|
 |
|
The Future of
Communication of Architecture |
Volume 11
Double Number 1-2
February 2007
|
|
|
Conceptional design
and editing: |
|
Riklef Rambow,
Ulrike Sturm |
Editorial assistant and layout:
|
|
Ehrengard Heinzig
|
Riklef Rambow
&
Ulrike Sturm |
|
Editorial
(in German) |
| |
|
Interpretation –
Presentation
–
Justification
Interpretation |
| Claus Dreyer |
|
Communication of Architecture
from a Semiotic Point of View |
| Barbara Feller |
|
Learning to See. Being Able to
Speak. Taking Part in Decisions.
Communication of
Architecture and Maturity |
| Britta Trostorff |
|
Architecture
between Event and Everyday
–
About Possible Levels of Communication of Architecture |
| |
|
Presentation |
|
Marion Kuzmany |
|
The Field Trip as an Abstract
Product |
| Carsten Ruhl |
|
Communication as Artefact
–
Exhibiting Herzog & de Meuron as Autonomous Piece of Art |
| |
|
Justification |
| Norbert Fiebig |
|
Communication of Architecture
–
Ways towards a New
Understanding |
| Niels-Christian
Fritsche |
|
The Paradox of the Visible – Ideas for
Communication of Contemporary Architecture in Public, at the
University, and at the Building Site |
| Jan R. Krause |
|
Narrative Art or Communicative Strategy?
–
Why We Should Make
Communication of Architecture a Compulsory Subject in
Architectural Training |
| Ulrike Rose |
|
The State Initiative
UrbanBuildingCulture North Rhine-Westphalia (NRW) |
| |
|
Strategies –
Media
–
Target Groups
Strategies |
| Claudia Schwalfenberg |
|
The Architect is
Dead. Long Live the Architect?
How Communication of Architecture Becomes a Profession |
|
Julian Petrin |
|
The City Emerges in the Head
–
From Communication of Space to "Immaterial Production of Space" |
| |
|
Media |
| Lorena Valdivia |
|
On the Legitimate Medium
for Communication of Architecture |
| Susanne Schumacher |
|
Digital Forms of Communication of Architecture for
Architecural History |
Jörg Seifert
& Miriam Seifert-Waibel |
|
Space.
Broadcasting. Extension.
Status quo and Perspectives for Communication of Architecture
on Television |
| Constanze A. Petrow |
|
Between Homage and Trivialization: How the Daily Press Reports on
Architecture and Landscape Architecture |
| |
|
Target Groups |
|
Meike Kubiak |
|
Building one's Dream-House
– With an Architect?
Communication of Architecture for Private Clients in Lower
Saxony, Germany |
| Christine Dissmann |
|
About the Little Difference and What It Matters |
| |
|
Practice –
Teaching
–
Research
Practice |
|
Tanja Simone Flemmig |
|
Building Culture
as Location Factor
–
The Design Committee of the City of
Regensburg |
|
Thomas Michael Krüger |
|
Presenting the City
–
Communication of
Architecture on the Spot |
| |
|
Teaching |
|
Benedikt Hotze |
|
The
Architect as All-Rounder
–
Do We Need a Special Curriculum for Communication
of Architecture? |
| Susanne Ohse |
|
Communication of Architecture
– Chances and Risks of a New Discipline |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
abstracts: |
|
|
|
|
Interpretation –
Presentation – Justification
Interpretation |
|
|
|
|
___Claus Dreyer
Detmold |
|
|
|
Architecture can be involved in communicative relations in multiple
ways. As a medium, as a transmission channel, as an object of use,
as a storage of memories, as a commodity, as a work of art etc. In
each of these cases, architecture is understood as a carrier of
meaning, which structure and function can and must be analysed.
The semiotic approach in architectural theory tries to describe and
to interpret the signs and sign complexes, by means of which
architectural meaning is communicated. Theoretical semiotics
provides the conceptual means, methods, and models that make it
possible to decipher the specifics of architectural and
architecture-related communication.
Approaches have been developed to describe architecture as language,
as writing, as text, as rhetorics, as propaganda, or as mass medium,
among others. Hereby often the question for the pictorial, plastic
and spatial "codes", as well as their historical and actual
relations, their intercultural integration and their reception and
interpretation, are of central concern. A proximity to the
historical concept of "style" is involved, which throws up questions
for cultural and social backgrounds. Especially the category of "symbolic" sign continually gains new relevance through contemporary
processes of cultural, social and political discourse dealing with
intercultural conflict. Here the semiotic analysis can help to clear
the situation by interpreting architecture as a "storage of cultural
memory" or as a "medium of cultural representation".
The contribution will show some semiotic ways and methods of
communication of architecture in an exemplary fashion. By means
of case studies processes of constitution and transformation of
meaning will be demonstrated and the possibilities and limits of a
semiotic approach will be explored.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
___Barbara Feller
Vienna |
|
|
|
It
is all about the question what objectives communication of
architecture – or, more general, communication of building
culture – pursues. Of all possible aspects here especially one will
be explored, namely that which understands knowledge about
architecture and the built environment as a basic compentence of
each mature citizen.
Besides the communication of architecture that aims at
decision-makers (top-down), the communication of knowledge to a wide
range of laypeople (bottom up) is a central task. Every human being
dwells, everyone moves about and behaves in designed and planned
spaces, therefore it is a necessary part of general education to
prepare people for a responsible dealing with the built environment.
Not just as part of education in the arts, but rather in the sense
of an integrative civic education.
"The understanding of architecture wants to be learned!" The goal is
to make the people able to see, to speak, and therefore able to
decide, and to demonstrate that space really makes a difference.
We have to strengthen the understanding of architecture and building
culture on a large scale and raise the consciousness for design
quality – the everyday quality of good architecture – well outside
of closed expert circles. What we need are citizens that demand
more from buildings and public spaces.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Britta
Trostorff
Weimar |
|
|
|
Asking the question “What is architecture?”, the article deals with
different perspectives on architecture that might be subject of “Vermittlung”.
Those perspectives derive from a phenomenologically based
understanding of space. Thus, it is the intention to show that
architecture is not just built environment with aesthetical claim,
but architecture as space is socially constructed and “lived”.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Presentation |
|
|
|
|
___Marion Kuzmany
Vienna |
|
|
|
To
walk through architecture, to slowly inspect and experience it, to
touch it and to feel it, the being at a place, probably constitutes
the only true mode of communication of architecture.
In this contribution the essence and the effects of architectural
field trips are described.
Concerning their conception, organization and implementation
field-trips are quite similar to „haptical“ architectural projects.
The design develops on a piece of a paper: Lines, words, numbers,
and symbols are put together in a stepwise, hesitant fashion, often
revised and corrected, until a well-functioning composition results.
Interesting research, followed by arduous work and coordination of
all participating individuals, finally leads to the complex product
of the field-trip. This n-dimensional construct includes quality of
content and knowledge dissemination, implies competencies in
architectural theory and geography, complex scheduling and culinary
sensitivity.
The field trip is a continually changing, auto-dynamic network of
time, space and actors, which essentially depends on human factors.
What remains, after a well-organized, successful field-trip has
ended? Impressions and atmospheres are received individually, they
live on as memories and possibly lead to the emergence of ideas,
insights, friendships and relations. The transitoriness of these
impressions and the process of development might be compared to an
artfully conceived and prepared meal. After it is eaten up, nothing
touchable remains. But nevertheless everybody who has taken part has
experienced something special. In the case of a field trip, they
have experienced architecture.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Carsten Ruhl
Bochum |
|
|
|
Since the beginning of modern times every architect is forced to
operate with a diversity of media in order to make his ideas and
concepts comprehensible for non-specialists. Numerous models,
drawings or paintings of architecture, treatises, manifestoes,
photographs and exhibitions have been produced in order to visualize
what architecture itself seems to conceal. Whereas early explanatory
statements were regarded as auxiliary to the built artefact,
communication took on a life of its own with the arisal of civil
society in the 18th century. Since then, communication is no longer
the task of the architect who more and more understands himself as
an artist. Dilettante critics stimulate the discussion by their
unconventional perspective on the field and question old matters of
course.
Architects as Herzog & de Meuron complete this – cursorily sketched
– process by declaring the multi-media architectural discourse an
ephemeral artefact displayed in museums, the public institution for
communication par excellence. Obviously, presenting designs and
concepts of architects in a comprehensible and rhetorically
convincing way with respect to their realization does no longer
suffice. Beyond this, communication itself lays claim to being a
self-reflexive artefact that may even anticipate its reception,
thereby grotesquely exposing the mechanisms behind the process. It
is hardly possible to overestimate the importance of this ambitious
attitude, keeping in mind that as late as 1984 Lampugnani took it
for granted at the International Building Exhibition in Berlin (IBA)
that, essentially, a social program is the basis for exhibitions of
architecture.
This article scrutinizes how this change of paradigm is put into
action and what problems and questions arise from it for the
discipline of communication of architecture.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Justification |
|
|
|
|
___Norbert Fiebig
Düsseldorf |
|
|
|
The
concept and the identity of communication of architecture still are
strongly informed by the agenda of grass-roots democracy – and
therefore stand in stark contrast to the self-image and methodology
of modern marketing. What long since is common sense in the realm of
political campaigning, still seems to be totally unknown to the
field of communication of architecture. Why then so
"restrained"?
Communication of architecture in the future will have to
orient itself more strongly towards "modern" communication, if it
wants to succeed in the opinion markets and to master the challenges
and pressures set by federal, state and communal governments as well
as by private investors (shrinkage, empty buildings, privatisation,
public-private partnerships, real estate fonds etc.).
Communication of Architecture in the future will have to be a
professional, self-confident, creative, opinion-leading and
result-oriented communication centered on specific target groups.
Such a developmental step will not remain without consequences:
Specialists will be needed that acquire the know-how of
communication agencies (branding, advertising, public relations);
research must focus on the issues of brand formation and marketing,
and architecture itself will become part of modern marketing
strategies.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Niels-Christian
Fritsche
Dresden |
|
|
|
Architects mourn the dwindling appreciation of their profession in
public, assuming that communicating architecture ought to be either
self-evident (what I see is what ‘it’ is) or a formerly singular,
stringent channel of transportation that somehow got clogged. I
argue in favour of three different lines of communication: The
explanation of architecture for the wider public, the education of
architects, and the mediation of architectural thought during
construction. None of these three lines ought to rely on traditional
lecturing. Instead, new curricula will have to combine a fundamental
spatial knowledge, the immediate experience of space, and the so
called paradigm of the ‘new’ since architectural modernism of the
1920s broke off with what was formerly considered a succession of
styles in favour of methodological architectural design.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Jan R. Krause
Bochum |
|
|
|
Being an architect means more than providing architectural services
or knowing how to build: an architect is simultaneously manager,
mediator, coordinator, network specialist and communicator. We need
to cultivate and train these aspects of the profession.
Students of architecture learn how to analyse, to scrutinize, to
think conceptually, to design in alternatives, to invent a motto and
to follow it through from the largest scale to the smallest detail,
to visualize ideas and to bring them into reality. But they do not
learn how to communicate these ideas to an intended audience. The
architect’s “yakety-yak” of dull explanatory texts more than often
lags behind the design’s esprit. Verbally, most architects are not
able to convince. The often refined visual language can only be read
by experts and is impenetrable for the non-inaugurated.
Hopes that good buildings or strong designs may speak for themselves
are no longer fulfilled. In a pluralistic world, no longer a
universal architectural code exists as it did in times when one
style shaped a whole epoch affecting all parts of social and
artistic life, when architecture, the arts, music, literature and
fashion formed a stylistic unity, and gestures, colours, symbols and
proportions had a clear meaning that could be read and understood as
living language. Therefore, architects have to learn again how to
talk about architecture, how to inspire people for it, how to
present their work in all its complexity and how to advertise the
qualities of the architecture they design – beginning from the very
first day of their studies.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Ulrike Rose
Gelsenkirchen / Berlin |
|
|
|
In
the first five years of the ten year-programme UrbanBuildingCulture
NRW several conferences, exhibitions and workshops on built
environment issues were carried out in close cooperation with
different partners of the programme. A multiplicity of publications,
presented under the uniting brand of UrbanBuildingCulture, takes a
wide spectrum of planning and building issues into consideration and
functions as well received and useful guides among expert circles
and planning authorities.
But on the other hand the issue of building culture has not yet
reached the everyday sphere. The points of contact between
architects, engineers, and the everyday are much too rare. The
"European House of Urban Culture" acts as a mediator between expert
and lay worlds, between architecture and DIY superstore.
In the now beginning second phase the initiative will turn
intensively towards the user of architecture, and will – in simply
understandable, plain and clear terms – present arguments why a well
designed environment is advantageous for everyone. A positive
example to be followed is the commission CABE in Great Britain:
Better buildings = better living.
The first steps are taken: Information about the built environment
and the activities of the initiative are now easier available. The
website
www.stadtbaukultur-nrw.de is designed in a more approachable and
clear fashion. A weekly updated event calendar informs the
interested public intensely and Europe-wide about everything
connected with architecture and the built environment. The
contributions to conferences will in the future made available soon
after the event, so that interesting results are open to everybody.
Other projects that are intensely discussed at the moment are a
handbook of building culture for the urban dweller that will contain
lots of examples and handy easy-to-use information, and a public
relations campaign loosely modelled after the successful French
example "aimer l’architecture".
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
Strategies –
Media – Target Groups
Strategies |
|
|
|
|
___Claudia
Schwalfenberg
Berlin |
|
|
|
Recently, Gerhard Matzig pointed out that the change in the
occupational image of an architect, “away from the building artist –
towards a communicating and advertising building manager” should not
be overstressed: “The architect has to produce something first,
before he can 'sell' it.”
Do we, meanwhile, suffer from too much mediation and too little
substance as far as architecture is concerned? And – what does this
mean for the emerging occupational image of communication of
architecture?
1. Communication of architecture in the future does not
favour management instead of building culture. Enhanced
efforts of Chambers of Architecture to become marketing offices for
architects are certainly justified and do make sense. Nonetheless,
Chambers of Architecture remain, at the same time, advocates for
building culture.
2. Two large groups are involved in the communication of
architecture: professional architects and professional
facilitators, such as teachers, journalists, public relation
experts, etc. Making communication of architecture a
profession therefore means to move into two directions: architects
need continuing education in communication and facilitators in
architecture. It is very important that architects find 'comrades'
outside their inner circle.
3. Communication of architecture has to begin at the age of 0
and not to end before the age of 99. Under the heading of
“Architektur macht Schule” (architecture spreads out) the Chambers
of Architecture of the federal states of Germany as well as the
National Chamber of Architecture (Bundesarchitektenkammer) have
initiated numerous programs for children and teenagers that
encourage them to get involved with architecture. In German early
childhood education, however, architecture has so far not been an
issue. Moreover, adult education centres should intensify their
efforts in architectural education. We also need more age-specific
web sites.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Julian Petrin
Hamburg |
|
|
|
Especially while working with long-term, open urban development
processes that mesh visibly with the “mental maps” of the city,
planners have to take the immaterial level of space into account,
the level of the perceived city. Planners are no longer just
accepting fixed tasks, instead they work like market researchers,
they try to put issues on the agenda, they arouse latent urban needs
and desires, they provoke contradiction. They are writing the urban
script long before the movie of spatial production starts running.
The public communication about architecture, cities, and other
spatially relevant issues is much more than mediation, enlightenment
or commentary. Spatial communication can constitute urban
development in the first place, because it directs and orients the
perception of space. The city originates in the head – through
direct experience on the one hand, but on the other – today more
than ever before – through processes of medial construction that in
advance structure ways through the “material substratum” of space (Läpple,
1992).
In addition to the “material production of space” – the setting up
of the “spatial hardware” – we have the “immaterial production of
space” – the purposeful „synthesis“ of space (Löw, 2001). This
“programming” of the material substratum is a process that hitherto
happens mostly outside of classical planning communication – take as
an example the self-reinforcing medial stigmatisation of certain
social hotspots like Berlin-Neukölln or Hamburg-Wilhelmsburg, that
find themselves in a sort of “perceptual downward spiral”.
Planners in the future will have to interfere more intensely with
the processes of “immaterial spatial production” and try to
stimulate urban development processes via medial techniques and
interventions, thereby breaking up perception spirals and making
hitherto undetected spatial possibilities readable.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Media |
|
|
|
|
___Lorena Valdivia
Berlin |
|
|
|
Architects have always considered that which is good or proper in
architecture as teachable. Theoretically teachable aspects were
concerned not only with the question how good architecture is to be
built, but also how architecture can and must be studied,
interpreted, criticized and communicated. Although the emerging
interest in architectural communication has become more important in
the last decades, it is neither a new development nor exclusive to
architecture.
With the example of architectural representation in the Renaissance,
certain problems of the communication of architectural theory will
be shown to have been present from the beginning. Alberti and other
Artists of the Renaissance, argued for orthogonal projection as the
only type of appropriate architectural drawing. Perspective views
were labelled as “painterly”, and in no way an adequate technique
for the representation of architecture. This argumentation emerges
as a repeating pattern within thought in modern art and up to the
present day.
Despite the further emergence of computer aided architectural
representation, which has developed in the last decades, the fact
that the orthodox modus of representation (plan – elevation –
section) remains state of the art, shows to what degree these
discourses determined architectonical convention and continuity
through time. Combined with text, these forms of representation
remain sufficient archetypes for the provision and establishment of
architecture.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Susanne Schumacher
Zurich |
|
|
|
For
the communication of architecture and its history historians,
critics, and exhibition curators use a range of well-established
tools that are suited to integrate the disparate materials of
architecture into one unified statement. The traditional tools of
architectural communication now can be supplemented by digital
tools. After a short initial euphoria concerning the possibilities of
multimedia techniques now there is a change that can be
characterized with the catchphrase "from multimedia to information
technology“.
A number of projects from the author’s own practice is used to
describe this development. Different digital tools are implemented:
authoring tools, XML and picture databases. The presented
contributions originated during the last years at different
universities for research and teaching uses as multimedia
publication, exhibition, printed matter or web application. The
communicative intentions were of crucial importance for the choice
of technological tool and the way of application:
- multimedial story-telling,
- interactive spatial installation,
- generated form for didactical aims,
- picture browser for the intuitive exploration of architectural
picture collections.
It can be established that the use of digital tools changes the
agenda of communication of architecture profoundly: The
earlier application of multi media techniques centered primarily on
visual argumentation, new ways of cross-media integration of diverse
information and their digital presentation. The use of information
technologies like data bases and XML on the other hand aims at the
structuring of information and the organisation of complex relations
in large knowledge stores and data masses. The digital communication
of architectural history changes from editorial to scientific uses
of diverse media technologies.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Jörg Seifert
&
Miriam Seifert-Waibel
Konstanz |
|
|
|
Compared to other fields of culture, architecture is widely
under-represented at least on German television. Even television
stations, which focus on culture and education, as arte,
3sat or Bayern alpha, do not have particular time slots
for architectural topics. Merely at inconstant intervals portrayals
of well-known architects or spectacular buildings are broadcasted.
These broadcastings only address a small circle of culturally
interested people and do not reach a wider public.
Recently, however, living, interior design and life styles have
gained awakening public attention. Television has reacted to this
development: arte´s broadcast magazine chic presents
architecture brute together with crazy wall-papers, stories
around the Harley Davidson and cooking with Jamie Oliver. This
tendency most importantly materializes in numerous living- and
deco-soaps that are certainly not interested in communication of
architecture, although they encompass elements of architectural
presentation and of expert-non-expert-discourse on architecture.
In this article, intentions, structures and target groups of the
different broadcastings, oscillating between high and low culture,
are analyzed. It then investigates the possibilities of television
as medium for professional communication of architecture
reaching out for a wider public.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Constanze A. Petrow
Weimar |
|
|
|
Architecture and landscape architecture, the two disciplines that
deal with building and shape public space, are represented in the
daily press according to totally different principles. In
German-spoken countries, critiques of architecture are generally
accepted as reflection on high culture. They are primarily published
in the feuilleton, whereas landscape architecture is discussed in
the local section of the daily papers.
Critics of architecture, however, mainly concentrate on “star
architecture”. Independent critiques have made room for homage
to architecture, as critics are taken in by cleverly weighted media
releases. Architects’ press offices often take a sanctioning
influence and many people are interested in the surplus attention
thereby created. In its medial reflection, architecture stays
elitist and does not connect to every-day life. Parks, gardens and
public places, on the other hand, are presented in perceptive
categories of laypersons and are not reflected in a professional,
sound and critical way. Intentions of the design or its symbolic
qualities are not mentioned, making it impossible for an interested
audience to connect with professional discourse. Due to the
stereotype ‘green=beautiful’ landscape architecture is trapped in an
indifference of overall acceptance.
In both cases, however, the coverage does not live up to its
possibilities. Is this a question of the journalists’
self-perception or due to the lack of independent and qualified
authors available? Shouldn’t we rather start to dispute the
conditions which would enable criticism of architecture and
landscape architecture to change “the relation between man and the
architecture [resp. landscape architecture] that surrounds him from
a merely perceptive to a discursive relation” (Klaus Jan Philipp).
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Target Groups |
|
|
|
|
___Meike Kubiak
Hannover |
|
|
|
The image of an architect is about to change from an autonomous
artist towards a building manager with communicative skills. Some
universities have already supplemented architectural training with
courses in building management or media science. Some public
relations offices have specialized in architecture.
Nowadays architects have to present themselves on the market as
strong and flexible service providers in order to engage a client.
The crucial question is how the key abilities of architects can be
conveyed to target groups. Private builders usually find an
architect by word-of-mouth recommendation. This informal method of
spreading information can hardly be influenced. Which other ways are
there? How can the architect present himself as reliable provider of
architectural services to a possible client? Advertising in the
course of image-campaigns does obviously not suffice.
In an interdisciplinary and practically oriented project the
Architects Union of Lower Saxony, Germany, together with Michaela
Krey developed a new communication strategy for architects and
possible clients. In a special course for building-clients,
architects lecture on topics around private building and work
together with the intended audience. Beforehand, the architects are
trained for their new task by professional teachers in a preparatory
course. Thus they learn to communicate their key abilities and to
develop additional skills in mediation, counselling and teaching. A
special lecturer’s manual and teaching materials help to prepare the
courses. As a result, clients can be addressed in an appropriate
way: expert talk is translated into understandable language.
Questions, needs and dreams are taken up, leading to a multifarious
dialogue. Here, private clients experience architects as
counsellors, creating ideas in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Thus
a “new” image of the architect is conveyed.
In our courses, we have been able to reach, inform and inspire more
than 3000 building-clients in the last three quarters of a year. We
thereby offered many architects an opportunity to present themselves
and their key competences to a wider public.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Christine Dissmann
Berlin |
|
|
|
The
architecture project “A New Dress for our School” of the
KunstBauWerkstatt at the Henri Dunant Elementary School in Berlin-Steglitz
got founded in 2004 as an initiative for the pupils to investigate
and improve their surroundings at school. The project consists of
the modules Workshop, Competition and Construction Site with their
respective focus on visual and sensual experience, brainstorming and
finally the implementation of ideas by the pupils themselves in
collaboration with experts.
The aim of the project is to teach the children the basics of
architecture not as just another school subject, but to sensitize
them for the esthetic quality of their environment by means of
direct experience. They are to be encouraged and enabled to
participate in shaping and redesigning their own school. The school
is being transformed under the “Leitbild” of The City, in which the
pupils act as equal citizens. Coherent communication between all
participants by events and activities is a crucial part of the
project.
The paper describes the main topics of the project, but also
critically comments on its impact and possible transferability.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Practice –
Teaching – Research
Practice |
|
|
|
|
___Tanja Simone Flemmig
Regensburg |
|
|
|
The
City of Regensburg is a good example how Design Committees may
become a location factor that counts in the competition with other
cities. The following article deals with the installation of the
Committee, its formal structure and its purpose. It describes how
the public counselling for architectural projects by the Design
Committee and the ensuing attention in local media qualified the
architectural discourse in the region.
Although a Design Committee is a legally indubitable institution,
the legal liability of its decisions is disputed. Nonetheless, in
Regensburg a culture of discussion could be developed which helps to
mediate conflicting interests of different groups in a consensual
way. Since the Committee was installed, the number of expertises and
competitions considerably increased, particularly in the private
sector. Several examples illustrate the positive effects of the
Committee’s work.
Finally, it will be shown in which way diverse lobbies helped to
install the Committee. An increasing number of inquiries from other
cities proves that by now the institution of a Design Committee
nation-wide serves as model for quality assurance in architecture
and urban design.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Thomas Michael Krüger
Berlin |
|
|
|
For
ten years now we – together with carefully selected colleagues –
organize and carry out guided tours centered on architecture and
urban history in Berlin – alongside the „normal“ planning and
building activities of our architectural office. More than 25,000
people, experts and colleagues as well as interested laypersons,
thereby got a vivid introduction to the city and its architecture.
Architecture in this context is always understood as a mirror of the
states and the developments of society, unusual is only the
perspective of the planners from which we demonstrate and explain.
We, who ourselves shape the city to a large degree, but only rarely
appear in public, take the word, and suddenly the seemingly
superficial, visible world with all its exciting stories and
anecdotes, facts and numbers becomes surprisingly enigmatic.
We were among those who established guided tours in cities in
the first place and meanwhile we colloborate with 13 offices in
other great European cities in a close network (www.guiding-architects.net).
The interest is enormous and it still grows; surprisingly enough,
that this important field of communication of architecture
was left for so long to historians and even autodidacts. The
communication of architecture in this context is neither a hobby
nor a pure expression of a tendency for story-telling, but it
requires a highly professionalised organization with a team of
didactically and verbally highly skilled architects, who over all
share one common interest:
the adressee, the client.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Teaching |
|
|
|
|
___Benedikt Hotze
Berlin |
|
|
|
Architects – one is told everywhere – are trained to be all-rounders.
Architects know everything – and successfully move into professional
fields they were not trained for. In the “BauNetz”-series
“Grenzgänger” (border crossers) by chance some of the professional
fields architects work in are listed: photographer, fashion
designer, musician, gastronome, web designer or PR-specialist in an
architect´s office…
Keeping this in mind, one may ask whether we need a special
curriculum for communication of architecture. Generally
spoken: is it necessary to invent specialized academic curricula for
every profession in the world? Or does it make more sense to
advertise “classical” studies and to advice students to specialize
individually?
One possible answer is: As long as architectural training centres on
architectural design only – and even Universities of applied science
are turned into Design schools – we cannot dispense with additional
courses that go beyond the design focus, such as courses in
communication of architecture.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
___Susanne Ohse
Lueneburg |
|
|
|
What are the main tasks in the communication of architecture
and how can they be defined?
The article reflects upon results of a study project at the
University of Lueneburg, which focused on the mutual interaction of
man and built environment. The project clearly showed that
sharpening perception is crucial to the communication of
architecture. Comparing the process of building with the
production of fashion, it will be possible to make suggestions for
new forms of communication in the field of architecture. From the
arising detailed picture of communication one may derive essential
elements for the occupational image of communication of
architecture as well as for the necessary training.
|
|
(Paper in German) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The editorial staff keeps all rights, including
translation and photomechanical reproduction. Selections may be reprinted with
reference:
(Wolkenkuckucksheim, Cloud-Cuckoo-Land, Vozdushnyj Zamok >http://www.cloud-cuckoo.net<)
if the editorial staff is informed.
|