City of Future – Making Heimat Exposé A project by the Goethe-Institut and Deutsches Architekturmuseum (DAM)
In the best case, the European city can claim a special characteristic compared to urban spaces in the USA and East Asia, namely, the existence of a distinction between the public and private space within its limits. Moreover, it can maintain that the transition from one to the other is often a gradual, tiered one, and that there is a great awareness among the population of the significance of such public spaces, their qualities, proportions and materials – and that any lack thereof is clearly perceptible. This naturally inherent feel for functioning public spaces leads to an acceptance or refusal of newer spatial situations, sometimes by way of a tentative appropriation. In Central and Eastern Europe too, there is no shortage of existing, positive examples, at least in historical cities and their centers. However, the situation on the outskirts and in intermediate spaces, in new city districts and transitional areas is frequently quite different. The expansion of transportation networks, creation of industrial wastelands or changes in usage often cause further problems. Close to residential areas and on the outskirts of inner cities in particular, there is a real lack of high-quality public spaces. At the same time, the analysis of a region’s urban situation shows that architects and urban planners in post-socialist countries are often in the dark when it comes to questions of “architecture, city and visions of the future”. Most economies have been successful in making the epochal leap into the new market conditions and becoming involved in the international investment effort. As a rule, the new EU member states experienced a fantastic boom, with local architects finally being
1/4
given myriad opportunities to demonstrate their creative abilities. Yet urban development in these countries lacks the fresh impetus that links the future of these cities with an ecologically-oriented way of life. But international discourse on planning and construction has long ceased to focus on aesthetics and style as its main priority. As highlighted once again by the jury’s selection of Bahrain’s entry at this year’s Architecture Biennial in Venice, above all the perception of conflicts and suggestions on how to overcome crises are the order of the day. Issues such as climate change, the depletion of natural resources and the resulting social polarization make a rethink an urgent necessity. If the earth is to exist as a habitable space for humanity for much longer, we must drastically change our economic systems. Not least the category “wealth” is in urgent need of a new definition – one that unites the concepts of a clean environment, civil participation in political decision-making and personal well-being. In numerous cities in Central and Eastern Europe we can often discern the presence of a kind of disparate development: While the historical heart of the city as an attractive area of urban diversity is put under heavy strain from overuse and overpopulation, the loss of function in peripheral areas is often accompanied by a reduction in local public services and recreational facilities and overall with a break away from opportunities for social interaction. These countervailing developments within a small geographic space provide a contrast to the image of continuous growth in our cities, which prevails to this day. We could interpret this state as an obstacle in European cities’ road to progress. Yet at the same time, when used in a positive sense, it can also constitute the starting point for a utopian, social and ecological critique of the modern city. Considered in such a light, the future of the European city may not lay in the ubiquitous process of urban expansion, but in a kind of urban regeneration and in the sustainable approach of modernizing existing urban structures.
2/4
These urban changes represent a huge strain in ecological, economic and social terms. At the same time, strained finances, a growing competitiveness between cities, the increased consumption of natural resources, discrepancies between population groups and sociogeographic inequality make the parameters highly complex. Responses to these challenges are often rather business-like, suggesting “flagship” urban development projects that are intended to improve the respective city’s positioning in terms of the national perception in the name of some sort of competition. As effective as this strategy may be in certain cases, it is equally ineffective in its initial influence on problems of social and economic segregation in individual city districts. In many cases, the decline of the public sector and rise of private investors also impede planning opportunities; in some cases even the public authorities are virtually paralyzed. In post-socialist countries in Central and Eastern Europe this is frequently manifested in uncontrolled urban growth. The great challenge here – that is the ecological reconstruction of these cities – can in turn be understood in two very different ways. First, in terms of a dynamic upgrading and renovation of their components. This hurdle however is bound up in the respective legal parameters and so requires the close cooperation of key players from the political world as well as the housing and energy industries. Second, the ecological reconstruction of cities in peripheral areas could equally be interpreted in the sense of a new understanding of the cityscape beyond the classic dichotomy between the urban and the rural. On that note, broadly-based initiatives for the renaturation and renewed use of existing wasteland formerly used by the transportation, industrial and military sectors (the so-called “industrial jungle”), can both make a contribution to sustainable urban development in the sense of the city’s ecological differentiation and serve as a recreational area for its residents, as a educational facility and a space for social interaction. Another matter that should
3/4
be duly noted is that of the abovementioned ubiquitous prefabricated housing developments, which can be converted (provided sufficient funds are made available), as demonstrated by successful projects in states once belonging to former East Germany. Within city districts, however, selective site-specific urban interventions can both induce or bundle resident initiatives and, via the acquisition of individual plots of unused land, create public spaces. These can then serve as meeting points, playgrounds, concert venues or gardens. For the inhabitants, these functioning public spaces represent a living “Heimat”, or home. This project aims to support residents and citizens in creating more public spaces in their own cities.
Organizers: Deutsches Architekturmuseum (DAM) Schaumainkai 43, 60596 Frankfurt / Main, Germany www.dam-online.de Coordinator: Yorck Förster Goethe-Institutes at Tallinn, Estonia; Riga, Latvia; Vilnius, Lithuania; Warsaw and Krakow, Poland; Prague, Czech Republic; Bratislava, Slovakia; Budapest, Hungary; Ljubljana, Slovenia Coordinators: Dr. Angelika Eder (Prague), Ulrich Everding (Riga), Wolfgang Franz (Bratislava)
4/4