture and urban planning has come to play a much greater role in the media than some years ago; but the press offers little systematic critique of issues in these fields. Both technical journals and the feature sections of newspapers take critical notice almost exclusively of ambitious and prominent structures and hence of only a tiny section of actual building activities. The aesthetic dimension predominates. Greater attention needs to be paid to such criteria as usability, land-use integration, and urban objectives, as well as ecological, economic, social, and cultural compatibility. The specialist press addresses everyday architecture and urban development at best in polemic commentary.

Throughout the country there are now many institutions and venues for communicating and elucidating architectural and planning issues (Becker 2002): architectural museums, galleries, and centres; planner centres, planer forums; series of events like the "Architecture Quartet" organised by the Federal Chamber of Architects; a wide range of prizes and awards for successful buildings and/or urban planning concepts. But a broad impact has yet to be achieved: the expert public remains the principal addressee.

The decision by the Bundestag to initiate a quality campaign for building culture included a commitment to using federal research programmes more extensively for advancing basic knowledge in the field. The research programme "Building and Living in the 21 st Century" organised by the Federal Ministry for Education and Research (BMBF) and research by the Federal Ministry of Transport, Building and Urban Development (BMVBS) on experimental housing and urban development (ExWoSt) have been able to make a valuable contribution. A number of expert reports on building culture have been prepared for the federal government, for instance, on the extent to which building cultural considerations have already been integrated into "ExWoSt" and how such integration can be intensified (BBR 2004: Doehler/Reuther); on the "Building Cultural Significance of GVFG Measures"(9) as the basis for a manual on "The Link between Building Culture and the Traffic Infrastructure" (BMVBW 2005: Machule et al.); and on "Building Culture in the Urban Renewal Process," an aid-to-work for the towns and cities participating in the Urban Renewal East programme, with an appeal to include "guidelines on

urban building culture" as an "indispensable component" in the preparation of integrated urban development concepts (Haller/Rietdorf 2003, 35).

Research is needed on many building cultural issues. Useful benchmark knowledge can be gained from research into conceptions of quality, the changing roles of agents, changes in technical, economic, and socio-economic factors, and into the efficiency of procedures. Too little is also known about whether and how completed projects - from single converted buildings to new neighbourhoods - actually prove a success in everyday use, whether users accept them from the point of view of both usability and of design.(10) Research has yet to be undertaken on the actual steering capacity and programmatic effect of urban (district) development concepts and on changes in course that might be called for.

Too little is also known about how design and behaviour interact,(11) or about how much change and deconcentration the city can take, i.e., to what extent and from what stage the "gaps" (vacant lots and buildings) that develop in shrinking cities disrupt or support appropriation and identification processes. It would also be interesting to investigate what shapes the general public's taste in architecture and urban development. Does it derive from the effusions of the building societies, the lifestyle magazines, the advertising of the housing and property industry, the almost daily apparition of the TV lottery "dream house" on the living-room screen?

 

4. Building Culture: Orientations and Areas of Action

Key "base values" in establishing the Federal Foundation for Building Culture are "respect for history," "a commitment to sustainability," "the defence of the public interest," and a "culture of procedures" (Ganser 2003, 24). Since the 1970s, a tradition of historical orientation has grown in urban development. This was shown, for example, by the European Architectural Heritage Year 1975, the International Building Exhibition (IBA) in Berlin in 1984/87, which gave impetus to the urban development concepts of "critical reconstruction" (in the context of the new building IBA) and "careful urban renewal" (inherited stock IBA), the demand of the IBA Emscher Park in the mid-1990s to "take industrial culture seriously!"(12) At about the same time, post-modern architecture was making cheerful use of many historicising style elements. History was in increasing danger of being functionalised "for superficial" identity policy (Harlander /Kuhn 2004, 10), image building, and marketing.

Today history is experiencing a renaissance as a "category of urbanity" (Kaltenbrunner 2005, 358). Consumers and users of the city and the built environment are manifesting a growing desire for the agreeable, for recourse to the past and the (historically) familiar as a framework of reference. With their neo-traditionalist design elements, the principles of "New Urbanism" meet with a considerable response. A "retro mentality" underlies many a design, and the reconstruction of buildings that no longer exist is advocated by sections of the professional community.

An historical perspective requires historical precision and scientific grounding. It is not by chance that more schooling in history is once more being demanded in the training of architects

and planners. If the curriculum is to promote "architecture as a cultural phenomenon in an extremely comprehensive sense" (Pieper 2005, 14), analysis from a building history perspective "of the foundations of all artistic building immanent in architecture and hence necessarily anthropologically determined" is indispensable (ibid. 18). In view of what he regards as the inevitable "New Historicism," Thomas Sieverts demands that "the architecture and urban planning curriculum must return to a more intensive concern with the history of urban development;" knowledge is needed of "numerous 'classical' examples of urban development at least as points of reference" against which current designs can be more soundly appraised is "indispensable" (Sieverts 2004, 146).

Heritage management and the conservation of historic monuments as elements of building culture seem to be better established in the minds of a broader public (Kähler 2002, 47). The lay public is less concerned with authentic original structures than with the atmosphere of the past. The conservation of historic monuments and heritage management need to be reformed. Dealing with the building-cultural heritage demands forward-looking use concepts for buildings created for other users and uses. The process of striking a balance between original substance and usability is becoming more acute. Since the historical inventory is not a renewable resource, a "new appreciation of durability" needs to be achieved "for the general promotion of sustainability in heritage management and building culture" (Kaltenbrunner 2005, 359).

The expert community largely agrees that aspects of everyday architecture usually caught in the blind spot need to be examined more closely from a building cultural perspective, and that attention ought not to be directed solely towards spectacular, usually stand-alone, and often self-referential development projects. The built environment consists largely of inconspicuous buildings and "non-architecture." The German Builder Prize (Deutscher Bauherrenpreis) (13) awarded since 1986 by the KOOPERATION working group honours outstanding achievements in residential development, thus presenting awards in a more everyday field of building activity. This inspired the architecture journalist Wolfgang Kil to an enthusiastic proposal for renaming the prize the "Grand Prix for Intrepid Normality" (Kil 2003, 5).

Among the works that count as everyday structures and which have therefore received even less attention under the heading of building culture than residential building are traffic structures and technical infrastructure facilities.(14) A "manual" presenting traffic structures that not only improve traffic conditions but also make a positive contribution to the cityscape and to good urban architecture is a move in the right direction. Other valuable aspects of this project are an analysis of the eight exemplary structures with regard to both "planning and decision-making processes" and to "impression, implementation, and use," as well as expert interviews and user surveys (BMVBW 2005: Machule et al., 35 ff.).

The focus of building cultural activities is without doubt public space (Öffentlicher Raum und Stadtgestalt 2002; BMVBW 2005: Weeber/Weeber/Kähler, 11 ff.); but the professional community perceives and judges the state and development of public space in a highly ambivalent fashion. On the one hand they debate a loss of functions, depopulation, commercialisation, and privatisation, and on the other they evoke a renaissance and revitalization of public space (Harlander/Kuhn 2004, 10 ff.; Selle 2004, 131 ff.). These contradictions are attributable to a lack of theoretical and empirical underpinning. For instance, formal (legal)

privatisation does not necessarily mean the actual denial of access to the public. The tasks facing building culture with respect to public space are to recover, re-interpret, improve, interlink, and safeguard. Much has already been undertaken in this direction, for example the series of state competitions "Stadt macht Platz - NRW macht Plätze" ("City Makes Space - NRW Makes Spaces") (2002 to 2006) mentioned in section 2, and the "Squares, Parks and Panoramas" project in which the Stuttgart municipality addressed the perspectives for public space in 2001.

The international importance of this area of action is reflected by the European Prize for Urban Public Space organised by six renowned European architectural institutions for the first time in 2000.(15) In November 2005 the prize was staged for the fourth time; it is to be presented in Barcelona in July 2006. In view of the risk of "homogenisation and impoverishment of the urban landscape," the prize aims to "highlight the importance of public space as a catalyst of public life" and to recognise and promote "activities for the recovery of areas of social cohesion in European cities through transforming and improving public space."

 

5. Building Culture in Concrete Terms and Perspectives for the Building Cultural Discourse

The case of the "Academy of the Arts" confirms the multi-faceted nature of building culture and demonstrates the dilemmas accompanying the building cultural perspective. The current dispute about the deficient usability of the new building for the Berlin Academy of the Arts on Pariser Platz as a supplement to the existing premises of the Academy in Hanseatenweg (16) provides a (negative) lesson in building culture. The planning and production history behind this controversy and the attention it has attracted in the media reveal a number of building cultural blind spots. Without going into the history of the project at length, certain critical junctures inconducive to building culture can be mentioned.

The complicated run up to the project alone was full of traps. Given the congenital defects of a united, East-West Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of the Arts, the function and programme of the new building remained unclear. The decision in favour of Günter Behnisch' design was made in a second, internal advisory procedure. The "Bauwelt" blames a "network of irresponsibilities" for the overall negative balance of the project (Hoffmann-Axthelm 2005, 29). A brief catalogue of other misfortunes that have befallen the project: a debate about facades in the context of the Berlin architectural dispute instead of a discussion of the space and functional programme; despite incomplete planning, the contract was awarded to an investor and a general contractor; divided client functions within the Berlin Senate; uncontrolled interaction between actors; delays and price rises; etc.

In April 2005, an issue of the Bauwelt devoted to the academy appeared, offering precise information and analyses that attributed the failure of the building primarily to the procedural history of the project. The criticism that appeared in the daily press in March 2006 targeted the considerable deficiencies in the usability of the building.(17) Without any knowledge of the

background process, the impartial reader must take the architect to be the main author of the debacle, an inadmissible simplification.

Overall, building culture as an area of policy must gain in substance and clarity; action is needed in the following fields:

Strengthening urban planning concerns in the building cultural discourse: A "feedback from architecture to urban planning" (a key demand of the IBA Emscher Park) still received too little attention at the first Convention on Building Culture. Urban development structures provide a more or less robust framework that can cope with even inconsequential architecture.

Identification of urgent building cultural issues and a sense for forward-looking solutions: neuralgic points in urban development like demolition and downsizing together with important upgrading measures need to be integrated more strongly in the building cultural debate. This includes discussion of changes in mentality among agents and the formulation of new tasks and solutions.

An open discussion of conflicts: problematic projects and procedures ought not to be mentioned merely in passing. Their structural content needs to be analysed to permit conclusions to be drawn on procedures and task formulation.

Early warning of abortive building culture developments: architectural criticism has an important seismographic role to play: sometimes it is necessary to intervene ex ante in the public debate, as Ulrich Conrads did in criticising Hans Hollein's project for the Berlin Kulturforum in 1986 ("unsuitable"!) (18) and Manred Sack with his criticism of procedure in the planning for Potsdamer/Leipziger Platz ("mistake of the century"!) (19) .

Closer networking and new coalitions between actors from various professions: in addition to urban and landscape planning, landscape planning, monument conservation and heritage management, engineering, architecture, and urban development the sectors concerned include the housing, building, and real estate industries, private developers, and, especially, the media. The key role of urban development promotion as one of the few still effective control tools makes it particularly urgent to establish solid strategic partnerships between the proponents of building culture and the agents of urban development promotion.

Since the launch of the initiative in the autumn of 2000, the discussion has gained in stature; the growing attention to quality is certainly partly the reason why the federal, state, and local governments have been able to present so many examples of high-standard design. It is still too early for any systematic performance review. But a Federal Foundation for Building Culture is likely to assume a key mediating and strategic role in developments. Despite the great potential for conflict that such a procedure implies, it is vital to intensify the debate on quality with reference to positive and negative examples. This is necessary not least of all because spatial and temporal priorities for intervention and investment in shrinking cities and regions need to be set that are also justified on grounds of quality. And this should be done with the greatest possible transparency and expertise.

 

Notes

(1) www.architekturpolitik.at (back)

(2) Bavaria, Berlin, Hamburg, Hessen, Mecklenburg-West Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Schleswig-Holstein. (back)

(3) The contributions are documented in Fritz-Haendler/Möller (2003). (back)

(4) For example, renaturalisation of an industrial canal in Guben, conversion of a railway station into a library in Luckenwalde, conversion of a diesel power station into an art museum in Cottbus, redesign of the main through road in Dahme. (back)

(5) Literally "Architecture Makes School": the expression "Schule machen" can be translated as "set a precedent, become the accepted thing, catch on". www.bmvbw.de/architektur-baukultur/download/BaukulturmachtSchule.pdf (back)

(6) www.denkmal-aktiv.de. Translator's note: for some time now, no project or programme seems to manage without a catchy wordplay or two in its name, which, as in this case, renders translation, if not impossible, then very difficult. "denkmal aktiv" can be read as literally as "active historic monument" or as "think actively"; "Kulturerbe macht Schule" "Cultural heritage catches on". See footnote 5. (back)

(7) "It it time not only to think about a black book, black and white book … or even better, grey book, but to negotiate." The concept expresses concern "not only with total architectural blunders but also with all those structures that just manage to stay within the limit" (Dechau 2003, 45). (back)

(8) Professor Arno Lederer, cf. Bauwelt H ½ (2005), 29 (back)

(9) GVFG: Community Transport Financing Act. (back)

(10) One specific case is the "Academy of the Arts" in Berlin, see section 5. (back)

(11) A field that is currently gaining in importance, e.g., the British CABE (Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment) case studies "Decent Parks? Decent behaviour? The link between the quality of parks and user behaviour." (back)

(12) As one of four key demands. (back)

(13) In 1996 the sponsors split the prize into awards for "innovative new housing construction" and for "rehabilitation, modernisation, and renovation projects in residential building," which have since been award alternately each year. (back)

(14) They include bridges, tunnels, noise barriers, parking decks, through streets, service stations, public transport stations and stops, railway lines, waste disposal facilities, power stations. (back)

(15) Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona, Institut Français d'Architecture (Paris), The Architecture Foundation (London), Nederlands Architectuurinstituut (Rotterdam), Architekturzentrum Wien and the Museum of Finnish Architecture (Helsinki); the best works are documented and made accessible in the European Archive of Urban Public Space (www.kommunalweb.de/dateien/wettbewerbe/cccb2006.pdf). (back)

(16) The discrepancy between ambitious design and usability deficiencies brought severe criticism from attorney and patron of the arts Peter Raue in the Berliner Tagesspiegel of 4 March 2006, answered by the architect Günter Behnisch on 11 March. (back)

(17) "Adieu Pariser Platz! Ist die Akademie der Künste zu retten? Plädoyer für die Rückkehr zum Hanseatenweg. Und zum Wesentlichen"/by Peter Raue (Der Tagesspiegel of 4 March 2006). (back)

(18) U(lrich) Conrads, Untauglich, in: Bauwelt, H. 47 (1986), 1778-1780. (back)

(19) Manfred Sack, Der Jahrhundertfehler, in: "Die Zeit" of 20 April 1990. (back)

 

References

 Akademie der Künste (2005), Bauwelt (Themenheft), H. 13 (2005). (back)

 Baukultur - Planungskultur (2002), Informationen zur Raumentwicklung (Themenheft), H. 11/12 (2002). (back)

 Becker, Heidede (2002), Stadtbaukultur - Modelle, Workshops, Wettbewerbe. Verfahren der Verständigung über die Gestaltung der Stadt, 2 vols., Stuttgart. (back)

 Becker, Heidede (2003), Architektur und Städtebau publik machen, in: Conrads, Ulrich/Führ, Eduard/Gänshirt, Christian, Zur Sprache bringen. Kritik der Architekturkritik, Münster und andere, 201-211. (back)

 BBR/Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumforschung (ed.), Bearbeitung: Marta Doehler und Iris Reuther (Juni 2004), Baukultur in ExWoSt - Ein Verständigungsversuch. Dokumentation, Juni 2004, Kurzfassung; www.bbr.bund.de/exwost/pdf-files/baukultur_exwost_kurz.pdf. (back)

 BMVBW/Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen (ed.), Bearbeitung: Rotraut Weeber, Hannes Weeber und Gert Kähler (2005), Baukultur! Informationen - Argumente - Konzepte. Zweiter Bericht zur Baukultur in Deutschland, Hamburg. (back)

BMVBW/Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen (ed.), Bearbeitung: Dittmar Machule und andere (2005), Kommunale Verkehrsinfrastruktur: Baukulturelle Bedeutung von GVFG-Maßnahmen, direkt, H. 61 (2005). (back)

BMVBW/Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau- und Wohnungswesen (ed.), Bearbeitung: Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung (2005), Nachhaltige Stadtentwicklung - ein Gemeinschaftswerk. Städtebaulicher Bericht der Bundesregierung 2004, Bonn. (back)

 Burgdorff, Frauke (2004), Einführung, in: Europäisches Haus der Stadtkultur e.V. (ed.), NRWurbanism - Neue Prinzipien für den Städtebau in Nordrhein-Westfalen? Werkstattbericht über den Jahreskongress der Initiative StadtBauKultur NRW am 30. September 2004, Gelsenkirchen 2005, 3-5; www.stadtbaukultur-nrw.de/pdf/publikationen/52_PUB1_Inhalt.pdf. [Aktuallisierter Link: http://www.stadtbaukultur-nrw.de/pdf/publikationen/52_Pub1_Decklatt,%20Inhalt,%20Einf%FChrung.pdf, 15.02.2011] (back)

 Dechau, Wilfried (2003), Graubuch, in: Conrads, Ulrich/Führ, Eduard/Gänshirt, Christian, Zur Sprache bringen. Kritik der Architekturkritik, Münster und andere, 43-61. (back)

 Deutscher Bundestag (2002), Bericht der Bundesregierung - Initiative Architektur und Baukultur, Drucksache 14/8966 vom 29. April 2002. (back)

 Deutscher Bundestag (2003), Antrag. Die Qualitätsoffensive für gutes Planen und Bauen voranbringen, Drucksache 15/1092 vom 3. Juni 2003. (back)

 Fritz-Haendeler, Renate/Möller, Bärbel (ed.) (2003), Politikfeld Baukultur, Potsdam. (back)

 Ganser, Karl (2002), Das Schwarz-Weiß-Buch, in: Positionen des Gründerkreises zu Kernthemen der Baukultur im 21. Jahrhundert; www.bmvbs.de/architektur-baukultur/download/ BKK_BUCH_GRUENDERKREIS_RZ.pdf. (back)

 Ganser, Karl (2003), Bericht über den 1. Konvent der Baukultur. 4. und 5. April 2003; www.bmvbs.de/architektur-baukultur/download/abschlussbericht.pdf. (back)

 Haller, Christoph/Rietdorf, Werner (2003), Baukultur im Stadtumbauprozess, Erkner. (back)

 Harlander, Tilman/Kuhn, Gerd (2004), Renaissance oder Niedergang? Zur Krise des öffentlichen Raums im 20. Jahrhundert, in: Europäisches Haus der Stadtkultur e.V. (ed.), Stadt macht Platz - NRW macht Plätze. Landeswettbewerb 2003/Dokumentation, Gelsenkirchen, 6-13. (back)

 Hoffmann-Axthelm, Dieter (2005), Die Suche nach dem Bauherrn. Zur Verfahrensgeschichte des Akademie-Neubaus, in: Bauwelt, H. 13 (2005), 20-29. (back)

 Kähler, Gert (2001), Baukultur in Deutschland. Ausgangslage und Empfehlungen, Berlin. (back)

 Kähler, Gert (2002), Baukultur in Deutschland. 1 und 2. Statusbericht Langfassung, Bonn. (back)

 Kaltenbrunner, Robert (2005), Dialektische Einheit. Bewahren, Interpretieren und Erneuern im heutigen Städtebau, in: Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, H. 6 (2005), 357-364. (back)

 Kil, Wolfgang (2003), Avantgarde und Alltag, in: Wohnungspolitische Informationen, H. 49 (2003), 5-8. (back)

 Pieper, Jan (2005), Baugeschichte und Architekturlehre. Anmerkungen zu einer schwierigen Beziehung, in: Bauwelt, H. 40/41 (2005), 12-18. (back)

 Rauterberg, Hanno (2003), Ausblick auf den 2. Konvent der Baukultur 2005, Redebeitrag am 4. April 2003 auf dem 1. Konvent der Baukultur in Bonn; www.bmvbs.de/architektur-baukultur/download/rauterberg.pdf. (back)

 Öffentlicher Raum und Stadtgestalt (2003), Informationen zur Raumentwicklung (Themenheft), H. 1/2 (2003). (back)

 Schwalfenberg, Claudia (2004), Baukultur in der Bildungsreformdiskussion, September 2004; www.baukulturrat.de. (back)

 Schwerpunktthema Baukulturlandschaften in Brandenburg - Regionale Vielfalt (2006), MIRAKTUELL (Themenheft), H. 4 (2005)/1(2006). (back)

 Selle, Klaus (2004), Öffentliche Räume in der europäischen Stadt - Verfall und Ende oder Wandel und Belebung? Reden und Gegenreden, in: Siebel, Walter (ed.), Die europäische Stadt, Frankfurt/Main, 131-145. (back)

 Sieverts, Thomas (2004), Städtebau im Sinne des New Urbanism oder einer reflexiven Moderne?, in: Europäisches Haus der Stadtkultur e.V. (ed.), NRWurbanism - Neue Prinzipien für den Städtebau in Nordrhein-Westfalen? Werkstattbericht über den Jahreskongress der Initiative StadtBauKultur NRW am 30. September 2004, Gelsenkirchen 2005, 144-149; www.stadtbaukultur-nrw.de/pdf/publikationen/52_PUB7_gesamt%204.pdf. (back)

 Vesper, Michael (2002), Landesinitiative StadtBauKultur NRW. (Bau-)Kultur schafft Struktur, in: Alternative Kommunalpolitik, H. 3 (2002), 30-31. (back)