|
|
Along with
the process of constituting the National Foundation of Building Culture in
Germany (Nationale Stiftung Baukultur) there is a vivid debate going on
about the content and meaning of the expression “Building Culture“. Beside
the difficulties of agreeing upon a common language and fixing down obliging
criteria for architectural qualities, there is the dilemma of integrating
everyone concerned with the matter, experts and laymen alike, into the
discussion. The high claim for a broad and nationwide discussion about the
aims and tools of the foundation obviously starts questioning existing
cultural and professional territories. Besides social, technical, economical
and ecological implications the question of who is controlling cultural
territory is crucial for the structure, layout and quality of the built
environment.
The following paper examines how Building Culture essentially is a product
of interest groups competing to have their ways.
In regard of the present debate it seems necessary first of all to define
the understanding of the expression “Building Culture“ in this text. It is
referring to the general definition that evolved during the past two years (Statusbericht
Baukultur 1, Berichte BBR, Band 11), according to which Building Culture is
“the production and the use of the built environment“. This means we are
talking about the environment as a whole, including the architectural
banalities of suburbia as much as media-hyped star-architecture. Furthermore
it implies that filling the debate with any meaning is a matter concerning
the society as a whole and cannot remain restricted to an exclusive circle
of professional stakeholders.
It is within the nature of power structures to be multidimensional and to
influence human relations in a complex way. The actual manifestations of
power may differ according to circumstances and context. For the sake of
clarity I will discuss in the following the different “territories of power“
one by one, separated from their mutual interdependence.
1. Power of Property
The possession of space
The possession of space definitely is the most direct way to influence
its design and layout. Investigating the question of influence therefore
means investigating the ownership of real estate or of capital. The
structural order of our environment is the mark of the historical struggle
for land, today every bit of our country is measured out, mapped and
designated for specific uses. For the winners of this struggle, the
economically powerful, the ownership of land does not only express their
power, but also serves as an instrument of power: it allows them to control
the usage and design of the environment. Our perception of “Building
Culture“ or “Urban Culture“ is to a large degree predefined by the owners´
decision on structures, surfaces and imagery. Much has been already
complained about the privatisation of public space. It seems though that we
shouldn´t worry so much about the disappearance of citizens from formerly
public space (or their mutation into “customers“), than about the authorship
of its design by the interests of a mighty few instead of a democratic
plurality. The result of this is a phenomenon which again is the object of
criticism: the strong desire of individuals to live on a piece of land of
their own, be it as small as it may. How else should the ecologically
disastrous but nevertheless highly popular single-family housing estates be
judged than as the desire of people to ensure a small proportion of power
over their personal environment?
The possession of capital
As – besides a revolution – only the possession of capital allows the
individual to alter the existing apportionment of space, it´ll be
interesting to have a look at the height and apportionment of wealth and
income in this country. There are two trends that seem of concern: the
growing imbalance of the wealth and the incomes between East and West,
between urban and rural areas and between the centers and fringes of cities.
Due to this, communities, cities and regions are developing themselves very
differently despite massive measures of economic balancing by the state. The
inevitable social segregation becomes most obvious in areas that transform
into social focuspoints. Run down public space and the visibility of
poverty, the deterioration of infrastructure are the drawbacks of our
economic system but as such also an aspect of our Building Culture. Yet our
selective perception is remarkable: social segregation is being regarded
problematic only in the case of poverty, no one ever criticises a bourgeois
settlement for its social homogeneity. The second trend of interest is the
“popularisation“ of capital and its effects on Building Culture: capital,
once together with the land owned exclusively by a few influential families,
now is in the hands of the lot as an “asset“. Once wealthy families were
building with the approach to keep their wealth over generations, and to
increase their prestige by the erection of magnificent buildings. Today most
of the capital is held in the hands of a large, anonymous mass. Capital is
being managed by institutional investment corporations, who are in charge of
multiplying it. Hence the result: unspecific, banal and anonymous
architecture. Building Culture on the smallest common ground, for which
nobody personally bears responsibility, cannot but come out as a mass
product.
The power of the poor
The claim of cultural spheres is tied very strongly but not exclusively to
the property of space. Despite privatisation of space there are still
crevices in the solid structures of property which offer the unpropertied
the possibility to occupy space for themselves. This subculture
traditionally is acting as the counterpart to the established culture. It is
questioning the elites by alternative lifestyles, experimental artistic
expression or simple vandalism as a desperate manifestation of
powerlessness. These activities may turn out to be the ground for the
cultural renewal of the established classes and the various examples of
economical successful developments in former territories of the creative
underground prove its potential.
2. The power of history
Whether shown as conscious approval or disapproval of the past, the
historic heritage of any society is the precondition for its presence.
“History“ is to be looked at under two perspectives:
The struggle for power in history
The structures we live in are the result of the historic struggles for
control over space, be they executed as wars, revolutions, migration or
simply trade. Usually these struggles weren´t all about prestige but about
the evolutionary fight for survival, i. e. the claim of space for the own
species as the natural way of its upkeep. The fight for living space, the
“Kampf um Lebensraum“ in Germany of course is a contaminated phrase, but
disregarding the national-socialistic connotation it is merely describing a
permanent condition of our every day life.
War, expulsion, occupation and relocation are the violent and most primitive
form of struggle for ground and its resources. The consequences for the
building culture are destruction, vandalism, dismantling and plundering.
Today the after-effects of conflicts in other parts of the world are
reaching also seemingly peaceful countries. Yet the aim of terrorist attacks
on frequented and culturally important buildings is usually not to occupy
the attacked ground itself but to conquer psychological ground. The
destruction of the WTC in New York for example does not only have immediate
impact on the urban structure of New York City, but also on our urban
culture: since 9/11 we find ourselves confronted with a new kind of phobia,
the enemy’s claim of territory has been a mental one. Result of this are the
recently put up concrete barriers to protect endangered buildings, fences,
barbed wire, video cameras and heavily armed personnel in our cityscape. In
Germany as well as in the US a series of alterations of the civic law has
been brought on to gradually reduce the freedom of the individual.
However, the daily battle for controlling space is being also fought with
less dramatic means: public demonstrations, the occupation of houses by
squatters as well as the more subtle replacing the rival’s postcard
collection from his working place with the own ficus benjaminii are ways to
execute personal power.
The struggle for power over history
History is more than just a sequence of events that shows results of varying
longevity. As a cultural resource it offers a reservoir of imagery, about
whose interpretation and usage we readily disagree. With the competition for
investments among cities becoming harder, the scenic background of history
turns to be a welcome mean to construct urban identity. The temptation has
always been great to differentiate between pleasant and unpleasant history,
between history whose aura supports a city’s self-confidence and history
which does not. Traditionally the right for interpretation is with the
economically and/ or politically dominant. Even if scientifically
questioned, the version of history that justifies the demands of the
powerful usually is being tolerated by the majority. Value and meaning of
buildings therefore are by no means measurable qualities, but subject of the
present balance of power. One utopia needs the negation of its counterpart
as raison d´etre.
The prevailing standards of the dominant social groups decide whether to
refurbish and keep a building or whether to tear it down. The example of the
Berlin Wall shows in how short a time the perception of the environment can
alter: 14 years ago taken by the crowd in a peaceful act demonstrating the
„power of the people“, the wall’s substance got taken down and removed
rather quickly. Today the few remnants of sometimes questionable origin are
object of scientific reconstruction, there is a lobby which aspires to its
admission into the UNESCO World Heritage.
This and many other examples show that the tradition of demolishing
buildings driven by motives of self-reinstatement is a great loss to the
monument list of a nation. Today it should be common sense to regard history
neither merely as tourist scenery nor as a subjective selection of pleasant
stories, but as a guiding system in the collective memory of a city, worth
to be kept as a patchwork with incongruities. However, despite better
knowledge, even today market-driven „improvements“ of many city-plans cause
severe losses of our built heritage, houses of historical value get
exchanged for the economically better model or given to dilapidation.
According to the capitalistic rules of the game the defenders of historic
heritage usually succumb to the forces of the economically desirable, the
keeping a building very often is possible only by the collaboration of
experts in finance, real estate, law and conservation. This teamwork may
more often than not result in a superimposition of historical truth and
economic scheming, in a mix-up of public and commercial messages.
3. The power of the market
The market – in its present appearance as “neoliberal turbocapitalism“ –
today rather obviously is the most powerful argument for or against a
project. In fact, the profitability of a building almost always defines its
size and shape, space gets “optimized“ to meet the demands of the market,
often with a deterioration in architectural quality.
The general wish for sustainability of a building becomes subject to the
timeframe of the investment. We silently ignore the problem that this
timeframe is following the side-effects of globalisation and therefore
becoming continually shorter. But not only tectonic qualities have to obey
the market, also the quest for certain styles and surfaces leave their trace
in our environment. Besides the powerful players in the real estate business
there are the stakeholders of the retail market whose activities are of vast
influence. With their enormous marketing machinery they generate emotions
and imagery that are difficult to remain unimpressed by. The attacks on our
apparatus of perception become elaborated to such a degree that makes
viewing a cityscape in a neutral way literally impossible. The big brands
and chains occupy our environment with their visual weapons, even without
owning the space itself. The much complained about increase of suburban
shopping centers is merely another effect of the commercial competition. It
is reflecting the power of the customer, his motto to seek the lowest price
possible becomes visible in a banal architecture for which no additional
cent gets spent except the bare necessities of safeguarding cheap products
from wind and weather. Discount mentality is ruling, and of course the
market is satisfying the demand, last but not least with discount houses.
4. The power of the mass
Looking at the masses of private investors, the masses of owners of single
family houses, the masses of customers, of car owners, and so on, has made
clear that the individual, organised in a group to articulate his interest,
is capable to put quite some pressure onto market and politics. Of course
any lobby can be manipulated or simply overpowered by another group, and
rather often a group will push its interests against better knowledge. As a
good example serves the power of the automobile lobby which succeeds in
demanding more traffic infrastructure despite the better judgement that only
the reduction of infrastructure will be able to fight the traffic collapse
in Germany. The ones who hold institutional power, i. e. the politicians,
afraid to lose it, are following this request with the result of a still
insensibly high ratio of newly sealed land per day in this country.
Motorways gradually become an environment that we have to live with, yet the
challenge for designers is being discovered only reluctantly.
Masses are being formed not only by commonly shared interests, but also by
demographic or other factors. The transformation of our society today is
questioning the majorities of tomorrow, actual trends give way to
speculations on the impact to our building culture: how will the prospected
mass of the elderly or very old people change our environment? If Germany
ever succeeded in becoming an immigrant society in the true sense of the
word, how will this influence our cityscapes?
A majority voting over the destiny of a building is being practised these
days in England where people are asked to decide upon which building to keep
in a sort of “England-looks –for-the-Superhouse“-TV-Show.
5. The power of status
In most western countries the institutional power to influence our building
culture is legitimized by democratic elections, i. e. the power of the
majority. The legislative power is independently defining the legal
framework and instruments to direct building activities. The executive power
looks after their application and realization, besides this it is acting as
commissioner of buildings – for the benefit of the whole society. So far the
theory. In practice obviously politicians are driven by a multitude of
different stakeholders which try to force their particular interests upon
decisions. The already described influence of lobbies and other interest
groups onto politics is great and far from being congruent with the “will of
the voters“.
6. The power of “Zeitgeist“
The power of a common spirit, shared by a majority of society, something
like a “Zeitgeist“ is probably the power that is most difficult to pin down.
If one defines “Zeitgeist“ with Bazon Brock
as the expectation of an age for the future, the invisible but nevertheless
intrinsic creative power of a society, the contemporary lack of vision must
make us feel at loss: we are profoundly sceptical towards the new, “Future“
for most of us mainly consists of frightening statistical calculations. This
spirit is expressed in the esthetical repertoire of our design where one
retro-trend is following the next, and the demand for “atmosphere“ in
buildings that formerly were seen as dull, is remarkably high. Commercials
as seismographic device for communicative and aesthetic content are proving
that the desire for ostentatiousness makes our building culture hover
between trash and grand emotional scenes.
7. The power of nature –“Höhere Macht“
As the question of style becomes more and more meaningless and our
striving for power a vain enterprise, we have to ask ourselves if the power
of nature has not the final say in the struggle for Building Culture. The
production and use of our built environment has evolved from climatic,
geological and geographical conditions. The increasing effects of climatic
changes such as the flood in Saxony in 2002 show to what extend these
conditions – and of course time – determine perception and value of our
Building Culture.
Resumée
The debate on building culture shows that only a very narrow consent on how
to build can be achieved. Experts readily agree that buildings are supposed
to be ecologically sustainable, innovating, referring to the local identity
and strengthening social cohesion. It is not very difficult to find a
majority for such guidelines, as they can be interpreted in any direction.
However, they do not offer clear orientation for building practice. To
articulate building guidelines successfully, a specification of this broad
framework will be necessary. The principle of sustainability is an open
formula which will produce very different solutions whether applied to
ecology, economy, the social structure or the protection of monuments.
The want for identity, i. e. for something exceptional and characteristic
asks for the courage to leave beaten tracks and go for a risk. Today we
accept how deeply conventional our desire for housing is after all:
futuristic visions of space, the abundant blobs and burps, are neither very
courageous nor very innovating. Nevertheless there is a real need for
innovation in building culture, in particular when it comes to intelligent
and resource-efficient use of material and energy. The fact that buildings
still consume more energy and produce more waste than any other product
cannot be understood but a clear challenge to politics and science. To
foster a wide public engagement for Building Culture it will be inevitable
to open the debate to a broader basis than before and to start a fair and
intense discussion on “How Do We Want to Live?“ beyond the spheres of
personal ego. Everyone, from the cradle to the grave, has demands on his
surroundings, why should they be denied the ability to express them?
Counties like Bavaria with their architecture price voted for by the public
(which unfortunately remained without results due to an attack of hackers),
or North Rhine Westphalia with their architectural programme for pupils show
how non-experts can be included into the debate. There are more than enough
ideas. The constitution of a National Foundation for Building Culture would
offer a nice opportunity to realize some of them. So far however the
discussion remains exclusive to a happy few clinging to power.
Literature:
-
Soziale Benachteiligung
und Stadtentwicklung, Informationen zur Raumentwicklung, Heft 3/4.2003,
Bundesamt für Bauwesen und Raumordnung, Bonn
-
Baukultur in Deutschland
1, Statusbericht Langfassung, Berichte Band 11, Gerd Kähler, Bundesamt
Notes:
|