1
Filip Fichtel Fall 2012 Professor Wendy McClure Arch 483 Urban Theory & Issues Case Study: Munich - Germany
F 2
Present Past
Future
Index Definition of the city’s character 4 Munich as a prospering city 5-6 Demographics 7 Density 8 Housing types 9 Infrastructure 10-11
Munich as cultural and social capital 12-13 Growth within the City Region 14-15 Why Munich Formed 16-17 Restoration or Renewal? 18-19 Memory and new Construction 20-21 Population Forecast 22 Age Distribution 23 Trends, Ideas and Strategies 24-26 Conclusion 27 Appendix 28-29 Sources 30-31
3
definition of the city´’` s character The city’s motto is “München mag Dich” (Munich likes you). Before 2006, it was “Weltstadt mit Herz” (Cosmopolitan city with a heart). Other fitting quotes I found about the city were the following: “I don’t remember that I have ever seen a more beautiful connection of mountains, lakes and a city like here in Munich; if god built this?” Clint Eastwood. “Don’t bother going anywhere else... nothing can match Munich. Everything else in Germany is a waste of time.” Ernest Hemingway “There are only two cities where you could live: Rome and Munich” Henrik Ibsen “If you don’t like it in Munich, then I don’t know where in Germany you would like it.” Angela Merkel “Paris is a Women, Munich is a beer. In my opinion Munich is better.” Alexei Schtscherbakow “Munich is the diva of the German metropolitans. No other metropolitan is so narcissistic and always must play to the gallery.” Joseph van Westfalen Munich citizens (“Münchners”) are the world’s biggest beer drinkers. They average annually 190 litres per head. There are six breweries: Hofbräu, Augustinerbräu, Löwenbräu, Hacker-Pschorrbräu, Matthäserbräu and Paulanerbräu. 110,000,000 gallons of beer are brewed in Munich every year. In Bavaria as a whole, every single small town has its own brewery. Munich has often been described as a jewel, as a jewel of Germany or even Europe, but nevertheless I would definitely characterize it as a “world city”.
4
Munich as a prospering city
Munich has 1.4 million citizens living on 310 km2. That is an average population density of 4 500 inhabitants per square kilometer. Although Munich is rather densely populated for western European conditions, it is not nearly comparable with southern European cities or Chinese megacities. Munich is the third largest city of Germany (after Berlin and Hamburg) and it symbolizes one of Europe’s powerful cities when it comes to knowledge. With around 90 000 students and 3 Universities, two universities for applied sciences, eleven colleges and academies for philosophy, music, theatre, cinema and fine arts the Munich is a major hub of the European knowledge network. The two main universities in Munich, the Ludwig-Maximilians-University (LMU) and the technical University (TUM) are both awarded with the title of “Universities of Excellence” in 2006. The Universities are constantly in the top spots of the German rankings and also among the best universities in Europe and worldwide. To take advantage of this well-established knowledge economy, there are many important elements to transfer between research and industry. The national and the European Patent Organizations with around 6 000 employees, is one of the many transfer- and technology centers or –agencies that help to transfer the knowledge from the research labs into industry.
5
The APS firms in Munich specialize mainly on the media and IT-business, and service as well as specialized law firms; that rounds up the picture of the very successful knowledge region Munich. The “Deutsche Museum”, is Germany’s leading technical and science museum, it is a successful bridge between science, public and fun. In the museum there is Munich’s main manufacturing branches like automotive, aircraft and space industry, medical technologies and optical technology represented. If you fully want to understand Munich you have to take a look at its role within the “megacity” region of Munich. The outskirts of Munich grew along the main transportation infrastructure lines such as train lines and highways; they profited from low mobility costs, abundance ready-to-build land and a mindset of the people that they were excited to live “in the green”. Cities like Augsburg, Ingolstadt, Landshut and Rosenheim can be considered as suburban ring that shaped around Munich. In the following maps illustrate the addressed ideas: TOP: Network of mega-city-regions in Europe (BBR/Federal Office for Building and Territorial Planning). BOTTOM: Munich Metropolitan Region in Bavaria (source: City of Munich). MIDDLE: Megacities and it’s metropolitan regions (source (source: BBR/Federal Office for Building and Territorial Planning)
Figure 01
6
Demografics In 1700 Munich’s population was only 24 000, from then on it doubled every 30 years and in 1852 the population exceeded 100 000. By 1883 Munich had 250 000 citizens and by 1990 it doublet to 500 000. That made Munich the third largest city in the Deutschen Reich. After the Second World War most of the historical old town had been destroyed and half of the city stood in ruins. There were 80 aerial raids that were flew over the city and the effects of those and the whole war are clearly visible. There are just estimations on the impacts that the war had on the population, 6 000 dead, and another 15 000 heavily injured. Overall Munich lost 34% of its population, through evacuation, migration, and deportation. Between May 1939 and May 1945 the total population decreased from 829 000 to 550 000. It wasn’t until 1950 that the pre-war population number was regained. At Munich’s 800th birthday the city population reached the one million. According to the Bavarian National Office for Statistics and Data Processing, the official figure for the population of Munich was 1 259 677 in December 2005; and since June 2007 it increased to 1 305 525. In the following graph you see the population growth. You can clearly see the impact of the Second World War in this graph.
Figure 02
7
Density On the ranking for the largest cities in the world ranked by population Munich makes the 65th place (1st in Germany) with a population of 1,321,000 a Land area of 518 square kilometers and a density of 4 225 people per square kilometer. The average in Germany is 2 602 per square kilometer. Berlin has 3 831 people per square kilometer, and Hamburg the second largest city is below average with just 2 344 people per square kilometer. (See Figure 03)
Figure 03
Munich booms. Munich grows more than other German metropolises. Between 2000 and 2007 the population increased by 7.7 %. Hamburg, Frankfurt an Berlin are not even close to those numbers. Dresden is with 5.0% second, after that ever city doesn’t have more than 3,0 % Figure 03
8
Housing Types
Figure 04
Figure 05
There are many different types of housing in Munich, with two colleges and many big companies the demand for all different kind of housing is very diverse. Around the Universities (TUM and LMU) there are many dorms that are integrated into the cityscape (unlike the US where the dorms are on campus). And then there are many projects that try do satisfy the demand of housing. For example the Olympic village of the 1972 Olympics was transformed into a housing project with housing for students and lower income housing. (Figure 04) Munich has many beautiful old buildings that are structurally sound. Most of them are historical buildings. Many of those buildings are renovated to accomplish people’s the expectations. Things like air condition and elevators are now integrated into historical over a hundred year old buildings. That is a challenge for the architects, and creates if done in good way beautiful and interesting buildings. Build in the past, renovated in the present in order to still exits in the future. In Figure 05 you can see an example for the just mentioned case right next to the Theresienwiese. A very typical urban form in Munich is the humble courtyard - a European trademark of urban design - creates the opportunity of a magnificent middle ground between public and private space. For cities elsewhere to become more livable and acceptable to those accustomed to privacy (suburban yards, for example), this value must be acknowledged. Semi-private space is vital to community well-being. In Figure 06 you see Untersendling covered with snow.
Figure 06
9
Infrastructure Munich has been invested a lot of money in its infrastructure. The high quality of Munich’s infrastructure is an important strength. Key examples of the city’s great infrastructure are: The Munich Airport, new Munich Trade Fair Center, Munich’s public transport system, Munich is the meeting point of 5 major highways (Autobahn) and Munich is furthermore an important hub in the German railway system. Other important projects that are currently under construction include three tunnels for Munich’s ring road that runs around the city, the “Mittlerer Ring” - Figure 07 There is a discussion between the Bavarian Government and the City of Munich about the best way to connect Munich Airport and the City. This is probably the weakest point of Munich’s infrastructure, today the travelling the time for the 35 km distance is about 40 minutes with the S-Bahn (light railway) and 50 minutes by car (if there is no traffic). The Bavarian Government wants to build a speed magnetic levitation train, while the City Government wants to improve the existing S-Bahn connection (light railway). The connection to the airport is the only real weakness and challenge of the Munich infrastructure, but the city is working on solving that problem.
10
Figure 0 Figure 11
Data of the key examples mentioned: Airport (Figure 08) (Europe’s 8th largest airport and Germany’s second largest airport, 200 destinations world-wide, 26.8 million passengers, 383,000 aircraft movements in 2004).
Figure 08
Figure 09
Munich public transport system (Figure 09) (passengers: 554,9 Million. p. a., S-Bahn (light railway) 442,0 km, Underground 85,8 km, Tram 71,2 km, City Buses 560,6 km) New Munich Trade Fair Centre (Figure 10) (2.3 million visitors from some 182 countries per year, 33,500 exhibitors from 95 countries, 30 major events at the Munich Trade Fair Centre, 150 conferences at the International Congress Centre)
07
Figure 10
11
Munich as cultural and social capital In 2010, Monocle ranked Munich as the world’s most livable city (in 2012, Munich was ranked fifth in Monocle’s ranking, yet remained the highest ranked city in Germany) And many businesses see Munich as one of the best cities in Europe, because of its culture and other reasons. The reason why Munich is considered the social capital results from multiple things; one of them is the structure of the employment market with high proportion of highly skilled workers as well as a relatively high proportion of knowledge intensive activities. Another factor that encourages business to locate their businesses in Munich are Munich’s universities and professional schools. Germany’s Post war division in West and East Germany allowed Munich to become the “secret capital” of Germany while the official capital was Bonn. Economic power was concentrated in Munich and so the city was able to become more and more important in its position as a cultural capital. This is not the case for the whole city, not for the typically less subsidized sub-culture sector, that faces the problem that spaces in any form is much more expensive than in other German cities, that means it is extremely difficult for this cultural sector to find niches to survive. Subculture in Munich is less developed than in other large German cities with lower rents. Since the German unification the competition between Munich and Berlin increased and for a fact, during the first couple years after the unification, some institutions went back to Berlin partly because Berlin, after the unification, became (because of all the recent history) more important than before. But Munich still kept an important role in Germany’s cultural landscape. The city has a status for being one of the safest big cities in Germany; not just in Germany but also in Europe. Although Munich has social inequalities with one of the highest proportions of immigrants in Germany (23%), there were so far no significant turbulences in Munich. This is mainly because the social situation of immigrants is much better in Munich than in other European cities, so the proportion of unemployed immigrants is relatively low in Munich (due to general situation on the employment market). The thing is that the possibilities of young immigrants are not as ideal as they should be; the situation is not as hopeless as in other European cities. The urban environment is of very good quality and this not just the case in the fancy areas of the city, but also in areas that have a higher concentration of immigrants. Overall Germany is very solitary and open toward immigrants, and in Munich the spatial segregation between Germans and immigrants is less pronounced than in other large German cities; what makes Munich a melting pot of many diverse cultures with a lot of intercultural interaction.
12
Figure 11: A photo of Munich with a rollercoster of the Oktoberfest and the “Frauenkirche” in the background.
Figure 12: A sketch of the olympic park, with Frei Otto’s stadium in the background and people lingering close to the artificial lake.
Figure 13: One of the many lively places in Munich, a beautiful beergarden in the English Garden in the heart of Munich
13
Growth within the City-Region A fifth of Bavaria’s inhabitants live in the city-region and a quarter do work in the city-region of Munich (the difference is determined by going back and forth). Munich is located in a “mono centric structured” area. That means that there is a single core area. That is unusual, usually German regions have more than one city in them, if you take a look at Frankfurt, how many cities cluster around the city. The next big city region close to Munich is Nürnberg, about 180 km away. Near Munich (within 100km of the city) there are only small and medium-sized cities like Rosenheim (58,000 inhabitants), Landshut (59,000 inhabitants), Augsburg (255,000 inhabitants) and Ingolstadt (115,000 inhabitants). The economy of these cities is to a degree orientated towards Munich. Also in exchange Munich is gaining its importance from these cities. Like many other dynamic city-regions the trend towards suburbanization of the population and workplaces has taken place over the last decades. One of the consequences of this development is an increase in commuting and traffic. And as I already mentioned earlier in the chapter about infrastructure the public transport links between the City and the Region are very good, the key example for the connection to the region around Munich are the 8 S-Bahn (light railway) lines running every 20 - 40 minutes serving an area of 5.159,77 km2 with 2.5 million inhabitants. The constant passenger growth demands further development and expanding of the system. The fact that the S-Bahn crosses the City centre through an underground system is very convenient for the travelers but also creates a restricted access to the system because all lines have to use the same tunnel. The planning process of a second tunnel has started but its realization will take some more years. Population growth has taken place in the city region of Munich, as shown in the chart here. (Figure 14) Employment growth has also taken place in the region, but to a lesser extent. In 2010, 60% of all employFigure 14
14
ees in the city-region worked within the administrative borders of the city. The amount of workplaces in the city-region of the agglomeration increased from 24% in 1975 to 30% in 1990 and 43% in 2010. In recent years the growth in employment has slowed down. For many years spatial specialization has taken place with a concentration of high-value added services and production in Munich and a trend towards the suburbanization of lower-value added manufacturing and services. This is to some degree reflected in the numbers of “blue-collar” and “white-collar” workers: In the city of Munich roughly one in four dependent employees were blue-collar workers, while the equivalent figure is one-third in the city-region. Nevertheless, knowledge intensive industries have increased finding locations outside the city border because it has been extremely difficult and expensive to find proper office space inside Munich. The cooperation structure between the City of Munich and the local governments in the city-region is weak. Although a formal structure does exists, but its power is limited. As the economic area of Munich covers a way larger territory than the administrative borders of the city of Munich or the city-region covered by regional planning organization (Regionaler Planungsverband). This organization has little power, so the network structure “Greater Munich Area” was created. More than 100 members, municipalities, institutions, regional planning authorities and companies are working in this network dealing with different aspects of regional cooperation (such as example regional marketing). But the Greater Munich Area is only an association without administrative power, so the cooperation is limited to different fields, which are less controversial. So conflicts between Munich and smaller cities and communities in the Munich region have often remained unsolved. So there is no powerful institutional organization covering the Munich economic area. This definitely causes some frictions to some degree concerning planning processes and the discussion about a large proportion of different financial things like public transport continues. These processes could be organized in a more efficient way. The problem is the economic view of this situation, the competition and the rivalry between the cities in the region leads to a strong effort to offer the best location conditions for investors. This is not just a bad thing, because this competition forces the city and the surrounding area to push to the limits and that strength the whole region.
Munich offers one of the best examples of land use and urban design. Munich is very compact, there is no suburban sprawl at all; just city and cobblestones, there are some leafy older suburbs to the west (e.g. Pasing) but in general once you are out of the city limits it is farmland.
15
Why Munich formed From Market Site to Royal Residence City, 1158-1800 During the first 600 years of the city, the evolution as a city happened in three phases. The first one was from the settlement’s founding to the construction of the first city wall… This was followed by an era of generous developments, leading to the creation of the outer wall ring and then finally to the city’s reorganization and enlargement to become a royal residence city. A New Munich, 1800 – 1860 The beginning of the 19th century can be seen as an equivalent to a new founding of Munich. Partly destroying the ring around the city opened a path toward urban development, which continues today. Those influences of those early urban plans can still be seen today. The small royal residence city was renovated; it is now the capital city of a modern territorial state. All of a sudden modern suburbs arose around Munich in order to offer living space for the permanently growing population. Becoming a Metropolis, 1860 – 1918 During the second half of the 19th century Munich became a indisputable metropolis. The number of citizens multiplied by five and the assimilation of outlying villages further enlarged the area of the city. The industrialization kicked in a little late in Munich, but around the beginning of the 20th century the industrialization finally began to make itself felt. Private investors started to invest in new neighborhoods and enlarged the housing possibilities and allowed Munich to grow even further. Another important urban development at this time was a competition that was initiated by the city. After that competition, where the best architects of the country competed, a master development plan for the entire city was approved and got started at the beginning of the 20th century.
Figure 15
Figure 16
16 Figure 17
From War to War, 1918 – 1945 When the global economic crisis happened also the transformation programs in the housing constructions during the 1920s came to a stop. The NSDAP (The National Socialists) took over the crisis model of the small settlements and used it to force the settlers into line. That was not the main propose, the National Socialists wanted to transform Munich into the monumental “Capital City of their Movement”. The plans of that movement were very interesting, the completion of these plans failed because of the war. Rising from the Rubble, 1945 – 1960 After the Second World War, Munich was faced with a very hard decision. The city had to choose between a radical new beginning and the reconstruction of the old cityscape. The city decided to go with a fairly moderate and conservative rebuilding plan. They called it the “Munich way” and it combined the rebuilding and the preservation of traditional structures on the one hand with future oriented planning on the other. The result of this plan contributed toward the reestablishment and preservation of the familiar cityscape. In the Fast Lane toward Modernity, 1960-1972 As already mentioned earlier in the late 1950s Munich’s population topped the one million mark. The continual growth of the population and business led to new problems, a development plan was needed. Right after passing the one million mark a comprehensive urban development plan solved those problems and created the fundament for further growth and transformation into what Munich is these days, a modern metropolis. Crises and Consolidation, 1973 -2000 Munich’s development after the Second World War reached its peak with the 1972 Olympic Games. Benish and Frei Otto’s Olympic stadium was a masterpiece of modern architecture, the Olympic park was considered revolutionary for its time. The sweeping and transparent canopy was to symbolize the new democratic optimistic Germany. This reflected the official motto: “Die Heiteren Spiele” (“The Happy Games”). The positive trend after the Olympics did not last too long. The oil crises of the 1973 put an abrupt end to the “golden years”. It was not until the 1990s until the city council again decide in favor of a comprehensive concept to expand and ensure Munich’s importance as a metropolis.
17
Restoration of Renewal? The early post-war Munich architecture that was built new still reflected the city’s restorational character. Most scholars have acknowledged the early years of the “Federal Republic” as a restoration-period that is characterized by the conservative resistance to modern architecture. Munich has outrun almost all other West-German cities in being considered among the most conventional bastions of tradition in the nation. Due to the city’s traditional manner of reconstruction and to the local influence of the conservative “South German architectural tradition,” relatively few important examples of modern architecture were built in Munich during this period. The journalist Walther Kiaulehn put in after surveying the city in 1958 like this: “… the Munich of today appears to have a solely restorations character.” (Walther Kiaulehn, “Ein Wort zum heutigen München,” in Rolf Flügel, ed., Lebendiges München (Munich 1958)) The conservative nature of postwar architecture in Munich sheds important light upon its citizenry’s strategies of coming to terms with the past. As was the case with reconstructing the city’s damaged architecture, constructing new architecture in Munich was an issue hotly debated by modernists and traditionalists. From the beginning this debate was not only about architecture but also about the legacy of the Third Reich. In their numerous discussions over the city’s future urban development, both camps attempted to gain a competitive advantage by legitimizing their architectural programs not merely with technical or aesthetics arguments but with moral and historical but with moral and historical ones as well. Modernists and traditionalists not only touted their own architecture as offering redemption from Nazism, but polemically identified that of their opponents as tainted by it. In the process, competing memories of the Third Reich shaped the symbolic content of meaning of both modern and traditional architecture. The general embrace of traditional architecture and the residence to modernism during this period in Munich, in turn, reflected the dominance of the traditionalist view of recent history.
18
Figure 21: The Haus der Kunst (literally House of Art) is an art museum in Munich, Germany. It was the first piece of public architecture built under the Nazi regime. In 1941
Figure 22: The House of German Art in Munich. Designed by Hitler’s favorite architect, Paul Ludwig Troost (1878-1934), it is an example of the imitation of classical forms in monumental public buildings. Today
Figure 18: The “Führerbau,” a major party office building in Munich.
Figure 19: This is a picture of the Königsplatz in Munich, where in 1935 two “Honor Temples” were erected for the remains of the sixteen Nazis who died in the 1923 Beer Hall Putsch.
Figure 20: This is the “Brown House,” the NSDAP’s headquarters building in Munich. “Party members from throughout the Reich will not miss the chance to visit the Brown House while visiting Munich.”
19
Memory and new Construction The erection of traditional buildings and the opposition to modernism in early post-war Munich, in the end, reflected not only the local strength of conservative architectural traditions but also the influence of a traditionalist view of the Nazi past. To be sure, in their prolonged debate, modernists and traditionalists did not always have the Third Reich at the forefront of their concerns. Indeed, for both groups, aesthetic, economic and functional considerations often were the most important issues. That the Nazi experience was interjected to all into the debate, points to the general local awareness of architecture’s historical symbolism in the postwar era. Both sides historically charged attacks against each other’s work reflected their genuine belief that the root causes of the recent disaster had to be countered in the present. Encoded with contrasting historical symbolism, reflective of opposing memories of the Third Reich, modernists and traditionalist architecture was supported or opposed, in part, as a means of coming to terms with the Nazi past. The firm opposition to modernism and rehabilitation of tradition in Munich makes it clear, moreover, that for the decade and half after 1945, traditional memory prevailed in the city. Yet, as shown by the gradual appearance of numerous works of modern architecture over the course of the 1950s, the traditionalist mindset’s dominance in Munich slowly began to wane. While many architectural historians cite the year 1957 as representing the definitive breakthrough of modernism in Germany, the apperance of new modernist works in Munich had, by 1954, led Hans Eckstein to feel confident enough to write the following “one can no longer speak of Munich as a city lacking modern architecture.” (Regarding the year 1957 see Hackelsberger, p.
20
7; Paul, p. 16 Haus Eckstein, “Wohltermperierte Münchner Architecture” SZ October 9/10, 1954) Among the most significant modernist works were residential buildings such as Emil Freymuth’s Siemenssiedlung (1954) and Franz Ruf’s Parkstadt in Bogenhausen (1955-56)(Figure 23), which expressed the modernist vision of high-rise apartment buildings asymmetrically situated in a natural environment. To be sure, these buildings were erected far from the historic core of the city. This was not the case with Step Ruf’s glass and steel apartment comples on the centrally located Theresienstraße, which Hans Eckstein described in 1951 as making “the beginning of an up to date architectural order in Munich” (Hans Eckstein, “Ein Wohnhochhaus in München,” Bauen und Wohnen, 1951). Likewise, other progressive buildings were built relatively to the Altstadt (“downtown”), such as the Siemens administration buildings by Eduard von der Lippe and Hans Maurer (1954-56) and, somewhat further out, Wassili and Hans Luckhardt’s Landesversorgungsamt (1957). Such modernist works signaled a nascent shift in the local memory of the Nazi past. By the late 1959s, increasing economic prosperity and a new optimism in the future led to the revision of critical attitudes towards modernity’s previously suspect features such as progress and the power of technology. Gradually, the local adherence to tradition began to yield to a modernist vision of a new Germany liberated from the past altogether. Increasingly, an anti historical perspective, more ambivalent towards tradition, gained new support in the modernizing city. Figure 23
21
Population Forecast and popThe Bertelsmann Foundation provides data for population ulation growth for 2,959 municipalities in Germany (January 2006 publication). In Munich, the population is forecast to rise by 7.8% between 2003 and 2020 (96,988 persons). Projected population growth 2003-2020 for Munich (principal residences):
Date 31 December 2010 31 December 2015 31 December 2020
Inhabitants 1,314,947 1,340,514 1,344,861
In the city administration’s 2002 planning forecast, a 2% rise of the legally resident population (principal and secondary residences) between 2001 and 2015 is predicted. For immigration, a 7.2% rise is predicted and for stagnation a decrease of 1.7%. Absolute population trend 2001-2015 - Forecast for Munich (principal and secondary residences):
Year 31 December 2001 31 December 2005 31 December 2010 31 December 2015
22
Planning forecast 1,404,000 1,421,000 1,421,000 1,432,000
Projected Immigration
Projected Stagnation
1,404.000 1,447.000 1,486.000 1,505.000
1,404,000 1,405,000 1,386,000 1,380,000
Age Distribution Population pyramid - Age Distribution 2010 Left side: Men Right side: Women
The following shows the age distribution from the 31 December 2005 (principal residences).
Figure 24
Figure 25
23
Trends, Ideas and Strategies On the Web Page of the ISoCaRP-World Congress I have read a quote that said: „What urban strategies can be developed that will have a sustainable impact on our cities as nodes of creativity and economy?“ There are a few issues that have to be taken into consideration and have to be discussed, for example the progression toward Inward Urban Strategies, the mix of urban tasks and the translucent and well-organized planning processes. To me Munich really is aware of those issues and does a good job trying to solve them. In the following 3 paragraphs I will point out 3 major issues about urban growth, and I will point them out on my case study city. Progression toward Inward Urban Strategies Most of European cities have a great historical heritage, especially Munich. To me that is the main reason why those cities are so attractive, because of their energetic and lively urban centre. So it is just natural to take up and support people’s tendencies back to the city centre that has the best infrastructure and the lowest risk for investors. If a city it is designed the opposite way (toward the urban peripheries) that would waste the public finances and destroy more our natural resources. Furthermore it would not use the opportunity to vitalize central quarters, to remodel attractive apartments and to create new public spaces that would again provide space for urban life. Munich’s downtown (so called “Innenstadt”) includes more than the historical center; there are many other quarters’ part of the center; commercial, industry and residential quarters within a 5 km radius. Most buildings were built in the late 19th century; they are all still structurally sound and so worth to be developed even further. So it should be our primary goal to develop the central quarters without destroying the existing urban patterns, especially not the historical heritage. But how do you define size and density? What is an acceptable height for buildings in such an historical environment? What happens to the already very high land prices? What is the impact on culture of the city? There has been a lot of talking in politics about those topics. Munich’s population wants strong limits. So size and density related issues has become a political decision.
24
Figure 26
Figure 23: the urban strategy for a quite large piece of the central area of munich (“Dachauer StraĂ&#x;eâ€?) suggests a development strategy that incorporates existing potentials and actors into a long term time perspective.
The Mix of urban functions Another historical heritage is the mixture of urban functions. Maintaining and reinforcing the combination of commercial, residential and cultural functions is the most natural challenge to the planners. There are rough space divisions in the new urban developments in Munich: 1/3 of land is for residential use, 1/3 for commercial functions and 1/3 should be used as green areas. These are the main tools to reserve open supply for future demands. In addition there are duties that builders have to follow, they have to use 25-30% of building space for residential proposes. In some highly attractive and historical parts of the city developers plan even up to 50% building spaces for apartments (those are of course not for all income groups). The mixture of functions depends really on the location and the environment: furthermore it depends on the expended performance of the investment and mainly on the cooperation of the urban planners.
25
Translucent and well-organized planning processes These days being creative does not mean to invent new projects from scratch, no it means to organize the processes in an efficient way. The most though is the stages before that: analyzing the functional, the economic and the strategic date of both sides, from the point of view of the private driver’s interests and from the city’s interest. It is usually very easy to determine what the private driver’s interest is, it is way harder on the other hand to decide what should have done in the “city’s interest”. So you can see that it is a ridge walk between the financial and the public intentions. And no this is where the urban planners come into play, they have a very hard problem to solve: they have to link those both. They have to know the investment strategies and the financial key figures under permanently changing market conditions as well as the long term social and economical effects. Something Munich does very well is to prevents the super sized developments that would create a big risk for public and private partners. Munich does a very good job dividing big developments, even if there are big developments, they are still somehow interacted with the city; there is always some sort of an exit strategy at all stages, no matter if it is a big industrial, residential or public infrastructure project. These basics don’t have much to do with architectural or urban designs. Architects admitted that the time for excited design is gone, even in such a rich and attractive city as Munich. Now functional, financial and strategic qualities are on demand – including the option to stop the human building-gene and to realize the real space demand. Cautious and fine-grained urban developments are typical “European planning products”; we should cultivate this “strategy of inward urban growth” with courage and consciousness.
Figure 27
26
Conclusion
Figure 27
Munich’s economic success is a process that started relatively late after the Second World War and is linked with the historical context in which the Germany’s capital Berlin lost its leading economical and cultural position and Munich filled that vacuum. As already described in various ways, Munich has historically developed some central functions and cultural heritage, which certainly contributed towards its further development. The region around Munich is poor in natural resources; Munich’s main resource is human capital. Therefore, the city-region never had to fight the problems of industrial reformation in contrast to other German regions. Munich has to offer so many things that make it a very livable city, and things as good social climate, leisure and cultural activities have certainly
an influence on the positive economic development. The regional and local policy made also an important contribution to turn all those great opportunities into a long-term successful development. To wrap up some of the most important elements of these policies: Major infrastructure investments (airport, trade fair, public transport), investments in universities, active industrial policies oriented towards technology and new sectors Munich’s importance as a “knowledge city” that are based on two pillars. The first one is the concentration of public and private research institutions including two leading universities, the Max Planck and Frauenhofer Societies and the German and European Patent Office. The second pillar consists of the characteristics of Munich’s economy that make it extremely technology and design orientated.
27
Appendix Photos and illustrations are created by myself unless differently cited. Figure 01: “The Federal Office.” BBR. N.p., 10 Feb. 2012. Web. 01 Nov. 2012. <http://www.bbr.bund.de/cln_032/ nn_25610/EN/FederalOfficeBuildingRegionalPlanning/federalofficebuildingregionalplanning__node.html?__nnn=true>. Figure 02: “Population Growth of Munich.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Aug. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth_of_Munich>. Figure 03: “tatistisches Bundesamt” Auswertung: comdirect bank AG. Stand, September 2009. Der Vergleich beschränkt sich auf die abgebildeten Städte. Figure 04: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 05: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 06: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 07: “EnergyCity - Munich.” EnergyCity - Munich. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.energycity2013.eu/ pages/results/knowledge-and-information-base-repository/description-test-areas/munich.php>. Figure 08: “Munich Airport.” Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, 11 Dec. 2012. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://en.wikipedia. org/wiki/Munich_Airport>. Figure 09: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 10: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 11: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 12: Own work (sketchbook) Figure 13: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 14: Goggler, Karg, Kreilkamp, Preissler, Vogler-Ludwig, Zängler / Technical University of Munich, Economix, bpu; Telearbeit und Verkehr im Wirtschaftsraum München (teleworking and traffi c in the economic region of Munich). Study on behalf of the City of Munich,2003
28
Figure 15: “Munich’s New Town Hall - Munich Marienplatz Photos.” About.com Student Travel. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http:// studenttravel.about.com/od/eftoursphotos/ig/Munch-s-Marienplatz-Photos.--69/Town-Hall--Munich.htm>. Figure 16: N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.com/>. Figure 17: “Olympiapark München :: Home :: Konzerte in München, Veranstaltungen München, Ausstellung München, Freizeit München, Konzert Tickets München, Veranstaltungskalender München, Konzertkarten München, Freizeit Sport München, Unterhaltung München.” Olympiapark München. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.olympiapark.de/>. Figure 18: Franz Maier-Hartmann, Die Bauten der NSDAP. in der Hauptstadt der Bewegung (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1942). Figure 19: Franz Maier-Hartmann, Die Bauten der NSDAP. in der Hauptstadt der Bewegung (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1942). Figure 20: Franz Maier-Hartmann, Die Bauten der NSDAP. in der Hauptstadt der Bewegung (Munich: Zentralverlag der NSDAP., 1942). Figure 21: “Nazi Culture: Intelectual, Cultural, and Social Life in the Third Reich, by George L. Mosse.” Nazi Culture: Intelectual, Cultural, and Social Life in the Third Reich, by George L. Mosse. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.american-buddha.com/nazi. naziculturemosse.12.htm>. Figure 22: Own work (own photograph) Figure 23: “Wohnanlage Parkstadt Bogenhausen.” Wohnanlage Parkstadt Bogenhausen. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www. nordostkultur-muenchen.de/architektur/parkstadt_bogenhausen.htm>. Figure 24: “Statistisches Amt Der Landeshauptstadt München.” Statistisches Amt Der Landeshauptstadt München. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.mobile-firmenfitness.de/statistisches-amt-der-landeshauptstadt-münchen>. Figure 25: “Grüà Gott Bei Der Münchner Stadtverwaltung.” Landeshauptstadt München. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.muenchen.de/rathaus/home.html>. Figure 26: “Raumlabor Berlin » Blog Archiv » Urban Strategy / Rahmenplanung / Munich / München / Dachauer Str.” Raumlabor Berlin » Blog Archiv » Urban Strategy / Rahmenplanung / Munich / München / Dachauer Str. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.raumlabor.net/?p=2643>. Figure 27: Own work (sketchbook)
29
Works Cited CITY OF MUNICH (1998/2001) Perspektive München – Integrated Development Concept, Munich: Department of Urban Planning. CITY OF MUNICH (2005b) Evaluierung Messestadt Riem – Ergebnisband, Munich: Department of Urban Planning. CITY OF MUNICH (2007) PERSPEKTIVE MÜNCHEN. Evaluation report 2007 (in German language only) Munich: Department of Urban Planning. EINIG, KLAUS (2005) „Regulierung des Siedlungsflächenwachstums als Herausforderung des Raumordnungsrechts“, DISP 160, 48-57. EUROPEAN ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2006) Urban sprawl in Europe – the ignored challenge, Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities. Schiller, Kay, and Christopher Young. “Chapter 3-5.” The 1972 Munich Olympics and the Making of Modern Germany. Berkeley: University of California, 2010. N. pag. Print. PLANUNGSVERBAND (2008) Siedlungsentwicklung und Mobilität, Projektbericht Stufe 1, München: Planungsverband Außerer Wirtschaftsraum München. REISS-SCHMIDT, STEPHAN (2003) „Herausforderungen und Chancen kooperativer Regionalentwicklung“, DISP 152, 71-79. “Munich and Memory: Architecture, Monuments, and the Legacy of the Third Reich (Weimar and Now: German Cultural Criticism) [Hardcover].” Munich and Memory: Architecture, Monuments, and the Legacy of the Third Reich (Weimar and Now: German Cultural Criticism): Gavriel D. Rosenfeld: 9780520219106: Amazon.com: Books. N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Nov. 2012. <http://www.amazon.com/Munich-Memory-Architecture-Monuments-Criticism/dp/0520219104>.
30
REISS-SCHMIDT, STEPHAN (2006) „Stadtentwicklungsmanagement als Instrument der Qualitätssicherung“, Deutsche Zeitschrift für Kommunalwissenschaften (DfK), 80-98. REISS-SCHMIDT, STEPHAN (2007) „Wachstum nach Innen - das Beispiel Muünchen“, Stadtgespräche, Institut für Raum- und Landschaftsentwicklung, ETH Zuürich, 45-54. THIERSTEIN, ALAIN; KRUSE, CHRISTIAN; GLANZMANN, LARS; GABI, SIMONE & GRILLON, GABI (2006a) Raumentwicklung im Verborgenen. Untersuchungen und Handlungsfelder für die Entwicklung der Metropolregion Nordschweiz, Zürich: NZZ Buchverlag. THIERSTEIN, ALAIN; GOEBEL, VIKTOR & FORSTER, AGNES (2006b) Das Feuer in der Europäischen Metropolregion München entfachen. Expertise zum Aufbau eines Initiativkreises Europäische Metropolregion München, Muünchen: Landshauptstadt München.
Figure 27
31
32