Conclusion

Both sides of Krems suffer from a similar flaw in their development: imprecision. In the Wachau many processes that could potentially benefit the region are halted by planning regulations. In KremsEast the regulations are too lax, leading to too much development and development that does not benefit the region.

The two areas are governed by different processes that do not interact much. It would be beneficial for both sides to actively work with the other. Krems-East would benefit from some of the planological scrutiny as applied in the Wachau. At the same time Krems-East has the flexibility to integrate some of the functions that do not fit the Romantic atmosphere of the Wachau, but are needed for the daily life in the region.

Two themes recur throughout this booklet that should be considered more in both Krems-East and the Wachau: inclusivity and specificity. Inclusivity: The decision making process of the development of Krems and the Wachau is influenced by a small group of locals. They should be commended for their contribution, but they do not bring all interests in the region to the table. A more diverse peer group would widen the focus and lead to more sustainable development of the region

Specificity: Very few designers are involved in the development of the region. The first spatial development plan for the Wachau is currently in the making, 20 years after the UNESCO nomination. This work by the Büro für Baukulturerbe is a promising start, but is not intended as an all encompassing strategy. Much of the region is developed based on measures that are applied everywhere equally. Including (landscape) architects in the development of the region will lead to the consideration of the spatial effects of different measures on specific places. This would benefit both the Wachau and Krems-East.