About Star Architecture: Reflecting on Cities in Europe [1st ed. 2020] 3030239241, 9783030239244

Citation preview

About Reflecting Star on Cities Architecture in Europe

Nadia Alaily-Mattar Davide Ponzini Alain Thierstein Editors

STAR ECTURE ECTING N CITIES EUROPE

About Star Architecture

About Star Architecture

Reflecting on Cities in Europe

Nadia Alaily-Mattar Davide Ponzini Alain Thierstein Editors

Editors Nadia Alaily-Mattar Urban Development Technische Universität München Munich, Bayern, Germany Davide Ponzini Department of Architecture and Urban Studies Politecnico di Milano Milan, Italy Alain Thierstein Urban Development Technische Universität München Munich, Bayern, Germany

ISBN 978-3-030-23924-4    ISBN 978-3-030-23925-1 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1 © Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Springer imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the Department of Architecture, Technische Universität München (TUM), and the Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, for the support during the research activities and all the subsequent phases that led to this book. This book derives from different research projects. In particular, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) funded the research project “Star architecture and its role in re-­ positioning small and medium sized cities” at Technische Universität München, HafenCity Universität (HCU), Technische Universität Berlin (TUB), with Nadia Alaily-Mattar, Dominik Bartmanski, Johannes Dreher, Michael Koch, Martina Löw, Timothy Pape and Alain Thierstein. Angelus Eisinger was engaged in the early phases of this project. Numerous research assistants also contributed to this project, namely, Nicolas Büren, Petra Heber, Christoph Köglmayr, Katharina Ohrner and Dafni Skyrgianni. The findings of this multidisciplinary research project involving three case studies in Europe generated great momentum that emboldened us to address the necessity of editing a book about star architecture. We thank all the interviewees who generously gave us their time and insights; their voices resonate throughout the book. In addition, the Basic Research Grant (FARB), namely, “New methods for studying transnational urbanism and architecture: Data collection, validation and test for analysing branded projects world-wide in the 1990–2015 period” was issued at the Department of Architecture and Planning and allowed Davide Ponzini to work with a team at Politecnico di Milano composed of Maria Antonietta Clerici, Matteo Poli, Fabio Manfredini, Mina Akhavan, Anita De Franco, Zachary Jones, Luca Astorri, Celeste Calzolari and others. This research generated the method and database that allowed the mapping of star architecture projects at different scales. The researchers involved in this book benefited immensely from the opportunity of meeting at the Trilateral Symposia funded by Villa Vigoni, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) and Fondation Maison des Sciences de l’Homme (FMSH) in the 2017–2019 period (coordinated by the editors of this book and Maria Gravari-Barbas of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University). The exceptional setting of the Villa Vigoni could not have been more fitting with the theme of our book. We kindly thank the institutions that provided such crucial support. Furthermore, the Department of Architecture at the TUM provided the support for the Visiting Professorship of Davide Ponzini in 2017; the European Union Erasmus+ Staff Mobility Program funded subsequent exchanges of v

vi

Acknowledgements

both Davide Ponzini and Nadia Alaily-Mattar. These exchanges created the conditions for this project to take off and feed educational activities. Towards the later stages of this book project, TUM provided the needed funding to engage the support of Diane Arvanitakis and Alexander Arndt. We thank Diane Arvanitakis for her dependable and rigorous management of the editing process; she communicated with a geographically dispersed team and was responsible for the language editing and the timely readiness of the chapters. Alexander Arndt was responsible for the graphic material; we thank him for his great effort in this regard. We also thank Maximilian Schwindling who supported us in GIS-related matters. Michele Nastasi provided us with beautiful and meaningful photographs and additional reflections on each of them. His work as a photographer enriched our research, debates and the quality of this book. We thank him immensely. Finally, the maps for the volume have been adapted from OpenStreetMap.

Contents

1 Introduction:  Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe   1 Davide Ponzini, Nadia Alaily-Mattar, and Alain Thierstein

I APPROACHING STAR ARCHITECTURE IN AND ACROSS CITIES IN EUROPE 2 Star Architecture as Socio-­Material Assemblage  23 Laura Lieto 3 The  Representation of Star Architecture between Local and Global Identities  35 Uta Leconte 4 Star  Architecture’s Interplays and Effects on Cities 45 Alain Thierstein, Nadia Alaily-Mattar, and Johannes Dreher 5 Star  Architecture and the Field of Urban Design 55 Giovanni Semi and Magda Bolzoni 6 Star  Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015 69 Davide Ponzini and Mina Akhavan

II  STAR ARCHITECTURE AND THE MEDIA 7 The  Circulation of News and Images: Star Architecture and Its Media Effects 97 Nadia Alaily-Mattar and Alain Thierstein 8 Architecture  of the Image: Photography Acting in Urban Landscapes Michele Nastasi

 

115

9 Star  Architecture from Below: Narratives and Images from Social Networks 133 Sébastien Jacquot and Gaël Chareyron

vii

viii Contents

III URBAN PERFORMANCES OF STAR ARCHITECTURE 10 The  Multifarious Effects of Star Architecture: The Case of the Kunsthaus Graz 153 Johannes Dreher, Nadia Alaily-Mattar, and Alain Thierstein 11 Situating  Star Architecture: The Case of Phaeno in Wolfsburg 169 Walter Nägeli 12 The  Political Context of Star Architecture Projects: The Case of the Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern (KKL) 187 Thomas Held 13 Star  Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris 203 Maria Gravari-Barbas 14 Eurostar  Architecture: Comparing High-Speed Rail Stations in Europe 227 Fabian Wenner

IV STAR ARCHITECTURE IN HERITAGE RICH CITIES 15 Star  Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations 247 Francesca Cominelli and Sébastien Jacquot 16 The  Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens 267 Maria Gravari-Barbas 17 Star  Architecture and the Urban Landscape: The Case of Vienna 291 Sandra Guinand

V CONCLUSIONS 18 Lessons  Learnt and Future Research309 Nadia Alaily-Mattar, Davide Ponzini, and Alain Thierstein 19 Commentary:  Parallel Realities: Star Architecture and Overtourism in the Age of the Internet 321 Wilfried Wang Index 329

Authors Biography

Mina  Akhavan  is currently a Postdoctoral Research Fellow and Adjunct Professor at Politecnico di Milano, Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, where she received her PhD degree in Spatial Planning and Urban Development (2015) with a doctoral thesis on port sites, port infrastructures and their impact on urban development. Her research interests also concern the globalisation trends and logistics network, transnational urbanism and sharing economy and new spaces for work, and more recently she has been involved in a research project on mobility and ageing. Nadia  Alaily-Mattar  is Research and Teaching Associate at the Chair of Urban Development of the Department of Architecture, Technische Universität München (TUM). Nadia is a trained architect, who graduated at the American University of Beirut (AUB). She has received her Master’s degree in Housing and Urban Regeneration form the London School of Economics and Political Science and her PhD Degree in Planning Studies from the University College of London (UCL). She has worked at the United Nations Economic and Social Commission of Western Asia. Her research interests revolve around star architecture and its media effects, future-­oriented urban planning, urban planning methods and the role of architecture in urban development. Magda  Bolzoni  is a Postdoctoral Fellow at the Department of Cultures, Politics and Society of the University of Turin. She holds a PhD in Sociology and has spent periods of study and research in South Africa, the Netherlands and Japan. Her main research interests are in migration and urban studies, where she focuses on the relationship between urban transformations and social exclusion, mobile urbanism, gentrification, urban diversity and commercial changes. She adopts a qualitative, multilevel approach, attentive to everyday practices, social interactions and the role that policies at different levels may play in those processes. Gaël Chareyron  received his PhD degree in Computer Science and Image Processing from Jean Monnet University in Saint-Étienne, France, in 2005. Since 2006, he is Professor in Computer Science at ESILV and Researcher in Pôle Universitaire Léonard de Vinci, Research Center (DVRC), and since 2016 Head of the Computer Science Department. Since 2010, he is an

ix

x

Authors Biography

Associate Researcher at EIREST, Paris Panthéon-Sorbonne. His research topics include multimedia and security, computer vision, big data and data mining, social media and tourism. Francesca Cominelli  is a senior lecturer at the University of Paris 1 PanthéonSorbonne, IREST-EIREST.  She holds a PhD in Economics of Cultural Intangible Heritage. Her research interests include economics of culture, cultural tourism, cultural commons and public policies. More specifically, she is interested in cultural diversity, intangible cultural heritage, creativity and innovation and traditional craftsmanship. Previously, she worked as project specialist for INMA and the French Ministry of Culture and Communication (2008–2010) and as researcher for the European Investment Bank Institute (2013–2014) and for the University of Lille 3 (2015). Johannes  Dreher  holds the position of Research Associate at HafenCity Universität Hamburg (HCU) since 2017, after being Research Associate at the Chair of Urban Development at the Technische Universität München (TUM), where he was part of an interdisciplinary research project at both TUM and HCU.  He holds a Diploma degree in Geography from Goethe University Frankfurt. He has also worked as a Research Analyst at CBRE GmbH in Frankfurt. Maria Gravari-Barbas  is an Architect and Geographer. She is the Director of EIREST (Equipe Interdisciplinaire de Recherches sur le Tourisme) Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne University, as well as Director of the UNESCO Chair “Culture, Tourism, Development”. Her research focuses on urban contexts related with architecture, tourism, heritage, culture and events. Sandra  Guinand  is an Urban Planner and Geographer. She is a Postdoc Researcher at the Institute for Geography and Regional Research, Vienna University; Associate Researcher at EIREST Paris 1 Sorbonne and Rabat. Her research interests focus on urban regeneration projects and socio-­ economical transformations of urban landscape, with a specific focus on heritage processes and public private partnerships. Thomas Held  is an independent Consultant and Publicist. From 1992 to 2000, he acted as the CEO of the public-private owner organisation which realised the Culture and Congress Center in Lucerne (KKL) designed by Jean Nouvel. From 2001 to 2010, he was the founding Director of the think tank Avenir Suisse. Before, he ran his own consultancy and project management company, which served primarily major German publishing companies. His background is such that, after attaining a Doctorate in Sociology from the University of Zurich, he has worked at the Universities of Zurich, Vienna and Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley, as a Visiting Scholar and Lecturer and is an alumnus of the Advanced Management Program of the Harvard Business School. Sébastien Jacquot  is Assistant Professor in Geography, in Paris 1 Panthéon-­ Sorbonne University, within Institut de Recherches et d’Etudes Supérieures du Tourisme (IEREST) in the Department of Tourism studies, and a Member

Authors Biography

xi

of the EIREST research team. His current research deals with heritage and tourism, metropolitan suburbs and tourism, World Heritage Sites, informality and tourism, big data and tourism and a political approach of urban studies. He researches in and around Paris (France), Valparaiso (Chile), Genoa (Italy), Liverpool (K), Buenos Aires (Argentina) and memory sites. Uta  Leconte  is a Research Associate and Doctoral Candidate at the Department of Architecture at the Technical University of Munich. Her research in architecture theory and cultural theory focuses on the interrelation of architecture, finance and globalisation. She is currently working on her dissertation about the representation of world trade in architecture within the current global system. Previously, she has worked as an Architectural Journalist and Editor and is Coeditor and Coauthor of the book Allmann Sattler Wappner Architekten: Options (gta Verlag, ETH Zurich, 2014). She holds a Magister Artium degree in New German Literature, Theatre Science and Comparative Studies from Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich. Laura  Lieto  is Professor of Urban Planning at the Department of Architecture, Federico II University of Napoli (Italy). Laura has been visiting professor at Columbia University and University of Copenhagen. She’s in the board of the Doctoral School in Architecture at Federico II University and is currently one the PI’s of a EU HERA JRP on Social Housing and Public Space (PuSH). Her areas of interest are critical urban theory, urban informality and transnational urbanism. Among her recent publications are Planning for a Material World (Routledge 2016), coedited with Robert Beauregard; Planning and Authenticity. A Materialist and Phronetic Perspective. In: Tate L. and Shannon B. (eds.). Planning for AuthentiCITIES (Routledge 2019); Planning for the Hybrid Gulf City. In: Molotch H. and Ponzini D. (eds.) The New Arab Urban (New York University Press 2019). Walter Nägeli  is University Professor (Emeritus) for “Planning and Design” in Architectural Design, Art and Theory at the Department of Architecture (EKUT), Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, Germany. He has a lengthy teaching career at the Architectural Association School in London (with Zaha Hadid); Cambridge University (with Peter Blundell-Jones); University of North London, now Metropolitan University (with Florian Beigel); Harvard University; and Cambridge College, Massachusetts. His concurrent research has included topics focused on spatial theory of early modernism, the problem of surface of buildings and minimal intervention in existing building structures. Michele Nastasi  is an independent Researcher and a Photographer of architecture and cities. Since 2007, he is Editor of the architectural review Lotus International, and he holds a PhD in History of Arts at Università Ca’Foscari Venezia (IUAV) in Venice. His photographs are published in major international reviews and journals and books and have been exhibited internationally in venues such as the MIT Museum in Boston, the New York University and the Biennale in Venice. He is also curator of exhibitions and has taught Architectural Photography at the Politecnico di Milano.

xii

Authors Biography

Davide Ponzini  is Associate Professor of Urban Planning at Politecnico di Milano. His research activity focuses on planning theory, urban and cultural policy, contemporary architecture and the urban environment. Among his recent publications, he is the Coauthor of Starchitecture: Scenes, Actors, and Spectacles in Contemporary Cities (The Monacelli Press) and the Editor (with Harvey Molotch) of the book The New Arab Urban: Gulf Cities of Wealth, Ambition, and Distress (New York University Press). Giovanni  Semi  is Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Turin. His interests are in multi-cultural societies, middle-class transformations, gentrification and the production of the urban realm. He has been Visiting Scholar at the University of Chicago, at the Graduate Center of CUNY, at Paris 7 Diderot and Lab’Urba, Université de Paris Est Marne La Vallèe. Among his most recent contributions is Gentrification. Tutte le città come Disneyland? (Il Mulino). Alain  Thierstein  is a Full Professor for Urban Development at the Department of Architecture, Technische Universität München. He also is affiliated with the consultancy of EBP Schweiz AG, Zurich, as Partner and Senior Consultant in the area of urban and regional economic development. He received his Master degree as well as his PhD in Economics from the University of St. Gallen, Switzerland. He is involved in research on urban and metropolitan development; spatial impact of the knowledge economy, in particular the visualisation of non-physical company relationships as well as spatial interaction of locational choices for residence, work and mobility; and the role of star architecture for repositioning medium-sized cities. His work is extensively published internationally. Wilfried Wang  is the O’Neil Ford Centennial Professor in Architecture at the University of Texas in Austin. With Barbara Hoidn, he is Founder of Hoidn Wang Partner, Berlin. He is a Registered Architect in Berlin. He studied architecture at the Bartlett School, University College London. From 1989 to 1995, he was in partnership with John Southall. Together with Nadir Tharani, he was founding Coeditor of 9H Magazine (1979–1995), with Richard Burdett, Co-director of the 9H Gallery (1985–1990) and Director of the German Architecture Museum (1995–2000). He taught at the Polytechnic of North London, University College London, the Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule (ETH) Zurich, the Städelschule, Harvard University Graduate School of Design and the University of Navarra. Wang is the Author of various essays and monographs on the architecture of the twentieth century. Fabian Wenner  is a Research and Teaching Associate at the Chair of Urban Development of the Department of Architecture, Technische Universität München (TUM). He has degrees in Spatial Planning from Technical University Dortmund and Urban and Regional Planning Studies from the London School of Economics (LSE). His research focus is on urban economics and transport planning. Currently, he is pursuing a PhD at TUM on the topic of urban development effects of high-speed rail infrastructure.

List of Figures

Fig. 1.1 View of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, 2010. (Source: Photo­graph by Michele Nastasi, 2010) 3 Fig. 1.2 The location of the main cities and projects discussed in the book as specific case studies and as key examples. (Source: Extracted from OpenStreetMap and adapted by Alexander Arndt) 8 Fig. 1.3 View from St. Paul’s Cathedral. (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2015) 15 Fig. 1.4 View of the city of Bilbao. (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2010) 18 Fig. 4.1 A conceptual impact model of how a star architecture project ‘works’.  49 Fig. 6.1 Localisation of projects by strong-idea transnational firms in Europe and completed between 1990 and 2015. (Source: Mina Akhavan) 73 Fig. 6.2 Cultural facilities designed by strong-idea transnational firms in Europe (1990–2015). (Source: Mina Akhavan) 75 Fig. 6.3 The location of Porto Antico in the historic centre of Genoa. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt) 78 Fig. 6.4 View of the Porto Antico in Genoa. (Source: Photo­graph by Mina Akhavan, 2018) 78 Fig. 6.5 View of the Tate Modern and the waterfront. (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2015) 80 Fig. 6.6 The location of Tate Modern and the South Bank. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt)80 Fig. 6.7 The location of the Norwegian National Opera within a wider context. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt) 83 Fig. 6.8 The redevelopment of the harbour area with the focus on cultural activities and creative industries. (Source: Adapted from Openstreet Maps by Alexander Arndt) 84 Fig. 6.9 A view of the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre in Reykjavik. (Source: Photograph by Davide Ponzini, 2018) 84

xiii

xiv List of Figures

Fig. 6.10 A view of the Musée des Confluences and the waterfront. (Source: Photograph by Duccio Malagamba, Barcelona 2015)86 Fig. 6.11 The location of the Musée des Confluences within a wider context. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt) 86 Fig. 7.1 The interrelationship between distinction, recognition and exposure in the making of star architects. (Source: By authors)98 Fig. 7.2 The interrelationship between enigmatic signifiers, viewers’ experiences and exposure in the making of iconic architecture. (Source: By authors) 100 Fig. 7.3 The Kunsthaus Graz is deliberately not a white box. (Source: Photograph by Nadia Alaily-Mattar, 2016) 102 Fig. 7.4 The development of number of articles mentioning each of the three architects in the Avery database of architecture journals and in the The New York Times. (Source: Own calculations based on Avery database and The New York Times archive. Status July 2016) 104 Fig. 7.5 phaeno is deliberately not a tin box with a sign on it (paraphrasing a jury member for the phaeno architecture competition). (Source: Photograph by Dominik Bartmanski, 2015) 105 Fig. 7.6 The main iconic aspect of the KKL is its cantilevered roof. (Source: Photograph by Nadia Alaily-Mattar, 2015) 106 Fig. 7.7 The development of architecture-related articles on the projects in LexisNexis database and Avery database. (Source: Own calculations based on LexisNexis and Avery database. Status July 2016) 107 Fig. 7.8 The development of articles related to the case studies in The New York Times. (Source: Own calculations based on The New York Times and Süddeutsche Zeitung Archives. Status July 2016) 108 Fig. 7.9 The total volume of pictures of the three case study projects in Flickr database is in a ­different league than the GMB. (Source: Alaily-Mattar et al. (2019), own calculations based on Flickr. Status January 2017) 111 Fig. 8.1 Bloomimages’ ren­dering of the Elbphil­harmonie in Hamburg, 2006. (Source: Bloomimages, 2006) 120 Fig. 8.2 Iwan Baan’s photographed view of the Elbphilharmonie, Hamburg, 2017. (Source: Iwan Baan, 2017) 121 Fig. 8.3 Extract from the Instagram page tagged #elbhilharmonie (photographs by various Instagram users uploaded on 29 August 2018). 122 Fig. 8.4 Pages from the book MVRDV Buildings125 Fig. 8.5 Extract from SOM website (www.som.com). (Sources: Website by SOM and photograph by Gerry Padden @gmp3, posted on Instagram on 15 August 2014) 126

List of Figures

xv

Fig. 8.6 Charles Graham, The Sky Line of New York, 1896. (Source: The New York Public Library Digital Collection) 127 Fig. 8.7 Extract from OMA website (www.oma.eu). (Source: website OMA; designed by Bengler) 129 Fig. 9.1 Global distribution of the tag “starchitect” on Instagram, 2018. (Source: Gaël Chareyron) 138 Fig. 9.2 Network of the tags associated to the tag #starchitect on Instagram, 2018. (Source: Gaël Chareyron) 139 Fig. 9.3 Hierarchical cluster analysis of the segments of the English comments on TripAdvisor relative to the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, 2018 (Iramuteq). (Source: Sébastien Jacquot) 146 Fig. 10.1 The Kunsthaus Graz within a wider neighbourhood. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt)155 Fig. 10.2 Kunsthaus Graz exterior view. (Source: Universalmuseum Joanneum, Christian Plach) 157 Fig. 10.3 The development of article hits in The New York Times. (Source: The New York Times Archive, data analysed by Nadia Alaily-Mattar and Nicolas Büren) 158 Fig. 10.4 Overnight stays in Salzburg and Innsbruck are distinctly higher than in Graz. (Source: Statistik Austria, analysed by Johannes Dreher) 158 Fig. 10.5 The development of articles with the keyword “Graz” and “culture” in Le Monde, El Pais and The Guardian. (Source: Archive of, Le Monde, El Pais and The Guardian. Data analysed by Nadia Alaily-Mattar and Nicolas Büren) 160 Fig. 10.6 The development of overnight stays in Graz and visitor numbers of the Kunsthaus Graz. (Source: overnight stays: Statistik Austria. Data analysed by Johannes Dreher) 161 Fig. 10.7 The development of firms within the creative industry in Graz from 2001 to 2014. (Source: Statistik Austria 2017. Data analysed by Johannes Dreher) 163 Fig. 11.1 The Koller-plan of Wolfsburg. (Source: Institut für Zeitgeschichte und Stadtpräsentation, Stadt Wolfsburg) 171 Fig. 11.2 A photograph of Porsche street (1963) depicts Wolfsburg as a German “Wirtschafts­wunder (Economic Wonder)” town. (Source: Photograph by Heinrich Heidersberger, Institut Heidersberger) 172 Fig. 11.3 Reichow plan of postwar Wolfsburg showing the “Koller-Axis”, as it now was called. (Source: Institut für Zeitgeschichte und Stadtpräsentation, Stadt Wolfsburg) 173 Fig. 11.4 The phaeno is situated next to the main railway station of Wolfsburg on the banks of the Mittelland canal. (Source: Hans Bertram) 175 Fig. 11.5 The idea of the “Nordkopf” as an urban focal point as an end to Porsche street. (Source: Stadt Wolfsburg, Schneider+Schumacher Architects) 176

xvi List of Figures

Fig. 11.6 The phaeno’s main floor is raised leaving a public space underneath. (Source: Photograph by Andreas Nowack) 177 Fig. 11.7 A view of the Volkswagen power station and the phaeno. (Source: Photograph by Janina Snatzke) 180 Fig. 11.8 The interior of the phaeno was designed as a soft landscape, one large space with a prominent steel structure as its roof. (Source: Photograph by Matthias Leitzke)181 Fig. 11.9 The scale of the Volkswagen factory dwarfs the urban fabric even from the figure ground. (Source: Adapted from Openstreet Maps by Alexander Arndt) 182 Fig. 12.1 The Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern (KKL) is located on the shore of Lake Lucerne, Switzerland. (Source: Adapted from Openstreet Maps by Alexander Arndt)189 Fig. 12.2 The cantilevered roof of the KKL. (Source: Photograph by Philippe Ruault, Paris) 196 Fig. 12.3 Jean Nouvel speaking to craftsmen, city administrators and donors. (Source: Photograph by Eggermann & Eichenberger, Lucerne) 197 Fig. 12.4 Jean Nouvel (right) in discussion with the old and new Mayors of Lucerne. (Source: Photograph by author)  200 Fig. 13.1 The MAXXI museum in Rome, Italy, by Zaha Hadid. (Source: Image by author) 210 Fig. 13.2 The Tate Modern, London, by Herzog & de Meuron. (Source: Image by author) 210 Fig. 13.3 Geography of emblematic architecture in the city of Paris, 2014. (Source: Data by Renard-Delautre and Gravari-Barbas)215 Fig. 13.4 Fondation Louis Vuitton or “The Cloud”, Paris. (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2015) 217 Fig. 13.5 Philarmonie de Paris, Paris by Ateliers Jean Nouvel. (Source: Jean-Pierre Dalbéra) 221 Fig. 13.6 Seine Musicale, Ile Séguin, Paris by Shigeru Ban. (Source: https://urbanattitude.fr/seguin-shigeru-ban-jeande-gastines-architectes/)221 Fig. 14.1 The new Liège-Guillemins station by Santiago Calatrava. (Source: Photo-graph by author) 231 Fig. 14.2 Search results on Avery Index for station architect and number of departures for HSR stations in Europe 234 Fig. 14.3 Relationship between a station’s importance as transport node, measured in departures per hour, and ‘star’ status of a stations architect (Avery Index score). (Source: Author)236 Fig. 14.4 Relationship between public recognition (TripAdvisor Score) and ‘star’ status of a station’s architect (Avery Index search results for station architect). (Source: By Author) 238

List of Figures xvii

Fig. 14.5 Relationship between professional recognition (Avery Index search results for station) and ‘star’ status of a stations architect (Avery Index search results for station architect). (Source: By Author) Fig. 15.1 The waterfront of Liverpool (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2013) Fig. 15.2 The new museum in the wider neighbourhood in Liverpool waterfront. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap Alexander Arndt) Fig. 15.3 The Louvre-Lens Museum in the wider neighbourhood. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap Alexander Arndt) Fig. 15.4 The Louvre-Lens Museum designed by SANAA. (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2013) Fig. 16.1 The Acropolis Museum finally located on the south side of the Acropolis. (Source: Adapted from Openstreet Maps by Alexander Arndt) Fig. 16.2 The “Makryianni” block and the final location of the Acropolis Museum. (Source: Adaptated from OpenStreetMaps data by Alexander Arndt, data by author) Fig. 16.3 View of the Acropolis Museum from the Acropolis. (Source: Photograph by author, 2018) Fig. 16.4 The three architectural registers of the Acropolis Museum. (Source: “Un nouveau Musée pour l’Acropole” Ministère de la Culture, 2007) Fig. 16.5 The two threatened buildings located at No.’s 17 (left) +19 (right) D. Areopagitou Street. (Source: Photographs by author, 2008 and 2017) Fig. 16.6 Petition on the entrance door of No. 17 D. Areopagitou Street. (Source: Photograph by author, 2008) Fig. 16.7 Confrontation between the Acropolis Museum and the ancient military hospital built by the engineer Wailer (1834). (Source: Photographs by author, 2008) Fig. 16.8 The neoclassical buildings that close the corners of the Makryianni plot. (Source: Photograph by author, 2017) Fig. 16.9 View of the rear facades of the buildings No.’s 17 and 19 D. (Source: Photograph by author, 2008) Fig. 17.1 United Nations’ headquarter in Vienna, 2010. (Source: Creative Commons, Behrooz Rezvani) Fig. 17.2 View of Vienna from the Belvedere (1758–1761), Bernardo Bellotto. (Source: Creative Commons) Fig. 17.3 “Canaletto’s perspective” with the addition of the planned Heumarkt project. (Source: Initiative Stadtbildschutz, Prof. Martin Kupf, 2018) Fig. 17.4 Vienna World Heritage perimeter and buffer zone. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt, data by author) Fig. 17.5 The TRIIIPLE project advertisement published in der Standard on 30 September 2017. (Source: Soravia)

238 257

257 259 259

269

273 274

277

278 279

282 282 285 293 297

299

301 303

List of Tables

Table 5.1 The European firms with urban design projects Table 6.1 Number of waterfront culture-led projects by year and country in Europe Table 9.1 The five most present words (lemmas) on the comments on TripAdvisor, for various star architectural sites. (Iramuteq, 2018) Table 9.2 Importance of the mention of the name of the architect and the word “architecture” in the comments of various sites relative to star architects on TripAdvisor (2018). Table 12.1 City of Lucerne KKL Ballots 1989–2003 Table 12.2 KKL Selected business and economic indicators in 2011 and 2001 Table 12.3 Distribution of KKL construction costs in 1991 to 2004 Table 13.1 The Top 5 temporary exhibitions visited in 2016 Table 14.1 Average Avery scores for station architects of analysed HSR stations by country Table 14.2 Average Avery and TripAdvisor scores for stations based on their urban location and context Table 17.1 Numbers of overnight stays in Vienna

61 77

143

144 191 192 194 216 236 237 295

xix

1

Introduction: Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe Davide Ponzini, Nadia Alaily-Mattar, and Alain Thierstein

Abstract

In the last three decades, urban decision makers in the Western world increasingly promote and build exceptional architecture projects such as iconic museums, spectacular infrastructures or public spaces not only for branding their city image and boosting media attention. Star architecture remains somehow a vague term, and the attention to the exceptional powers of architects still dominates the architectural, planning and public debates. More recently, research and publications can be found that make attempts to mix perspectives from architecture to urban planning to geography, economy and media studies, yet a consistent framework for these debates is missing. This introductory chapter provides a framework, problematising the definition of star architecture and its interplays with the transformation of the urban environment; it explains the reasons why studying the topic in the European context is important and useful for a world audience. This chapter presents the various disciplines involved and the multiple perspectives and methods adopted in each of the respective chapters. The structure of the volume and contents of each chapter are outlined to introduce the readers to this edited book. Keywords D. Ponzini (*) Department of Architecture and Urban Studies, Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: davide. [email protected] N. Alaily-Mattar · A. Thierstein Urban Development, Technische Universität München, Munich, Bayern, Germany e-mail: N.Alaily-Mattar@tum. de; [email protected]

Star architecture · Multidisciplinary · Transformation · Urban development · Europe

1 Setting the Stage In a context of fierce competition among cities for residents, businesses and tourists, it has become an increasingly common strategy for urban decision makers to promote and build exceptional architecture projects such as iconic museums, spectacular infrastructures or public spaces not only for their utility but also for branding their city image and boosting media attention. The involvement of star architects and multinational design firms in this process has garnered substantial public debate in the media and in academic research across the world, discussing what has

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_1

1

D. Ponzini et al.

become to be known as “star architecture”. It can be argued that star architecture is a polysemous term. It often hides more than it reveals. Arriving at more grounded definition is a pressing endeavour as the fuzziness of the term star architecture has not deterred the mainstream media to hype it up. A search of the term “star architecture” in the LexisNexis database (www.lexisnexis.com) shows a steady increase between 1997 and 2016 of the number of non-specialised publications, newspaper and magazine articles reporting on star architecture. The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (GMB) is responsible for encouraging this accentuation. Ever since the GMB, designed by Frank Gehry, opened its doors in 1997, the media frenzy around exceptional architecture projects have turned such projects into something any city should desire. The promise of duplicating the transformative effects allegedly generated by star architecture projects has been travelling in the worlds of planners, city authorities, real estate promoters and academic observers alike. Scholarly attention in urban studies and planning fields has been expanding since at least 1997. Today, research and publications attempting at mixing perspectives from architecture to urban planning to geography, economy and media studies can be found, yet a consistent framework for these debates is missing. With this book the aim is to provide academic and urban policy readership with insights regarding the multidimensional aspects of star architecture and the ways in which star architecture comes about in and affects the transformation of cities in Europe. In many instances, the development of star architecture projects is initiated by local public authorities, seldom by private and non-profit actors alone. In general, these projects are legitimised by the argument that despite being costly public investments, they are expected to yield not only significant architectural effects but also more general effects on their respective cities, such as competitive repositioning at the regional and international scales. Recurring examples such as the GMB (which will be discussed under different perspectives in Chaps. 4, 7 and 9 of this volume) put the architectural project at the centre of more complex urban processes of regeneration, competitiveness and re-imaging. On many other occasions, the urban effects did not match the expectations of respective projects. The issues related to this way of interpreting and transforming contemporary cities are conceptually and geographically vast and can be defined and approached in multiple manners, having in fact opposite evaluations, from accolades to radical critiques (and rants). In this sense, a consistent framework is needed to deepen the search for evidence rather than expand the field of aesthetic and ideological opinions. This introduction provides a framework, problematising the definition of star architecture and its interplays with the transformation of the urban environment, arguing about the importance of studying European cities and discussing the various perspectives and multiple methods adopted in the following chapters ­ (Fig. 1.1).

2

1  Introduction: Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe

Fig. 1.1 View of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, 2010. The image shows part of the transformations of a complex urban system. At the centre the Guggenheim ­ Museum designed by Frank Gehry is depicted as the centre piece of the masterplan for the redevelopment of the Nervión river waterfront designed by Cesar Pelli in the Abandoibarra area. Also by Cesar Pelli is the Iberdrola Tower that, at the time of the photograph, was under construction. These and other buildings, plans and infrastructures contributed to the revi­ talisation of the city and the region. (Source: Photo­ graph by Michele Nastasi, 2010)

2 About Star Architecture Since the 1990s scholarly attention has been concentrating on places invested by such exceptional architecture projects and their positive and negative urban consequences. While “flagship” (Weidenfeld 2010), blockbuster, monumental, landmark and “destination” architecture (Phaidon 2017) set the focus on the impact of architectural exceptionality, the terms “star architecture” and “starchitecture” (Ponzini 2011; Gravari-Barbas and Renard-Delautre 2015; Ponzini and Nastasi 2016) capture the nuanced but not mutually exclusive aspects of “signature/branded” (McNeill 2009) and “iconic” (Jencks 2005; Sklair 2017) architecture, but leave the question of effects and impacts open. In addition the latter avoid defining a specific style or strict feature (e.g. iconicity) of such projects. Alaily-Mattar and Thierstein in Chap. 7 of this volume tease out a definition of “star” in star architecture, and Lieto (in Chap. 2) levers this aspect particularly. In Chap. 7 the term “star” denotes a focus on the recognition status of an architecture project, which can be related either to the recognition status of the architect, and by extension the signature product, or to the recognition status of an architecture project irrespective of the status of its architect. In that sense the term “star architecture” is intentionally used in this book to refer to projects that are perceived and promoted as exceptional owing to the exceptionality of their designers and/or their designs. In this way, attention can be (a) balanced to include not just the star architect but also the multiple actors involved in the process of realising exceptional architecture projects and (b) shifted from the architectural style to the interplays that specific projects have with contemporary cities. In the recent special issue of the Journal of Urban Design dedicated to the study of the nexus between architecturally exceptional projects and the city, Alaily-Mattar 3

D. Ponzini et al.

et al. (2018) argue that “The outputs of star architecture projects are the emerging new actor networks, the material building, the function, which is operated inside this building, and the particular offerings in which media content plays an important role, namely, spectacle, signature, icon, pictures/talks and experience” (2018, p. 178). In that sense, the exceptionality of star architecture projects pertains to the potential output of this “special” bundle of offerings. Several chapters in this book provide a more nuanced and operational definition of the term “star architecture” to respond to specific questions derived from these considerations of the roles of star architecture in urban transformation and change. Star architecture projects are often motivated and contested in their political contours, especially because the large funds needed for their implementation are to a significant extent shouldered by the public administration, at least in continental Europe. Such operations are in general expected to induce significant urban, economic and sociocultural changes in their respective cities and leave a durable legacy in both physical space and imaginary of the city. Gravari-Barbas coins the term “new heritage regime” (Gravari-Barbas and Renard-Delautre 2015) to draw attention to intentions of creating major new symbols of a city through star architecture. In Chap. 13 she argues that such projects constitute also a “spatial event” that are likely to induce a significant and lasting change in the spatial organisation in which these achievements take their place. Motivations to induce such lasting changes typically prompt a wide array of local and non-local stakeholders and at the same time spark contrasts with reference to the expected effects and the opportunities for appropriating and even instrumentalising the star architecture projects. In public interactions, the stated rationales are often linked to improvements in the local economy, especially related to tax returns, tourism or employment numbers (as explained by Johannes Dreher and his co-authors in Chap. 10); however, identity building and the re-imagining of the city follow more political and discursive logics (as explained by Uta Leconte in Chap. 3). Media exposure is typically crucial not only for deploying the communication impacts of the project but also to legitimise the project from the beginning and in its most conflictual turns. Media is one of the grounds of interaction where star architecture is socially constructed. For this reason, star architects have specific skills in dealing not only with the materiality of their design but also with the representation in multiple media of their projects and persona. In her chapter (Chap. 2), Laura Lieto explains how star architecture projects derive from place-specific assemblages of material and human elements, as projects and their “star” features derive from complex social processes, or eventual networked effects that occur in one instance (refer to Chap. 2 by Laura Lieto for definitions and a fuller discussion). Both the star architect (in fact an organisation behind and around design activities) and the building in place, the ways in which they are conceived and perceived, depend on negotiations of cultural and social meanings, of the material and of the locale. In particular, the joint perspectives of the authors in this volume interpret and intend to show how “star architecture” and its 4

1  Introduction: Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe

urban effects are socially constructed, locally and transnationally. In this sense – despite the fact that designs can be recognised by the signature of reputed architects who branded them  – their sociopolitical process of design, implementation and their material assemblage into meaningful parts of cities are not the product of star architects alone. The value added to a “star building” depends on a complex value chain of production and consumption, which is far more complex than what the design firms alone do or can accomplish. Moreover, one star project’s effectiveness in urban regeneration, economic revitalisation, and in the repositioning of cities are eventual effects that depend on other urban policies and trends, on wider local and transnational networks and conditions. The narrations, ideas, images, policies, projects and experts travel internationally (among others; refer to González 2011), making the issue of star architecture relevant for a high number of global and lower rank cities in Europe, America and Asia. Indeed, the mobility of urban and architectural designers in search of procurement helps most advanced design and construction technologies (and related spectacles) to circulate internationally. The economic efficiency of design enterprise may indeed imply the reuse of similar narratives, design solutions, or even whole architectural and urban-scale projects in different cities. Also, highly mobile real estate investors sometimes involve their favoured or most reliable designers, developers prefer plans and projects that succeeded elsewhere already, and they all look for most spectacular building images that circulate in websites and media. Still, it seems methodologically highly challenging to value and to assess economic effects of such iconic design and build heritage beyond analysing individual case studies (Ahlfeldt and Holman 2015, Ahlfeldt and Maennig 2010, Ahlfeldt and Mastro 2012) and across different socio-institutional settings worldwide. These definitions and considerations lead to a first statement: star architecture cannot be considered simply as a physical object. In Chap. 4, Thierstein, Alaily-Mattar and Dreher make a clear distinction between star architecture as a process and as an output. This means that the systematic understanding of star architecture projects must include the investigation of the processes and phases through which multiple actors generate exceptional projects, affecting the city at multiple scales and in multiple physical, functional, economic, symbolic, narrative and social dimensions (Palermo and Ponzini 2015; Alaily-Mattar et al. 2018). In this process, the phases of designing and redesigning and of presenting and modifying the image of a project are central but not exhaustive if an understanding of the interplays between projects and urban transformation is to be achieved. Location and the construction of place are under scrutiny of public attention, also because star architecture projects perform functions that have public relevance (cultural activities, headquarters of companies employing a large number of people, image-changing icons, etc.) and mobilise social meanings shared by different groups. Therefore, the processes and urban impacts are site specific and path dependent. For these reasons the term “about” was selected in the book title to stress both the spatial relevance of 5

D. Ponzini et al.

star architecture projects and the fact that it is a subject of research, discussion and public opinion making.

3 Why Cities in Europe Of course, it is not possible to generalise the complexities of star architecture, as they manifest quite differently in different parts of the world. The works have a specific scope on cities in Europe because some aspects of star architecture and its interplays are more evident due to recurring local and national characteristics. Given the territorial variety of European cities, one should not expect to find necessarily homologous city-project relationships and fixed mechanisms that apply indifferently or to develop wholesale comparative reasoning pertaining to the development of star architecture projects. Nonetheless, despite these shortcomings, there are still recurrent features across European cities that make the insight into star architecture meaningful for researchers and decision makers in different countries, inside and outside Europe. Firstly, the democratic processes generating star architecture in Europe allow – at least in principle – a high number of interactions and contributions by multiple stakeholders. In this way the multifaceted pressures and frictions regarding the production and use of star architecture are more evident than, say, in countries having an autocratic government. The presence of long-established democratic institutions and multi-actor decision-­ making is a common trait among European cities. Star architecture in fact occurs in situations where democracy is exercised to a lower extent (e.g. China; refer to Ren (2011)) or is explicitly opposed (e.g. the United Arab Emirates; refer to Ponzini (2011)). Of course, sharing political and ethical values of democracy does not mean having identical urban processes and outcomes. It is accepted that European planning systems may radically vary (Newman and Thornley 2002) from unitarian and centralised to very decentralised, spanning over different legal backgrounds and institutional settings, which traditionally translates into a different understanding of the degree of funding cultural infrastructures publicly (Alaily-Mattar et  al. 2018). Certain shifts in politics, and in urban politics in particular, are sometimes paralleled in many European cities, but surely not in all of them. The often-contested entrepreneurialism, privatisation and neoliberalism may not only take so-called variegated forms, they might be evidently absent in given places, so they cannot be taken for granted as explanatory concepts in this regard. Secondly, common features and similar urban governance across Europe are in part due to the presence of the Europe Union (EU), the implementation of its regulations, spread of dedicated policies and similar modes of urban governance. Since the 1990s, in fact, the European Union has been an extraordinary engine for promoting and spreading urban policy ideas and models. In particular, similar urban policies and governance arrangements appeared in many countries leading planning scholars to d­iscuss the Europeanisation of planning (refer to Dühr et  al. (2007) and Kunzmann 6

1  Introduction: Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe

(2016)). EU-funded Urban Pilot projects I and II and a set of other similar policies promoted complex regeneration initiatives in cities of different size. EU Structure Funds fostered interventions for converting and improving the infrastructure in regions and cities lagging behind (Colomb et al. 2010). White Papers spread given governance arrangements and in particular fostered public-private partnerships, special purpose vehicles and other means for involving private decision makers and resources. European regulations expanded and connected the design market in multiple ways. Also, the circulation of international expertise within Europe was made easier by means for competition policies, the introduction of common standards for services (e.g. the 1995 General Agreement on Trade in Services and the 2006 Bolkestein Directive; refer to Clerici (2018a, b)). Mandating competitions and tenders at the European level for certain public works generated important opportunities for international architectural firms. A phase of intense urban regeneration occurring simultaneously in multiple cities (especially before the financial crisis of 2008/2009) needed the expertise of special architects due to competition in attracting investments, international attention and more generally the need to stand out in the media. Similarly, urban designers created master plans and urban environments for new economic activities, most visibly for ­tourism and consumption (as explained by Semi and Bolzoni in Chap. 5). Programmes such as the European Capital of Culture have been systematically circulating similar policy approaches, the use of culture and of special event for urban development and repositioning purposes among European cities, in some cases having similar urban outcomes (Jones and Ponzini 2018). To some extent, Europe can be seen as a common testing and learning ground for urban players of different sorts. The EU stably promotes networks among experts and decision makers, common learning and the transfer of best practice within Europe, across borders or within specific continental quadrants, as in the case of URBACT, INTERREG and others. In addition to these explicit policies, a phase of faster cultural globalisation occurred parallel to a tremendous increase of media’s outreach and speed, having intra-European effects as well. Thirdly, the richness, functional layering and general care for the urban realm in many European cities enhance the variety of issues that emerge from the presence of exceptional projects. In particular, the presence and relevance of built heritage in European cities generate urban problems, solutions and effects that are worth special attention. This seems especially relevant when considering the widespread interpretation of built heritage as a complex – commonly labelled as urban landscape – and considering, again, the general care for public space. For example, the relationship between new and visible projects and the historic urban fabric has been a particularly sensitive topic in Europe rather than in other parts of the world. As European cities have specific development features and trajectories, historically layered places and intricate organisation, the use of exceptional projects and its effects may strengthen as well as disrupt these cities’ image, urban fabric, economic and sociopolitical organisations. 7

D. Ponzini et al.

Global cities like London or Paris may stand out internationally several times every year, thanks to their new projects – for example, through a new museum or a record-breaking skyscraper or a newly regenerated riverfront. On the contrary, smaller cities may attempt at levering one branded project once or twice in a decade, or even in one generation. The expectations for one single project to change the fate or visibility of small cities can lead to exceptional procedures in the local planning system. So does the hunger for new opportunities and investments in post-crisis Europe, especially outside the core nodes of the global economy and moreover in countries willing to bounce back such as Greece or Italy. The matters of urban scale, available resources and time constitute quite different conditions and trajectories for projects in metropolises or in smaller centres. While considering global and second-tier centres, smaller city contexts deserve particular attention for the relevance they have in Europe – large share of population lives in such cities  – and because they show more clearly the interplays of star architecture being less complex environments than, say, global cities. Fourthly, since the 1990s one can see a phase of economic restructuring having quite similar characteristics in many parts of Europe. Deindus­ trialisation and the conversion of former industrial areas; the redevelopment of waterfronts, port and rail yards; the enhancement of tertiary sector and of tourism; and the service economy resurfaced quite extensively. Perhaps the late 1990s constitute a first turning point in the boom of star architecture projects. As documented in the chapter by Ponzini and Akhavan, the 1997 opening of the GMB has become a reference moment for star architecture. Having occurred in a medium-size, declining and less known city in the European panorama, this iconic project designed by Gehry acted as a benchmark for many cities looking for a new chance for development (Fig. 1.2). In summation, it is recognised that Europe does not display a homogenous urban panorama. There is not any single “European city” or European model (Benevolo 2007; Bagnasco and Le Gales 2000) that is seen or trying to be depicted, especially in relation to star architecture. For these reasons, the terms “cities in Europe” or “European cities” are used in the plural rather than the European city. At the same time, the development of star architecture projects exposes critical issues that are experienced at different levels in multiple cities in Europe. In addition, many influential architecture design firms are located in European cities. In part, this can be said also about ampler cultural influence in the field of architecture and urban design, like research centres and schools, magazines and prizes. As a consequence, one can find substantial research done about European cities and about the urban issues of star architecture. This wealth of works can be framed through joint ­perspectives and advance the understanding of how, more generally, ­contemporary cities inside and outside Europe interplay with star architecture, how they interpret special international projects and if and how they prepared to receive and adapt them to context.

8

Fig. 1.2 The location of the main cities and projects discussed in the book as specific case studies and as key examples. The map shows a variety of cities and of projects. In the research, global cities as Paris and London have been considered, as well as smaller centres. Also projects considered differ substantially both in their type or function (though mainly targeting culture centres) and in their size. This variety is crucial to reflect on the interplays of star architecture in European ­ cities (and beyond). (Source: Extracted from OpenStreetMap and adapted by Alexander Arndt)

1  Introduction: Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe

Reykjavik

Oslo

Riga

Liverpool

London

Hamburg Warsaw

Berlin

Wolfsburg Essen

Antwerp

Nord-Pas de Calais Le Havre Genevilliers Paris

Luxembourg Vienna Zurich Lucerne Lyon

Saint Emilion Bilbao

Graz

Creissels Arles

Genoa

Rome

Barcelona

Athens

300

Arles Frank Gehry LUMA Project Athens Bernard Tschumi Acropolis Museum Barcelona Jean Nouvel Agbar Tower Jean Nouvel Renaissance Hotel Berlin Norman Foster Bundestag Berlin Helmut Jahn Sony Center Bilbao

Liverpool

Renzo Piano Porto Antico Graz Peter Cook & Colin Fournier Kunsthaus Graz Hamburg Herzog & de Meuron Elbphilharmonie Le Havre Jean Nouvel Bains des Docks

GMP Architekten Citadeles Moduli Rome

Lucerne

Richard Meier Ara Pacis Museum

Jean Nouvel Kultur- und Kongresszentrum

Zaha Hadid Maxxi Museum

Luxembourg Lyon

Genoa

Riga

Renzo Piano The Shard

Essen

Rudy Ricciotti Aimé Césaire centre

Reykjavik Henning Larsen Architects Harpa-Reykjavik Concert Hall and Conference Centre

Herzog & de Meuron Tate Modern

Ieoh Ming Pei Musée d’Art Moderne

Genevilliers

Jean Nouvel Quai Branly Museum

London

Frank Gehry Guggenheim Museum Norman Foster Red Dot Design Museum

Kengo Kuma Musée Albert-Kahn Museum

Cesar Pelli Liverpool One

Norman Foster The Gherkin

Saint Emilion Christian de Portzamparc Winery Cheval Blanc

Coop Himmelb(l)au Musée des Confluences Nord-Pas de Calais SANAA Louvre-Lens Museum Oslo Snohetta Norwegian National Opera & Ballet Paris Frank Gehry Fondation Louis Vuitton Jean Nouvel Philharmonie de Paris Jakob + MacFarlane City of Fashion and Design Rudy Ricciotti & Mario Bellini Louvre Islamic Arts Department

1200km

Shigeru Ban La Seine Musicale

3XN New Museum of Liverpool

Jean Nouvel One New Change

600

Vienna Dominique Perrault DC Towers Massimiliano Fuksas Twin Tower Warsaw Daniel Liebeskind Zlota 44 Helmut Jahn Cosmopolitan Twarda 2/4 Wolfsburg Zaha Hadid Phaeno Zurich Renzo Piano Zentrum Paul Klee Zürich

Sanaa La Samaritaine

9

D. Ponzini et al.

4 Perspectives and Methods to Study Star Architecture’s Urban Interplays Substantial scholarly research has been undertaken to describe, discuss and evaluate the development and performance of specific aspects of star architecture projects. Particularly mono-disciplinary studies in architecture, urbanism, planning and tourism have produced significant literature on such special architecture projects. Geography, sociology and cultural and urban studies have produced substantial literature that elaborates theoretically on the interplay between architecture, culture and urban space. These disciplines have played a leading role in showing the importance of critical investigations of the urban roles and effects of star architecture projects. Nonetheless the attempts at bridging and consistently integrating different research approaches are limited today. Academic circles in architecture, urban studies and geography, sociology and economics rarely mix and share methods to face common problems. In particular, the issues of star architecture have been investigated through a variety of qualitative methods, but almost no attempt with systematic and quantitative methods has been done so far. In addition, the methods used in different fields sometimes make the findings not fully transferable, impairing in this way the accumulation and share of knowledge. This limits the understanding of the interplays between star architecture and the urban environment. This book brings together a group of scholars that have completed important research projects regarding the role of star architecture and design in contemporary cities and the impact of star architecture in repositioning cities and that are currently experimenting new qualitative and quantitative methods, mostly in the European context and some of its cities. The endeavour has been to develop and consolidate consistent conceptual and methodological positions across disciplines while keeping the focus on the relationships between star architecture and urban change. Individual contributions in this book bring into dialogue a range of themes regarding the urban aspects of these projects, their exchange with their respective urban context and heritage in particular, their diverse impacts as well as their visual dimensions and how they spread in media realms. In addition, a contribution by a participant in the development of a star architecture projects has been included. In Chap. 12, Thomas Held gives his account of the key factors that contributed to the development of Lucerne Culture and Congress Centre (Kunst- und Kulturzentrum Luzern) and the role of the political process that accompanied the development of this project. By grouping contributions from architects, geographers, urban planners and scholars and tourism and heritage experts, the common work we have done for this book highlights limitations of mono-disciplinary investigations and illustrates the potentials that a multidisciplinary group of researchers presents, echoing the multiple points of view and diverse expertise needed to generate star architecture. In particular the group of 10

1  Introduction: Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe

work adopts, among others, qualitative methods of research such as single case study of particularly problematic or relevant projects at the architectural and urban scales and comparative analysis of multiple cases within Europe and across European regions (e.g. Central Europe). The urban policy and planning implications of star architecture projects are analysed in different manners, gathering information through press reviews, analysis of official records and documentation as well as interviews with practitioners and stakeholders. Field observation of the projects plays an important role in understanding the interplays with the urban context and landscape, especially in historically rich situations. Morphological analysis of the urban environment and the effects that star architecture has at this level is systematised for the first time, among the methods to consider. Similarly, the visual and media analysis of such projects and their spread can be seen at work in the joint effort in understanding the social construction of star architecture for the first time. In the works, qualitative methods are often mixed with other more quantitative approaches, especially in understanding the impact and effects of exceptional projects at the urban level. The economic, social and ­cultural dimensions of such impact analyses are rich and encompass, among other things, media content analysis to show if and how the expected exposure can be linked to special projects (and to star designers). The joint work can develop from the first effort at systematically mapping star architecture projects across Europe and within cities (through a GIS database) and to derive basic quantitative evidence regarding how many, what sort of, when star architecture projects appeared in Europe and where (Ponzini and Manfredini 2017). The investigations developed have been based on general methods that have been nonetheless situated in a specific space-time context: cities of Europe since 1990 until present day. This is stated because the methods are not expected to lead to grand theoretical generalisation that can be applied indifferently to other geographic places or to other times in history. Also, there is an awareness of the interurban competition and the constant strive among cities for gaining global exposure and public attention. Yet it is acknowledged that there are great differences among the cities investigated in Europe. In this sense, the intent of repositioning should not be seen as climbing the ladder, implicitly or explicitly implying fixed rankings. Unpacking these processes shows to what extent certain criteria are politically and economically relevant and whether others are exogenous arguments and sometimes abstractions that simply favour certain social groups and powers. Given the complexity of the processes observed, there is an awareness that one can describe and even analytically model star architecture making, but without expecting predictive abilities. The interplays among one however important architectural project and a broader set of spatial visions, urban policies, plans and projects seem to characterise the opportunities for cities to develop much more. Resorting to international architects may be considered a way of “worlding” (Roy and Ong 2011) that should be understood in its own terms. 11

D. Ponzini et al.

Starting from specific themes and topics, the intention is to show new intellectual perspectives, interdisciplinary approaches and concrete research methods, in order to build common ground for future research works and the public debate, in Europe and beyond. In other words, it is anticipated that the result of systematic discussions across disciplines will benefit the international academic debate and public debate and urban policymaking at large.

5 Structure of the Book This wide array of approaches counts on a common understanding of star architecture as the result of a complex assemblage, a process that involves locally and transnationally multiple actors, besides the famous designers giving their talent and brand to it. Investigating its interplays with the urban environment in Europe, its heritage and landscape, with public space and the media, implies not only recognising that there is a need to share multidimensional perspectives but that there is a need to work through multiple scales, from the architectural to the urban and regional and from the European to the global. According to these understandings, this book is structured into four parts, as follows. Part I: Approaching Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe fleshes out the various perspectives with which “star architecture” as a research topic can be “attacked”. On the one hand, it is possible to unpack star architecture as a socio-material assemblage derived from the negotiations and adaptations among multiple interests, actors and agents (as discussed in Chap. 2 by Lieto); on the other hand, star architecture can be seen as a sociocultural performance generating (and regenerating) collective understanding of the use and transformation of the city (as argued in Chap. 3 by Leconte). In this way, star architecture projects are seen as entangled with their cities in several manners, deploying various (positive and negative) impacts and effects. Given our interest in the interplays between exceptional projects and the city, we felt the need to understand the entanglements among multiple actors, from the local to global scale, at various stages of star architecture making. The assessment of what star architecture is and what it does in a city must consider this multiplicity and its ambiguities, leaving the consideration of its potential effects open. In particular, it is now evident that there is a lack critique of the political economy of star architecture (who pays for it and who benefits from it) because this view is too narrow and concentrated on the work and fame of the star. One further trait of this framework is in fact the intention to conceptually identify (and possibly quantify) multiple dimensions (economic, social, media, etc.) of these ­special projects and see if and how these dimensions can be related to effects in a causal relationship (this is discussed especially in Chap. 4 by Thierstein, Alaily-Mattar and Dreher). This shift of the attention from star architects to the making of star architecture projects is, in the editors’ opinion, conceptually important, as 12

1  Introduction: Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe

it allows to expand the critical understanding of urban transformation from the design of a building to more complex interplays. The architect is not an autonomous artist-like agent, and the success cannot be simply ascribed to him/her or to its firm alone. Nor can one expect the architects to take responsibility for tasks that depend on politicians, local governments or more specifically planning departments (the connection to the field of urban design is discussed by Semi and Bolzoni in Chap. 5). This framing effort is important in order to explore the spread of star architecture projects in Europe in the last 25 years, as it is now possible to map and analyse the completed projects of most reputed firms (refer to Chap. 6 by Ponzini and Akhavan). In addition, the matter can open up a historical perspective not on style and aesthetics, but more broadly on the interplays of contemporary architecture and urban development. Also, according to this, the geographic scope of research can be broadened to different situations in Europe. Part II: Star Architecture and the Media investigates star architecture from the lens of the media. Architects’ engagement with the media is a long-term issue that can be historically and theoretically unpacked. The Internet and other digital technologies have undoubtedly accelerated the process of image building and spreading in recent years. In the past, paintings, postcards and souvenir photographs synthesised the essence of a place to visitors, typically through an icon, whether a spectacular tower, a rich palace or a magnificent square. Of course, the image of a city evolved in history with new architectural wonders (e.g. the image of the city of Paris through the development of the Eiffel Tower), but today one can see a rapid acceleration in substituting these icons that have higher and higher degrees of internationalisation. In Chap. 7, Alaily-Mattar and Thierstein investigate the often-made assumption that star architecture projects increase the media footprint of their respective cities. Another aspect of the discussion of star architecture and the media is that the growing mass circulation of images on the Internet contributes to the placelessness of the architectural icons, in a hyper-reality detached from any particular place and out of control of single agents involved in design. Exceptional and spectacular projects are designed also, or even more so, for the purpose of occupying a virtual site in the media (as explained by Michele Nastasi in Chap. 8). The latter, in turn, tends to depict buildings in abstract manners devoid of any sign of inhabited places or actual urban life. New communication strategies adopted by some firms involve the use of social media, subverting the construction of completed buildings’ images as well as their perception and narratives, from the bottom up Jacquot and Chareyron provide a new method and an in-depth analysis in this regard in Chap. 9. This confirms, again, that star architecture is socially constructed, rather than simply designed by one firm. Part III: Urban Performances of Star Architecture brings the multidimensional effects of star architecture to the fore. There are many urban paradoxes with star architecture. The expectation that the work of the same architectural firm alone can distinguish the image of very different cities across the world relies not only on alleged design expertise but on the 13

D. Ponzini et al.

a­ bility of generating “unique” projects. This issue is particularly relevant in the culture and practice of design in Europe. Urban design’s culture and its transnational practice face this paradox, not only in the occasion of star architecture projects but more generally (this resonates again with Chap. 5 by Semi and Bolzoni). In one case study, it can be observed as the city of Graz (Austria) intended to reposition itself through cultural events, the construction of the Kunsthaus Graz was one exercise contributing to this effort (analysed in Chap. 10 by Dreher, Alaily-Mattar and Thierstein). The case provides a broad picture of the different, possible effects of star architecture with ­reference to economic revitalisation, tourism and international visibility. Successful star architecture projects sometimes go beyond expectations in attracting new investments and collateral projects around them. This can introduce profound morphological changes in cities and their landscapes and in many cases have trickle-down effects that are unintended. Such processes can be mapped and studied – as in the case of the phaeno project by Zaha Hadid on the fringe of the industrial city of Wolfsburg (Germany) – in their multifaceted and eventually ambiguous interplays with the built environment (as explained in detail by Walter Naegeli in Chap. 11). The temporal and spatial intertwining with other urban transformations helps explain how star architecture  – as a social construct  – and broad urban effects are in fact performed and occur locally and are not simply “designed” and “built”. The importance of context and the location within the city and larger regional and metropolitan systems can be seen in the case of Paris, where an intense dialectic between centres and peripheries has occurred in the recent years with specific reference to new and spectacular cultural facilities and complexes (Maria Gravari-Barbas reflects on recent Parisian projects in Chap. 13). The relevance of the political process and how democracy can influence the decision-making and development process is explained by Thomas Held in Chap. 12, using the case of Culture and Congress Centre Lucerne (Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern). Maria Gravari-­ Barbas (Chap. 13) presents relevant cases in the Parisian urban region; it discusses how star architecture is used to perform a change in the urban form not only at the neighbourhood scale but also at the metropolitan scale. In Chap. 14, the last in this part, Fabian Wenner investigates the development of high-speed rail (HSR) stations as star architecture. His chapter quantifies this development and provides a valuable database to argue that ultimately there is a gap between the stations’ mobility relevance and the attention that is expected to derive from star designs. Part IV: Star Architecture in Heritage Rich Cities highlights the role of context with reference to a set of case studies in Europe. Many historic cities in Europe used to distinguish their image with reference to their past and recent heritage. Today, new architecture projects are interpreted as a key to revamping a city’s image, even in places that are rich in architectural heritage. However, placelessness – that implies very limited physical, functional, visual and symbolic relationships with the historic city – may be a side effect of transnational projects. A narrow group of international 14

1  Introduction: Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe

Fig. 1.3 View from St. Paul’s Cathedral. Since the erection of “The Gherkin” in the early 2000s, this part of the City of London has been transformed by multiple other iconic projects that overshadowed it. In the background of this photographs, one can see the 20 Fenchurch Street office tower, designed by Rafael Viñoly (the socalled “The Walkie-Talkie”), and the Leadenhall Building, designed by Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners ( “The Cheese Grater”). In the foreground, one can see the relationship between the cathedral and the new mall designed by French architect Jean Nouvel, called One New Change. (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2015)

architectural and engineering firms design tourist attractions as museums and cultural centres, stadiums, new monumental squares or retail complexes in multiple cities and countries. Ironically – rather than distinguishing their host city  – these attractions and their franchised shops in the surroundings tend to function in the same manner, promote similarly reassuring urban experiences and sometimes even look quite like one another. Exceptional projects affect the landscape of cities and for this reason spark political interaction at the local level. For example, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Westminster Palace and the Tower Bridge have been the s­ ymbols of London for centuries. Recently a new iconic shopping centre designed by the French archistar Jean Nouvel appeared on the city block next to St. Paul’s Cathedral; in the mid-2000s, all the three old icons were supplanted by the new spectacular building called “The Gherkin” (the latter resembles, among others, the new iconic building of Barcelona, the Agbar Tower, also by Jean Nouvel). Soon after the completion of The Gherkin, other star architecture buildings surrounded it and limited its visibility. In a few years, a new and taller­ building  – “The Shard” by Renzo Piano  – became the next symbol for London, despite strong opposition to its construction. Heritage experts and urban scholars argue that The Shard impairs the view of St. Paul’s Cathedral. London is not a unique case. The Ara Pacis Museum designed by Richard Meier or the MAXXI Museum designed by Zaha Hadid went through intricate paths for reaching completion in Rome (Fig. 1.3). How common is the presence of new and exceptional projects in historically sensitive cities (e.g. UNESCO World Heritage Sites)? How do these blockbuster projects relate (or not) to the urban landscape and heritage at the neighbourhood and city scales? And, in terms of urban fabrics and image building? Cominelli and Jacquot face these questions in Chap. 15. 15

D. Ponzini et al.

Given the layered landscape of European cities and the importance of ­fostering tourism economies, important frictions between the preservation of built heritage and the enhancement of its attractiveness for national and international visitors and the promotion of new architectural icons have emerged. In many institutional contexts, the actors promoting one (heritage-­ led) or the other (star architecture-led) strategy are opposed as public authorities or veto powers can affect developer’s business strategies and finally divert construction. Other players work at the national and international levels (as the star architects or UNESCO) and are sometimes effectively mobilised in order to legitimise one party or the other. A general overview (also provided in Chap. 15) and a set of relevant European case studies can provide important answers. In Athens, the process of designing the new Acropolis Museum by Bernard Tschumi and its surroundings was the field for strong contestations (as explained by GravariBarbas in Chap. 16). Vienna’s strong historic landscape, binding regulation over new buildings and the real estate market have been leveraged to limit the presence and effects of star architecture projects or confine them in the  outskirts (e.g. DC Tower designed by Dominique Perrault or by Massimiliano Fuksas). This case is discussed by Guinand in Chap. 17. In Part V: Conclusions, the last chapter brings together the most important findings regarding star architecture, its roles and effects on cities in Europe, its interplays with heritage and its manifestations in the media. The conclusion shows how this understanding helps in reflecting on many important urban projects in Europe and, more generally, rethinking the collective making of European cities as well (Fig.  1.4). In addition, Wilfried Wang criticises star architects and the flat and indistinguishable spectrum of the World Wide Web in which star architecture and overtourism are two sides of the same coin. Including this commentary in the book serves to share with the readers the concerns of architects about architecture’s engagement in the quests of global visibility and identity and to foster further civic debate about the transformation of European and more generally contemporary cities.

References Ahlfeldt GM, Holman N (2015) Distinctively different: a new approach to valuing architectural amenities. SERC Discussion Papers, p 171 Ahlfeldt GM, Maennig W (2010) Substitutability and complementarity of urban amenities: external effects of built heritage in Berlin. Real Estate Econ 38(2):285–323 Ahlfeldt GM, Mastro A (2012) Valuing iconic design: Frank Lloyd Wright architecture in Oak Park, Illinois. Hous Stud 27(8):1079–1099. https://doi.org/10.1080/026730 37.2012.728575 Alaily-Mattar N, Dreher J, Thierstein A (2018) Repositioning cities through star architecture: how does it work? J Urban Des 23(2):169–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 574809.2017.1408401 Bagnasco A, Le Gales P (eds) (2000) Cities in contemporary Europe. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Benevolo L (2007) La città nella storia d’Europa. Rome and Bari, Laterza Clerici MA (2018a) Culture progettuali in circolazione. La rete del commercio dei servizi di architettura e ingegneria nell’Unione Europea. Bollettino della Società Geografica Italiana 18

Fig. 1.4 (Previous pages) View of the city of Bilbao. The photograph puts the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao in its context. The renaissance of the city has been a complex process of planning and development of multiple urban elements, which benefited from the exposure of the iconic building designed by the star architect Frank Gehry. (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2010)

1  Introduction: Star Architecture in and Across Cities in Europe Clerici MA (2018b) Verso un mercato unico dei servizi avanzati. Flussi e reti del commercio dei servizi di architettura e ingegneria nell'Unione Europea. Rivista Geografia Italiana 125(4):549–574 Colomb C, Dühr S, Nadin V (2010) European spatial planning and territorial cooperation. Routledge, London Dühr S, Stead D, Zonneveld W (2007) The Europeanization of spatial planning through territorial cooperation. Plan Pract Res 22(3):291–307 González S (2011) Bilbao and Barcelona ‘in motion’. How urban regeneration ‘models’ travel and mutate in the global flows of policy tourism. Urban Stud 48(7):1397–1418 Gravari-Barbas M, Renard-Delautre C (2015) Starchitecture(s): figures d'architectes et espace urbain – Starchitecture(s): celebrity architects and urban space. Editions L’Harmattan, Paris Jencks C (2005) The iconic building: the power of enigma. Frances Lincoln, London Jones ZM, Ponzini D (2018) Mega-events and the preservation of urban heritage: literature gaps, potential overlaps, and a call for further research. J Plan Lit 33(4):433–450 Kunzmann K (2016) The Europeanization of spatial planning. In: Adams N, Alden J, Harris N (eds) Regional development and spatial planning in an enlarged European Union. Routledge, London, pp 57–78 McNeill D (2009) The global architect: firms, fame and urban form. Routledge, New York Newman P, Thornley A (2002) Urban planning in Europe: international competition, national systems and planning projects. Routledge, London Palermo PC, Ponzini D (2015) Place-making and urban development: new challenges for contemporary planning and design. Routledge, London Phaidon (2017) Destination architecture. The essential guide to 1000 contemporary buildings. Phaidon, London Ponzini D (2011) Large scale development projects and star architecture in the absence of democratic politics: the case of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. Cities 28(3):251–259 Ponzini D, Manfredini F (2017) New methods for studying transnational architecture and urbanism: a primer. Territorio 80/2017:97–110 Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture: scenes, actors and spectacles in contemporary cities. Monacelli Press, New York. [original edition 2011] Ren X (2011) Building globalization: transnational architecture production in urban China. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Roy A, Ong A (eds) (2011) Worlding cities: Asian experiments and the art of being global. Malden, Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell (studies in urban and social change). Int J Urban Reg Res 36(6):1353. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01216_2.x Sklair L (2017) The icon project: architecture, cities, and capitalist globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford Weidenfeld A (2010) Iconicity and ‘flagshipness’ of tourist attractions. Ann Tour Res 37(3):851–854

19

I

APPROACHING STAR ARCHITECTURE IN AND ACROSS CITIES IN EUROPE

2

Star Architecture as Socio-­ Material Assemblage Laura Lieto

Abstract

Taking inspiration from new materialism and assemblage, the chapter deals with star architects and iconic buildings as socio-material network effects that do not pre-exist action, but are enacted in practice, in the materiality of design crafting and city building. Star architects are here conceptualised as part of broader assemblages of actors and practices “making star architecture” a reality, and the buildings they design are considered not just as unique and iconic objects, but dis-articulated as complex crafts mobilising skills, technologies, materials and forms of knowledge not necessarily ascribable to architecture. Overcoming narrow criticism focusing on the symbolic order of icons as unique creations and alienated repetitions of capitalist development, the chapter’s main aim is to widen the scope of critique by bridging culture and economy, symbolism and practicality, making star architecture available to a broad, fragmented arena of (potential) critics, unevenly equipped with critical tools and differentiated experiences. Keywords

Star architecture · Assemblage · Multiplicity · Critique

1 Stardom and Icons: What Else?

L. Lieto (*) Università di Napoli Federico II, Department of Architecture, Napoli, NA, Italy e-mail: [email protected]

Star architects are persons in flesh and bone who happen to participate in the symbolic economy of stardom. Their faces, popping out of lavish magazines and websites, are as recognisable and familiar as those of other celebrities in the contemporary star system. As such, each of them is one of a kind, and their signature and personality are important, added values to the market ratings of the buildings they design. Likewise, a sense of uniqueness, of unambiguous presence in the urban landscape, features their buildings as physical outcomes of their design mastery (“that” building by Renzo Piano, “that” tower by Norman Foster). No matter how overrated “the romantic myth of the asocial, creative architect” (Jones 2009, p. 2524), knowledge focused on personality and uniqueness still has a relevant impact on how star architecture is u­ nderstood and criticised: the building as a tridimensional symbol of capitalist exploitation of

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_2

23

L. Lieto

labour and nature (Flierl and Marcuse 2009), entertaining an “autistic” ­relationship with the urban context to which it would be substantially indifferent (Kaika 2011), and the architect as its master minder, belonging to a transnational elite (McNeill 2005) and mostly a male figure perpetuating patriarchal order in the architectural firm (Scott-Brown 1989; Forsyth 2006). Both characters reverberate through vertical images of “futurity and globality which in turn are woven into complex landscapes of displacement and predatory speculation” (Graham and Hewitt 2012, p. 82). To be sure, all the critical work done on high-end architecture over the past decade has consistently challenged the “asocial conception” of architecture as an artistic, autonomous practice, foregrounding how the political and economic context deeply affects the production of architecture and how the latter, in turn, affects the neoliberal agenda through its peculiar language and aesthetic code (Sklair 2005, 2006; Jencks 2005; Sudjic 2006; McNeill 2005). In this framework, the symbolic economy of star architecture – the aesthetics and semiotics of some special eye-catching buildings, designed by celebrity architects to boost projects of city rebranding – has been understood for how it translates strategies of capitalist reproduction in the peculiar language of icons, the new “secular shrines” (Kaika and Thielen 2006) mastering both media coverage and landscape transformation as intensively as religious and civic monuments used to master public imaginary in the past. Combining aesthetics and politics, the critique of star architecture as a symbolic system is undoubtedly most appropriate to understand how iconography works in the urban landscape. As a “system of representation – conventions, structures and circulation  – within which the celebrity self resonates within the public sphere” (Holmes 2005, p.  10), architectural iconography is the entanglement of both the seductive power of the architect’s persona and the shimmering surfaces designed for the visual consumption of his creations (Frampton 1991). However, since iconic architecture is not part of the professional “natural market” (Gutman 1992), in the sense that it does not represent the vast majority of practising architects, it has remained confined within the realm of “major iconic statements” (Jones 2009, p. 2530), with an emphasis on aesthetics and semiotics, on discourses and images, rather than on the actual stuff of which architecture is made of. Stuff refers to the multiple socio-material practices crafting material objects as “interdependent fragments of a larger whole” (Molotch 2003, p. 1): a “lash-up” of economic mechanisms, cultural trends, standards and policies coming together. In such a gathering of heterogeneous elements, architecture’s conception and execution are enacted, from the tasks performed in the design studio with the aid of material devices like drawings and models to on-site works combining skills, construction materials and technologies. By looking at such a complex bundle, our glance is diverted from the sharp features of celebrity architects and iconic buildings glowing in the media and directed towards a plethora of human and non-human actors, objects, technologies, norms and places that make architecture an actual process of collective achievement. 24

2  Star Architecture as Socio-Material Assemblage

Uniqueness and personality, in this perspective, no longer matter as much as they do in the symbolic order of icons. From here, a different critique of star architecture can be articulated: not just as a field of production of “major iconic statements” fixating the current neoliberal order onto social imaginaries, but as a knot of “many surprising agencies” and a “contested territory that cannot be reduced to what it is and what it means” (Latour and Yaneva 2008, p. 86). We can start with a few questions: What happens when star architects are no longer regarded as individuals and conceptualised as part of broader assemblages of actors and practices “making star architecture” a reality? And what if the buildings they design are considered not just as unique and iconic objects, but dis-articulated as complex crafts mobilising skills, technologies, materials and forms of knowledge not necessarily ascribable to architecture? Questions like these are not entirely new. In part they echo a three-­ decade-­old conversation on architecture progressing out of architectural circles and involving feminist critics, cultural scholars, geographers and writers in the field of organisation studies who have differently emphasised the multiple actors and things in play when it comes to the production of both the architect and the building as social and bodily realities. As a novel contribution to this debate, this chapter provides answers taking inspiration from new materialism and assemblage as the constitutive form of ongoing urban realities (Farìas and Bender 2010; Lieto 2016; Rydin and Tate 2016). Accordingly, star architects and iconic buildings are thought of as socio-material network effects (Law 1986), i.e. they do not pre-exist action, are not naturalised entities, but exist as long as they are enacted in practice (Lieto 2017), in the materiality of design crafting and city building. Drawing on Anne Marie Mol’s concept of the body multiple (Mol 2002), which emphasises the multiple planes of experience through which a reality (whatever it is – a material object, a disease, a computer program) comes into being and is apprehended through its practical effects, both the celebrity architect and the iconic building are outlined as existing through the practices that make them relevant, which means understanding their relationship as actively reshuffled and negotiated in multiple sites and by enrolling multiple objects. Star architecture is a theoretical problem and a practical challenge. The coverage of stardom, placed upon architects and buildings, creates a “patina” of individualism (Dyer 1986) which stands in the way of a broader and more plural understanding of the complex socio-materiality involved in the star architecture-making process. The two perspectives, the symbolic and the material, can be usefully and interestingly complemented in order to debunk the rhetoric of branded development that reduces architecture to an iconography of wealth and power like any other commodity – fashion, sports cars or lifestyle rituals, for example, with which star architecture entertains a very productive relationship in its own terms. What is beneath the shimmering surface of the new “cathedrals of commerce” (Willis 1995; Flierl and Marcuse 2009) colonising urban landscapes all around the world is a quest for many cities 25

L. Lieto

less fortunate than those in the top rankings of urban competition, as is the case of second-tier European cities, also addressed in this edited collection, hardly coping with job loss, depopulation and lack of foreign investments and resorting to star architecture to be back in the competition game.

2 Star Architecture as Socio-Material Assemblage Star architects and buildings are not inherently coherent and homogeneous formations: they partake in the symbolic economy of icons as long as they actively participate in the socio-material production of the built environment. In this latter perspective, and drawing on Anne Marie Mol’s work, the assemblage in which they are entangled can be outlined as a specific manifestation of a body multiple (Mol 2002) in the urban space. In this sense, the body of the architect (the persona) and the body of architecture (the building) “are more than one [although] this does not mean that they are fragmented into being many” (Mol 2002, p. viii). In other words, both the celebrity architect and the iconic building are enacted in practice by a multiplicity of collaborations, involving human and non-human actors, technologies, places, norms and materials that make both terms of this relationship, and provide them with a sense of reality, achievement, performance and practical effect. In this perspective, the star architecture assemblage is understood as an open-ended process of gathering in which patterns of coordination and competition develop through different time-­ space rhythms (Lowenhaupt Tsing 2015). This kind of analysis bridges the symbolic with the factual, focusing on how such a socio-material assemblage comes into practice. Inspired by the Lefebvrian heuristic of triadical space (Lefebvre 1991), it conjoins conceived space and perceived space combining both the symbolic complexity of star architecture as a manifestation of capitalism in space and its practical experience as an actual process of gathering an open-ended array of people and things. Such a perspective, I argue, can be relevant to rise critical arguments about branded development, about its unequal effects in terms of redistribution of wealth and power and about its power over governments, markets and consumers. In particular, it can be useful to better understand the process of global architecture making, in order to extend the scope and arguments of urban development’s critique to the materiality of processes occurring in real places and affecting the everyday life of people differently dealing with star architecture. Taking the approach of practice and materiality implies viewing things for their multiplicity. Multiplicity is not pluralism: it means that a thing – a building, a physical person – becomes real and comes into the world not because multiple perspectives are in play around it in a constructivist sense while leaving the thing unaltered and stable, but because the thing itself is enacted through different practices. Perspectival approaches – like social constructivism  – assume that the thing stays the same, while different gazes move around and produce it as a reality through social conversation; 26

2  Star Architecture as Socio-Material Assemblage

the methodology of the multiple body proposed by Mol assumes instead that the thing is not passive, does not stay the same – that is, it does not fully pre-exist knowledge – but comes in play because it is enacted through practice in different sites, involving different humans and non-humans, and through a constant scale-shifting movement. The groundbreaking point in this approach is that “the singularity of objects [as well as the uniqueness of the star architect’s persona] so often presupposed, turns out to be an accomplishment. It is the result of the work of coordination and distribution” (Mol 2002, p. 119 – emphasis added). In this perspective, the chapter argues for a broader critical conver­ sation on star architecture not limited to specific expertise or driven by sectorial logics, but encompassing multiple planes of research collaboration. As in most writings in this edited collection, a multiplicity of approaches is in play, showing how to deal with the different, practical entanglements through which star architecture is enacted in the city. The multiplicity of star architecture can be traced, and different, meaningful connections can be critically addressed. Practical enactments do not just produce “outcomes” (buildings), but they also reveal “the many surprising agencies” (Latour 2005) operating within the star architecture assemblage.

3 Who’s and Where’s of Star Architecture Making Star architecture can be disentangled into an array of practices that make it a reality – an achievement, in Mol’s terms. To do so, we need to look at star architecture “in action”, as a process that is “overtaken” not by one agent, but many (Latour 2005), and “distributed” over different sites and different moments in time (Beauregard 2015b). When we ask “who’s acting?” in star architecture, we have to keep in mind that action is always networked, that nobody acts in a vacuum, and that interdependencies, collaborations, delegations and frictions between actors, objects, technologies and norms are always in play when acting (Lieto 2016). This sounds particularly compelling for global architects, regarded as “members of a heteronomous profession, interacting with and often reliant upon urban planners, quantity surveyors, project managers, and structural engineers. And clients, those who actually pay for and commission buildings, are as a group highly diverse, including politicians on government building committees, corporate chief executive officers, property fund managers, civil servants, and so on” (McNeill 2005, p.  502). Looking at architects from this standpoint, as highly dependent on a vast array of collaborating actors (Sarfatti-Larson 1993), also allows to grasp the places of these collaborations that are not obviously confined to the workshop or the building site, but extend over a distributed spatiality and overlapping times. Ubiquitous jet-setters (Colomina 1994; Jencks 2006; Sklair 2005), star architects are entitled to enact very different tasks: designing, advertising, lecturing, supervising, giving interviews and negotiating with their clients. 27

L. Lieto

These practices take place in ateliers, airplanes, conference rooms, ­construction sites, TV studios and the Internet. In such an extended and diluted spatiality, designers, engineers, interns, archivists, lawyers and general contractors interacting with star architects occupy different positions and operate in proximity as well as long distance, differently and substantially engaging – with their skills, expertise, ideas and sensibility – with common tasks. To navigate the distributed spatiality of star architecture, organisation studies provide a frame of reference interestingly drawing on the notion of community of practice (CoP) (Wenger 1998) to understand how learning and innovation circulate within the social production of global architecture (Faulconbridge 2010). In Wenger’s formulation, a CoP is formed by people who share problems, concerns and interests and have common educational backgrounds. In the case of global architecture, the formation of such communities reaches different time-space scales, ranging from local CoPs taking place into specific socio-spatial settings (the studio, the city, the district, the local job market) to “global scale perforating CoPs” like intra-firm networks (Faulconbridge 2010). In the tight intermingling of work and leisure spaces that is typical of creative industries as an urban process, local communities of practice linked to star architecture are often spaced out in studios, of course, but also bars and restaurants, city halls, museums, classrooms and conference rooms, revealing a thick fabric of places and practices in neighbourhoods and cities where knowledge and innovation circulate in the form of tacit knowledge (Polany 1967). These forms of concentration and clustering in local CoPs are then complemented with transnational networks of dispersed places, where ideas, people and things travel (Lieto 2015), and “the ability to design at distances far from the principal design office is increasingly feasible” (McNeill 2005, p. 513). Looking at star architecture from the extended and variable spatiality where it is actually enacted, we grasp it more as a socio-material process rather than an ideology of state or corporate branding. We come to understand, more specifically, that stakes in star architecture making are not just the outcomes (buildings), but rather the development of community networks in which people and things circulate on different time-space scales providing knowledge and innovation that actually feed the process of star architecture making. Knowledge and innovation do not pre-exist communities of practice, they are not referential but are actively produced in the making, and here objects are enrolled as collaborators in the process, as agents to which tasks are delegated. As an example of how material objects collaborate in knowledge production, think of models, images, drawings, websites and how they all “act” altogether as close allies of designers doing the job that designers alone cannot do (Yaneva 2005). These partner objects, as their human partners, do not stay in one place but travel as well, as they can be shipped or emailed to reach different places and people. Through digital or actual journeys, objects perform and contribute to enact star architecture transferring ideas that are generated in forms of collective endeavours and 28

2  Star Architecture as Socio-Material Assemblage

getting transformed and refined until they land to some final destination (the actual project, the construction site, etc.) (Lieto 2015). On this level of enactment, a multitude of things becomes visible, giving way to further trails of critical investigation of architecture as a practical endeavour. Power circulates in star architecture communities, not just in the concentrated form of architectural icons (the seductive power of images), but broadly distributed along patterns of cooperation and competition forming a peculiar project ecology (Hedlund 1986; Grabher 2002). In a project ecology, knowledge and experience circulate through places and are fostered by ties of trust and collaboration; ongoing confrontations between actors, ideas, styles and business opportunities “provide causes for power struggles and rivalry [considered rather than] unintended side-­effect, as an essential ingredient of project-base collaboration” (Grabher 2002, p. 248). Ranging from a specific locale to transnational networks of partners and peers – linking big cities and metropolitan regions with high concentration of architectural practices – the project ecology of star architecture sets the “boundaries between professions, project teams, organisations [and] sub-sectors of trade” (ibid, p.  255), within which interdependencies and rivalries about economic and reputational stakes shape “relations of power that are routinely reproduced in mundane practices of organising [and that] reproduce and introduce tensions” (Brown et al. 2010, p. 526). The socio-spatial constellation where star architecture is enacted is heterogeneous and adaptive, mixing ties of trust and mutual recognition with competitive relations as well as occasional forms of collaboration. Material spaces and objects matter in how power-knowledge relations are performed, sustained or challenged within the constellation, which encompasses, not being limited to, the actual sites where iconic buildings get in place. Such sites are themselves “worlds” of practical enactments, conducive of power relations exceeding the scale and scope of specific construction sites and specific buildings. Buildings are not passive objects. In the perspective of multiplicity, they aren’t either the physical, mechanical outcome of the architect’s talent, nor just symbolic weapons in the hands of market agents or elite coalitions. The singularity of the building is an accomplishment, a result of coordination and a contingent stabilisation of power and knowledge mutually interfering. In this sense, buildings can be considered as material ­constellations that are done differently, i.e. at different spatial-temporal rhythms, from construction to living and using once the building is in place. The embedding of a building in a local context (Faulconbridge 2009) is a matter of regulation of forces, objects and flows operating across different spatialities and getting “down to earth” in specific contexts, according to local rules, cultures and urban regimes. Looking at this embedding process allows to see how possibilities of practical enactment of buildings can be ever-expanding: from matters of local governance and regulatory issues rising when a complex project is falling in place (Imrie and Street 2011) to the actual process of construction as a complex endeavour mobilising actors, norms, contracts, standards and materials (Latour and Yaneva 2008). 29

L. Lieto

However, in the perspective of practicalities, “getting the building done” is not just a matter of scale, and it does not end either with rezoning or with construction works. Many other fields of experience participate in a complex achievement such as the construction of an architectural icon. Safety on the working place, for example, is one of those of fields where buildings are enacted, and it entails impacts on human health for those, like construction workers, spending long hours at considerable heights (Li and Lee 1999) or exposed to lead and other toxic substances (Forst et al. 1999). Again, the field of inquiry is ever-expanding and entails a multitude of practical layers that congregate around this complex and challenging object we call star architecture.

4 Conclusions As a practice stretching between business and art, commercial interests and creative work, star architecture emerges as a heteronomous field (Sarfatti-Larson 1993) deeply entangled with materiality and driven by power, reputation and competition. The approach of practicalities outlined in the chapter paves the way for a critical understanding not limited to star architecture’s symbolic economy but open to multiple practices that actually enact star architecture as a socio-material assemblage. Such an assemblage holds through an active scale-making process, regrouping places and temporalities across localities as well as transnational networks, where different actors, objects, norms and technologies travel and contingently aggregate around common tasks. Such an understanding of star architecture expands the scope of analysis beyond the finitude of specific buildings towards a broader entanglement of places, people and things. And, in this perspective, we start thinking of star architecture as a process touching upon different socio-­ spatial conditions, from cities and neighbourhoods where architectural firms cluster with other creative industries, to the worldwide network of premium universities and museums where iconic architecture is studied, advertised and narrated to the public, to flexible transnational work settings cooperating to deliver projects designed from afar. Moreover, looking at star architecture as multiplicity highlights how design responsibility is distributed rather than concentrated in the hands of the celebrity architect, and this approach has consequences on how we deal with design ethics and issues of power shaping the creative environment to which star architects belong. We become aware of gender inequalities, competitions and rivalries, but also of collaborations and mutual learning cementing communities with a strong local fix, embedded in cities and regions where conditions are favourable for the industry to flourish, but also participating in broader, transnational communities of practice where knowledge and innovation circulate and are shared. This perspective opens on different policy options that are not limited to the big name and the signature building as a rebranding strategy for, say, a declining city eager to “get back in the game” of international competition. Policy 30

2  Star Architecture as Socio-Material Assemblage

options can also deal with infrastructure and services that may support the formation of communities where knowledge and innovation circulate and are transferred and learned. Thinking about iconic buildings in the same perspective helps understanding these particular objects as powerful network effects, as crossroads connecting multiple practices, actors, norms and technologies belonging to different spatial and temporal projects. Overcoming narrow criticism focusing on the symbolic order of iconic buildings as unique creations and alienated repetitions of capitalist development, we no longer look at these objects as just incarnations of modernist sublime, assertions of corporate power or weapons in a cultural battle between old and new (Sudjic 2006; Acuto 2010). We rather aim to widen the scope of critique by bridging culture and economy, symbolism and practicality. In other words, the critique of star architecture as multiple instantiation of capitalist power becomes available to a broad, fragmented arena of (potential) critics that are unevenly equipped with critical tools and differentiated experiences. We do not “blame the building” (Beauregard 2015a) nor the architect as respectively a symbol and an agent of capital reproduction in space: we seek to understand how these agencies are enacted in practice and thus to uncover relations, actors, technologies and norms that actively contribute to put them in place. In doing so, we avoid the strictures of symbols’ critique attaching to specific individuals or objects responsibilities and intentions for inequalities and conflicts, missing a broader picture to uncover and investigate, as the chapters in this edited collection do from different perspectives. Star architecture has been gaining momentum in the political agenda in many urban regions around the world (Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). Between energetic supporters and passionate denigrators, this particular form of capital accumulation in space is accounting for the crucial role that architecture is increasingly playing in how cities and neighbourhoods are lived and experienced today. Iconic buildings are not just the ultimate wonder for tourists and users eager to consume the new urban spectacle (Elsheshtawy 2009), they can also be highly controversial objects and mobilise publics around complex issues (Graham and Hewitt 2012). Global architects hired by authoritarian regimes and corporate organisations to design their new headquarters, for example, create no little problems to firms and professionals forced to operate invariably in and out of democratic states. Nonetheless, power structures and forms of inequality have hardly prevented architecture to be part of cultural and life worlds in the past (Kaika and Thielen 2006). Recent examples like the CCTV building in Beijing or the Burj Khalifa in Dubai show how celebrity architects and buildings are caught in the ambiguous middle ground between a market-­driven logic, which ignores issues of democracy and political rights, and the progressive role architecture can play as a process enticing multiple practices, places and life worlds. In this perspective, the architect and the building – thought as multiple bodies – are no longer the exclusive province of architectural theory but 31

L. Lieto

become available to a broader critical spectrum, including health, labour, ethics and the politics of everyday life. Here, I believe, is where “better research and […] more informed, critical and reflective attitudes in policy makers and experts can be crucial at the local level” (Ponzini and Nastasi 2016, p. 29), conjoining specific urban problems with broader matters of concern.

References Acuto M (2010) High-rise Dubai: urban entrepreneurialism and the technology of ­symbolic power. Cities 27(4):272–284 Beauregard RA (2015a) We blame the building. The architecture of distributed responsibility. Int J Urban Reg Res 39(3):533–549 Beauregard RA (2015b) Planning matter. Acting with things. Chicago University Press, Chicago Brown DA, Kornberger M, Clegg SR, Carter S (2010) ‘Invisible walls’ and ‘silent hierarchies’: a case study of power relations in an architecture firm. Hum Relat 63(4):525–549 Colomina B (1994) Privacy and publicity: modern architecture as mass media. MIT Press, Cambridge MA Dyer R (1986) Heavenly bodies: film stars and societies. BFI, London Elsheshtawy Y (2009) Dubai. Behind an urban spectacle. Routledge, London/New York Farìas I, Bender T (eds) (2010) Urban assemblages. How actor-network theory changes urban studies. Routledge, London/New York Faulconbridge JR (2009) The regulation of design in global architecture firms: embedding and emplacing buildings. Urban Stud 46(12):2537–2554 Faulconbridge JR (2010) Global architects: learning and innovation through communities and constellations of practice. Environ Plan A 42(12):2842–2858 Flierl B, Marcuse P (2009) Urban policy and architecture for people, not for power. City 13(2–3):265–277 Forst L, Persky V, Freels S, Williams R, Conroy L (1999) Lead exposure in ironworkers. Am J Ind Med 32(5):540–543 Forsyth A (2006) In praise of Zaha. Women, partnership, and the star system in architecture. J Archit Educ 60:63–65 Frampton K (1991) Reflections on the autonomy of architecture: a critique of contemporary production. In: Ghirado D (ed) Out of site: a social criticism of architecture. Bay Press, Seattle, pp 17–26 Grabher G (2002) The project ecology of advertising: tasks, talents and teams. Reg Stud 36(3):245–262 Graham S, Hewitt L (2012) Getting off the ground: on the politics of urban verticality. Prog Hum Geogr 37(1):72–92 Gutman R (1992) Architects and power: the natural market for architecture. Prog Arch 7(12):39–41 Hedlund G (1986) The hypermodern MNC  – a heterarchy? Hum Resour Manage 25(1):9–35 Holmes S (2005) ‘Starring… Dyer?’: Re-visiting star studies and contemporary celebrity culture. Westminster Papers in Communication and Culture 2(2):6–21 Imrie R, Street E (2011) Architectural design and regulation. Blackwell, London Jencks C (2005) Iconic buildings: the power of enigma. Frances Lincoln, London Jencks C (2006) The iconic building is here to stay. City 10:3–20 Jones P (2009) Putting architecture in its social place: a cultural political economy of architecture. Urban Stud 46(12):2519–2536 Kaika M (2011) Autistic architecture: the fall of the icon and the rise of the serial object of architecture. Environ Plann D 29:968–992 Kaika M, Thielen K (2006) Form follows power. A genealogy of urban shrines. City 10(1):59–69 Latour B (2005) Re-assembling the social. Oxford University Press, Oxford 32

2  Star Architecture as Socio-Material Assemblage Latour B, Yaneva A (2008) Give me a gun and I will make all buildings move. In: Geiser R (ed) Explorations in architecture. Teaching, design, research. Birkhäuser, Basel, pp 80–89 Law J  (1986) On the methods of long distance control: vessels, navigation and the Portuguese route to India. In: Law J (ed) Power, action and belief: a new sociology of knowledge? sociological review monograph, vol 32, pp 234–263 Lefebvre H (1991) The production of space. Basil Blackwell, Oxford Li KW, Lee CW (1999) Postural analysis of four jobs on two building construction sites: an experience of using the OWAS method in Taiwan. J Occup Health 41(3):183–190 Lieto L (2015) Cross-border mythologies. The problem with traveling planning ideas. Plan Theory 14(2):115–129 Lieto L (2016) Things, rules and politics. In: Lieto L, Beauregard RA (eds) Planning for a material world. Routledge, London/New York, pp 26–41 Lieto L (2017) How material objects become urban things? City 21(5):568–579 Lowenhaupt Tsing A (2015) The mushroom at the end of the world. Princeton University Press, Princeton/Oxford McNeill D (2005) In search of the global architect: the case of Norman Foster (and partners). Int J Urban Reg Res 29(3):501–515 Mol A (2002) The body multiple. Duke University Press Molotch H (2003) Where stuff comes from. Routledge, London/New York Polany K (1967) The tacit knowledge dimension. Routledge/London, Keagan Paul Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture. Scenes, actors and spectacles in contemporary cities. The Monacelli Press, New York Scott-Brown D (1989) Room at the top? Sexism and the star system in architecture. In: Rendell J, Penner B, Borden I (eds) (2000) Gender space architecture. An interdisciplinary introduction. Routledge, New York, pp 258–265 Rydin Y, Tate L (eds) (2016) Actor networks of planning. Routledge, London/New York Sarfatti-Larson MS (1993) Behind the postmodern façade: architectural change in late twentieth-century America. University of California Press, Berkeley Sklair L (2005) The transnational capitalist class and contemporary architecture in ­globalizing cities. Int J Urban Reg Res 29:485–500 Sklair L (2006) Iconic architecture and capitalist globalization. City 10(1):21–47 Sudjic D (2006) The edifice complex: how the rich and powerful shape the world. Penguin Press, London Wenger E (1998) Communities of practice: learning meaning and identity. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Willis C (1995) Form follows finance, skyscrapers and skylines in New  York and Chicago. Princeton Architectural Press, New York Yaneva A (2005) Scaling up and down: extraction trials in architectural design. Soc Stud Sci 35(6):867–894

33

3

The Representation of Star Architecture between Local and Global Identities Uta Leconte

Abstract

Many want to see architecture as an art that is autonomous, freely displaying its author’s ideas and creativity. On the contrary, this chapter considers star architecture as part of broader socio-economic and symbolic relationships and concentrates on the production of identities in the framework of globalisation since the late twentieth century. The question of how and why star architecture represents certain local and global identities and how it interacts with different players in its urban surroundings as well as with the world is examined. The representation of star architecture buildings in highly visible cities is often affected by the process of financialisation and the compression of time and space into hyperreal settings, connecting buildings as mere images. This chapter argues that social production of star architecture implies, in European cities in particular, the representation of both local and global identities for diverse and sometimes conflicting purposes. Keywords

Cultural theory · Globalisation · Star architecture · Representation · Identities · Capitalism

1 European Cities within the Global Network

U. Leconte (*) Technische Universität München, Department of Architecture, Munich, Germany e-mail: uta.leconte@ tum.de

Global cities (Sassen 2001) or world cities (Friedmann 2006) function as visible nodes in hubs of more and more interconnected and financialised economic systems. Cities with lower levels of interconnectedness and economic weight are similarly linked to varied global networks and have particular cultural heritage, “ground” and context. On a nation-state level, European countries share this common identity while maintaining their individual identities based on their heritage, culture, language or political system, just as European cities constantly shape and are shaped by complex layers of multiple identities. Thus, European cities relentlessly position themselves in their multiple relations towards the past, the future, their own heritage, their nation-state, Europe, the world and other systems

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_3

35

U. Leconte

of meaning. Cities act not only in their multiplicity of stakeholders, such as planners, policymakers and interest groups, but also as assembled macro-actors, thus manufacturing one urban identity for specific economic purposes, without abandoning the multiplicity of identities of their constituent parts in the real city life. Within the global competitive system, cities compete with each other for visibility and for the recognition as trade partners and sites for investment, residence, tourism or education. Cities seek to be identified in their desired role and thus represent themselves in different and multilevel contexts – star architecture plays a prominent part in this process of identity construction (Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). The visibility of certain urban identities carries information both on economic and symbolic exchange values; it needs to be dynamic and abstract to be understood by different recipients, yet concrete in order to express specific value. Identities sometimes become instrumental in manifesting and visualising cities’ agencies in order to support the cities’ cultural, social, economic and political interests within a perpetual process of identity building. Representation can be a tool for repositioning urban identities through architecture, assembling different representations in time and place into one (e.g. one compelling city image for global tourism). Reasoning from an architectural and cultural theory perspective, this chapter looks at the mechanisms involved in the process of the construction, reproduction and transformation of urban identities in European cities. It is argued that the concept of representation, as described in cultural theory since the onset of the current globalisation in the early 1970s, is a vital sociocultural practice in maintaining the current global network (Hannerz 1990).

2 Fluid Urban Identities Investigating how star architecture produces specific identities in European cities, this chapter focuses on the relationship between a star architecture building and its city and how this affects the process of constructing identities. Today, “identity building” is a criterion explicitly demanded by planners when tendering and commissioning such architecture; it is also a service branded by architectural firms (Klingman 2007). As Ponzini, Alaily-Mattar and Thierstein outline in the introduction to this volume, cities use star architecture to define their positions within their global, regional or national context and to make this position visible. In their iconicity and branded fame, star architecture buildings function as symbolic objects and carriers of multiple meanings. How are identities represented through the making of star architecture? What happens when identities of cities, nations, architectural practices, institutions or companies intersect? Within this complex interplay, star architecture functions as an assemblage, which represents meaning and creates meaning within a system of signs and signifiers. The specific “stardom” around the heroic “star architect” is in itself a constructed identity, maintaining the image of a single 36

3  The Representation of Star Architecture between Local and Global Identities

creator while representing a multinational architectural firm with numerous employees and project partners and, in fact, a multi-actor process in the making of star architecture. Given the limited scope of this investigation (and the in-depth discussion in Chap. 2 by Lieto), details about the specific role of star architects will be excluded in this chapter. The dynamics and complexities involved in the construction and transformation of identities have been widely discussed in social theory. Identities change over time and context, are multiple as well as contingent (Till 2008) and intersect with corresponding identities (Borden and Rendell 2000). In addition to the social concept of identity, the identity of place also comes into play when talking about the production of identity by architecture in the urban environment. These territorial identities emerge and transform themselves as a result of the interplay between buildings, humans and a multiplicity of other dynamic factors, such as environmental, political or economic conditions, leading to a constant negotiation between the identities of humans and the identities of places and cities (Palermo and Ponzini 2015). A closer look at the representation of urban identities shows how appropriation in relation to an increased global competitiveness serves to devalue social justice and cohesion values (Groys 2017). While acknowledging the paradox of the global, being unity and multiplicity at once, Anthony King prefers to speak of “global cultures” when analysing and differentiating the processes that help to maintain and reproduce the global network and contribute to a homogenisation of the world and its urban spaces (King 2004). For Manuel Castells, the permanent production of identities, as well as conflicting identities, is an organising principle of the “network society”, affecting urban space, politics and the social sphere (Castells 2010). To summarise, the cultural production of identities can be considered a main force in the maintenance of the global network from a variety of theoretical perspectives. The production of identities takes place in global hubs, i.e. cities, where identities are visibly performed, function as a medium and travel via images around the world. When offering specific identities for specific places, architectural firms are set the task of creating both sameness and otherness in respect to the existing urban environment – “sameness” in the sense of fitting in, “otherness” in the sense of reaching out to the global and transforming the existing urban fabric by bringing in new information from outside. With this ingestion of global signage, the city is becoming more readable and more transferable within the global network, while the global is gaining more presence within the city. In this process of globalisation, star architecture serves as a visible landmark within the global network, increasing the city’s global connectivity and transferability (Adam 2012; Sklair 2017). To “produce culture”, hence economic and symbolic exchange value, city authorities manage identities. Here, contingency planning becomes necessary in order to deal with the different and dynamic qualities of identity: identities can change unexpectedly or become “spoiled” (Rivera 2008), depending on internal and external economic, social or political risk factors, instabilities and crises. Within the economic and symbolic system, 37

U. Leconte

identities can therefore be value-adding, but, once spoiled, they can become stigma (Goffman 1963). The transformative process of repositioning requires a cohesive narrative that allows the represented identity to be seen, understood and accepted within a common value system. To understand the multilayered and dynamic concept of identities and what it serves in relation to architecture, cities and their global context, the following discussion takes a closer look at how identities are constructed by the concept of representation within star architecture. Further, it examines how the global network and its implications regarding value, meaning and power translate into a global star architecture system.

3 Architectural Representation in Cultural Theory There are a wide range of concepts of representation within various traditions of thought and areas of knowledge, for example, in Marxism, Hegelianism or Kantianism. In order to understand how representation works as a tool for the repositioning of urban identities, the following provides a brief look into the concept of representation in cultural studies since the 1970s; the focus is in particular on how the concept of representation relates to star architecture in its urban context. As a reaction to the global financial paradigm shift in the early 1970s, cultural theoreticians started to engage in a broad examination of the cultural conditions of global capitalism, with a particular interest in architecture as representation of capital and symbolic object. Post-Marxist thinkers examining the conditions of postmodernity, such as David Harvey or Fredric Jameson, took on Marx’ critique of ideology and his preoccupation with the dissonance between reality and appearance, the presented and its representation (Harvey 1990; Jameson 1991). In parallel to the preoccupation with representation in the socio-economic and political domain, new, semiotic and linguistic works emerged, discussing representation in the context of meaning, the relation of signifier and signified and the existence of a symbolic system of inter-referring signs (e.g. François Lyotard, Jean Baudrillard). As a result, iconicity has emerged as a key element of postmodern architecture, both as part of the theoretical discourse and the built environment (Jencks 1987). Today the preoccupation with the sociocultural conditions in what is now considered “late capitalism” (Harvey 1990; Jameson 1991) has all but diminished. A series of global financial crises have impacted the global world order with the effect that contingency and instability resonate in all cultural, social and economic interactions, including architecture. As globalisation has unfolded, mechanisms of global competition, marketisation, commodification of nearly every cultural performance and the cultural study of economic conditions have increasingly entered the spaces of architectural theory (Saunders 2005). The question of what it meant for architecture and architects to “build for money” rather than for the common good entered the field to a large part, due to the growth of the global real estate market and the global financial markets’ 38

3  The Representation of Star Architecture between Local and Global Identities

increased appetite for architecture as a financial product (Deamer 2014; Spencer 2016). It is no surprise that star architecture has been one of the centres of discussion in the discourse about representation and the economic conditions of cultural production. Its inherent double coding of both instantiating society and representing society (Delitz 2011) and of a physical object and a symbolic object (Baudrillard 1981) can be traced back to its epistemological origins as both “oikos”, meaning “economy”, “state”, “city” as well as “private/social space” (Trüby 2014). Reinhold Martin explains postmodernisms’ strong influence on architecture and the intersectionality of symbolism and materialism in terms of two axes as follows: “Here architecture, as a form of ‘immaterial production’ fully materialised, stands at what we can call the crux of postmodernism, operating simultaneously along an axis of representation and an axis of production” (Martin 2016, p. 176). A closer look at this intersection of symbolic representation and the material production of space in European cities shows how these qualities are interwoven and cooperate in the production of the urban environment (Yaneva 2009). Based on the relevance of the concept of representation within all sociocultural practices in globalisation, in the following, the concept of representation in relation to star architecture in European cities will be investigated further.

4 Representation I: Symbolic Values of Architectural Commodities The particular commodification of architecture within global capitalism can be described by the ambiguous connotation of “real estate”: both terms “real” and “estate” refer to the concrete and solid property of land and building(s) but at the same is understood to be a market product and even a financial product. Real estate companies are sometimes indexed and publicly traded, their assets can become financial product. In other words, it is common to convert real estate and even development projects into currency and make them tradable and transferable on global financial markets. In the urban planning context, this means engaging in architectural production on a star architectural level means to participate in the global financial market, and in particular the value exchange can be affected by given expertise (Robin 2018). Financial speculation impacts architectural design in particular as it creates a need for narratives and images that can be coded with meanings and implicate financial value and economic success. As a consequence of increased competition and privatisation along with a power shift from nation-states towards transnational corporations, the role of city governances is changing in such a way that cities feel the need to act more entrepreneurially or engage in public-private partnerships in order to manage large urban projects. City branding and marketisation result in an increasing demand of images for global dissemination, directed both inwards, to the city, and outwards. 39

U. Leconte

In cities as hubs within the global network and places of financialisation, it is not only the interchange of finance and commodities that is taking place. Further, the spectacle of value exchange is being performed as a value itself and transmitted as a value indicator within the global market system. The practices of indexing cities or city rankings bear witness to the described global competition, enacted at city level. As case studies throughout this volume show, cities use the competitive system and develop strategies to reposition themselves on a symbolic level, deploying star architecture, with the objective of profiting economically and financially as a city and securing the stabilities gained with long-term effects (Alaily-Mattar et  al. 2018). By representing global economic and symbolic exchange value, city actors can position themselves as market players in relation to other cities in the world.

5 Representation II: Highly Visible Cities Global cities’ images typically are two-dimensional representation of spatial reality. Viewing the aspect of the spread of images and spectacles, cities can be seen as a world arena. To increase the radius of visibility from an urban to a global scale, star architecture in its iconicity is able to disseminate urban identities within global language patterns. “Identity building” images are being circulated in the global flow of information, imagery, commodities and money as exchange value and as part of a constant reassurance and reinvention of the city’s identity and position. By representing specific meanings, architecture functions as a transmitting agent between the urban fabric and the global network. The creation of iconicity within the process of making specific identities visible allows for “iconic compression”, enabling the “portability” of meanings (Bartmanski and Alexander 2012). There is a broad body of research on the role of the image and iconicity in globalisation within cultural theory. Star architecture produces images and icons at an unprecedented global scale and is a defining criterion in the aesthetic and philosophical concept of postmodern architecture (Jencks 1987). Hence, the function of images is at the centre of the discussion about star architecture (Ponzini and Nastasi 2016; Sklair 2017). Within the scope of this chapter, the interest lies not in the fact that buildings represent meaning and identity in their iconicity and as such function as a symbolic object (Baudrillard 1981), the aim is rather to elaborate on the quality of the production of identities by images in architecture. In The Society of the Spectacle, Guy Debord describes the gradual economisation of social and cultural life as movement from “being” into “having” and eventually from “having” into “appearing” (Debord 1967, p. 17). Following Debord, who regards the performance of the spectacle as a social relation, architecture in its interplay can be seen as a performance of social relations. As a medium, it takes part in a performance on various scales, organising and reproducing social relations. 40

3  The Representation of Star Architecture between Local and Global Identities

Fredric Jameson observed in his cultural analysis of the conditions of postmodernism “architecture’s appetite for photography” (Jameson 1991, p. 99). In preference for the two-dimensionality of the architectural image over the tridimensionality of the spatial reality of a building, the “distinction between the inside and the outside” has been abolished (Jameson 1991, p. 98). Today, the building envelope as a medial sign carrier is part of a social system of representation on a global scale (Scheppe 2011), façades triumph over programmes, functions and footprints of buildings, since they produce the images that travel through the global signage system. Jameson calls a very similar process “wrapping” that “can be seen as a reaction to the disintegration of that more traditional concept Hegel called “ground,” which passed into humanistic thought in the form named “context” (...)” (Jameson 1991, p. 99). In Part II of this volume, Alaily-Mattar, Nastasi, Jacquot and Chareyron focus on the agency of star architecture within the media landscape from various perspectives. Martino Stierli remarks on the absence of discourse about the visuality of architecture. He suggests looking at buildings not only as images but rather as an “apparatus for the production and display of an image” (Stierli 2016, p. 313). The dominant role of the visibility of icons within the discourse about star architecture crystallises architecture as mere image. When putting the three dimensionality and spatiality of architecture back in focus, buildings appear as agents within the urban environment, both in physical terms and as a representation acting in the construction of the urban landscape (see Chap. 8 by Nastasi in this volume).

6 Representation III: Hyperreal Urban Projects After looking at the representation of finance and the representation of space, a third category of representation to be discussed in this chapter is the representation of time in its temporality and reality. Beatriz Colomina turns the perspective of the image of architecture around and looks at the architecture of images and how these images are constructed in architecture, stating that “the image is itself a space carefully constructed by the architect” (Colomina 2008, p.  59). In doing so, she proclaims a shift in temporality when she claims the image to be precedent to the architecture, rather than the image being a representation of architecture. Colomina’s deconstruction of the process of production of architectural images reveals the manipulation of time in this process. While the temporary moment becomes permanent with the image, it simulates the present in its reality. In a timeless simultaneity, future and past are staged in a presence that Baudrillard calls “hyperreality” (Baudrillard 1981). For Baudrillard, reality is replaced by signs and symbols, the simulation of realities by the representation of realities is social practice. In a next step, he denies the existence of an underlying “real”, original reality or meaning, a social performance Baudrillard calls “simulacrum”. Cities, in their effort to reposition themselves, do this in relation to their past and heritage, as well as in 41

U. Leconte

respect to a desired future. Images of the future are rendered and imagined, and architecture serves as a perfect tool when designing places for future living conditions. At the same time, history is always rendered and transformed, when contemporary star architecture relates to the cities’ past. In the mode of representation, the present seems to be a fluid condition between “just past” and “not yet”: “The present offers itself in all innocence and cruelty (...). But this evidence is misleading, fabricated. It is an adulterated product that simulates presence (...) A kind of (dissimulating) simulator of the present: the image!” (Lefebvre 1992, p. 31). The role images take throughout the entire process of the production of star architecture – from development, financing, design to realisation – confirms the above statements. Architectural renderings visualise a future, one that is “produced” and can be consumed. They visualise a future that is both imaginable and plausible in its relation to the past. Images not only “sell” future architecture to users and investors, they also make a projected future credible and bring it into being. The credibility designed serves as a prerequisite for financialisation: credit is needed to speculate upon the future, “real estate” is the representation of the materialisation of value. Today, the actors involved in the production of images are not only the professional stakeholders involved in the production of architecture, city planners, architects and investors, but also users – people who live, work or travel are actively involved via social media in staging architecture via images: eventually, architecture is being designed to “fit” a representation. In Chap. 8, Nastasi examines the use of both professional and amatorial architecture photography in social media in this respect. Architecture being both symbolic object and material object is able to function at the same time as material presence and presentation of multiple identities throughout time and space, performing for the purposes of speculation as well as for political objectives as social cohesion.

7 Representation as Cohesion In investigating the production of urban identities as global and local sociocultural processes, this chapter has focused on the concept of representation, its meaning and role in the production of space and how it is utilised by star architecture in European cities. It has been argued that since the 1970s global economic and societal paradigm shift towards an unstable speculative system, “ways of seeing” (Berger 1972) are related to the global economic system, and the production of images has become as important as the production of material objects. It has further been argued that representation creates unity, fluidity and indifference, acting as a cohesive narrative agent within the global urban system and around it. Depending on their present position within the global network, cities reposition themselves using star architecture by representing a desired future identity, with the symbolic potentially fostering the speculative components. Star architecture gets assembled locally and globally, and, in the process, it can create economic value as well as new meanings attached 42

3  The Representation of Star Architecture between Local and Global Identities

to place. At the same time, in its agency as currency, star architecture becomes fluid, its exchangeability establishes connectivity at the global scale. European cities in particular are entangled in this process that can involve multiple identities and highly visible symbols and places that get to be represented in the forms of star architecture.

References Adam R (2012) The globalisation of modern architecture: the impact of politics, economics and social change on architecture and Urban Design since 1990. Cambridge Scholars, Newcastle upon Tyne Alaily-Mattar N, Dreher J, Thierstein A (2018) Repositioning cities through star architecture: how does it work? J Urban Des 23(2):169–192 Bartmanski D, Alexander JC (2012) Materiality and meaning in social life: towards an iconic turn in cultural sociology. In: Bartmanski D (ed) Iconic power: materiality and meaning in social life. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 1–12 Baudrillard J  (1981) Simulacra and simulation. The University of Michigan Press, Michigan Berger J (1972) Ways of seeing. Penguin Books, London Borden I, Rendell J (2000) Inter sections: architectural histories and critical theories. Routledge, London/New York Castells M (2010) The network society. Blackwell, Oxford Colomina B (2008) Media as modern architecture. In: Vidler A (ed) Architecture between spectacle and use. Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, pp 58–76 Deamer P (2014) Architecture and capitalism. 1845 to the present. Routledge, London Debord G (1967) Society of the Spectacle. Black & Red, Detroit Delitz H (2011) Jenseits von Krise und Repräsentation. Zum Verhältnis von Architektur und Gesellschaft. In: ARCH+, Zeitschrift für Architektur und Städtebau, Nr. 204: Krise der Repräsentation, pp 22–26 Friedmann J (2006) The World City hypothesis. In: Brenner I, Kell R (eds) The global cities reader. Routledge, London/New York, pp 67–72 Goffman E (1963) Stigma. Notes on the management of spoiled identity. Simon & Schuster, New York Groys B (2017) Towards a new universalism. In: e-flux Journal #86, http://www.e-flux. com/journal/86/162402/towards-a-new-universalism (Accessed 20 Aug 2018) Hannerz U (1990) Cosmopolitans and locals in world culture. Theory Cult Soc 7(2–3):237–251 Harvey D (1990) The condition of postmodernity. Blackwell, Cambridge/Oxford Jameson F (1991) Postmodernism, or, the cultural logic of late capitalism. Duke University Press, Durham Jencks C (1987) The language of PoMo architecture. Rizzoli, New York King AD (2004) Spaces of global cultures: architecture, urbanism, identity. Routledge, New York Klingman A (2007) Brandscapes. Architecture in the experience economy. MIT Press, Cambridge Lefebvre H (1992) Rhythmanalysis: space, time and everyday life. Bloomsbury, London/New York Martin R (2016) Remarks on the production of representation. In: Andraos A (ed) The Arab City and representation. Columbia Books on Architecture and the City, GSAPP, New York Palermo PC, Ponzini D (2015) Place-making and urban development: new challenges for contemporary planning and design. Routledge, London Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture. Scenes, actors, and spectacles in contemporary cities. Monacelli Press, New York. [original edition 2011] Rivera LA (2008) Managing “spoiled” national identity: war, tourism, and memory in Croatia. Am Sociol Rev 73(4):613–634 43

U. Leconte Robin E (2018) Performing real estate value (s): real estate developers, systems of expertise and the production of space. Geoforum, forthcoming Sassen S (2001) The global city. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New  York/ London/Tokyo Saunders WS (ed) (2005) Commodification and spectacle in architecture: a Harvard Design Magazine reader. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Scheppe W (2011) Realabstraktion und Fassade. Zur politischen Ökonomie der “Stadt der Gesellschaft”. In: ARCH+, Zeitschrift für Architektur und Städtebau, Nr. 204: Krise der Repräsentation, Oktober 2011, pp 8–18 Sklair L (2017) The icon project: architecture, cities and capitalist globalization. Oxford University Press, New York Spencer D (2016) The architecture of neoliberalism. Housman Books, London Stierli M (2016) Architecture and visual culture: some remarks on an ongoing debate. J Vis Cult 15(3):311–316 Till J (2008) Architecture and contingency. Field 1(1):120 Trüby S (2014) Geldkulturen. Eine Einführung. In: Trüby S (ed) (2017) Absolute Architektur Beginner. Schriften 2004 – 2014. Fink, Paderborn, pp 56–66 Yaneva A (2009) Making the social hold: towards an actor-network theory of design. Des Cult 1(3):273–288

44

4

Star Architecture’s Interplays and Effects on Cities Alain Thierstein, Nadia Alaily-Mattar, and Johannes Dreher

Abstract

This chapter presents a conceptual impact model which can be used as a tool to research the impact of star architecture projects. We distinguish in this chapter between star architecture as a process and as an output. We use the term star architecture projects to refer to a process in which starting conditions result in the mobilisation of inputs, to produce outputs and generate effects. We regard star architecture as one such output composed of complex and dynamic bundled offerings. The effects that are generated can be plentiful, as it was explained in the various chapters of this volume. This chapter presents a conceptual impact model that was developed as a tool with a threefold purpose: (1) to analytically identify the outputs of these special projects, (2) to help assess if and how these outputs can be related to effects in a causal relationship and (3) to offer a didactic means to debate the manifold elements associated with the impact of star architecture projects. Keywords

Bilbao effect · Star architecture · Flagship architecture · Iconic architecture · Impact · Effect · Impact model · Multidisciplinary research

A. Thierstein (*) · N. Alaily-Mattar Urban Development, Technische Universität München, Munich, Bayern, Germany e-mail: thierstein@ tum.de; N.Alaily-­ [email protected] J. Dreher HCU HafenCity Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany e-mail: johannes.dreher@ hcu-hamburg.de

1 Star Architecture: A Product or a Process?1 The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao opened in 1997. Ever since, the topic of how cultural flagships designed by famous architects could play a ­decisive role in urban regeneration has been increasingly discussed in academic debates as well as in the media (Plaza 2009; Plaza et  al. 2009). Much attention has since been given to recreating the Bilbao effect An earlier version of  the  description of  the  impact model appeared in  our article “Repositioning cities through star architecture: how does it work?”, which is published in the Journal of Urban Design (Alaily-Mattar et al. 2018b). This version was modified and  improved as  a  contribution to  the  Trilateral Symposia held at the  Villa Vigoni in November 2017 and June 2018.

1 

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_4

45

A. Thierstein et al.

a­ ssuming a stylised, one-size-fits-all mechanism, which implies a linear cause-­ effect relationship. Emphasis is put on presumed and intended impacts of both “flagshipness” and iconicity of star architecture for urban regeneration, local tourism and the restructuring of a region’s economy. Hence, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (GMB) has become the master benchmark. Following the transformative role that the GMB designed by Frank Gehry has played in the Basque town of Bilbao, the buzzword Bilbao effect has become a widely circulated term to describe transformations related to star architecture projects in a generic way. After all, the Bilbao effect is much more than just star architecture. As a building and a museum, the GMB is a smaller but important piece of a much wider strategy of urban renewal and an overarching endeavour to spur urban competitiveness in a former derelict area in Northern Spain (Klingmann 2007; Plaza and Haarich 2015). Star architecture projects are costly investments, frequently politically motivated and contested, especially when publicly funded. Their necessity tends to be justified by the proponents with the argument that these projects will yield significant direct or indirect economic effects. How do such star architecture projects then do the trick, if ever? To start with such an analysis, we need a conceptual organising framework to structure the many mechanisms that are possibly responsible for the transformation of a sociocultural investment into a diverse array of multi-scalar impacts (Alaily-Mattar et  al. 2018b). Refraining from having such a framework is like opening the black box of mechanisms and thus opening Pandora’s box. Such a framework illustrates the importance of differentiating between star architecture as a process and as an output. We use the term star architecture project to refer to a process, while we regard star architecture as one of the outputs of this process. If indeed we want to scientifically investigate the roles of these special projects in the repositioning of cities, we need to capture and organise the complexity of the process in which starting conditions result in the mobilisation of inputs, the production of outputs and the generation of effects. This exercise is particularly important for multidisciplinary research such as “star architecture and its roles in repositioning cities” which the authors of this chapter were engaged in. This chapter presents a conceptual impact model that was developed as a tool in the aforementioned research project. The conceptual impact model describes and visualises the processes associated with star architecture projects; it helps assess if and how the outputs of these processes can be related to effects in a causal relationship. A number of our previous publications capture the development of this model (Alaily-Mattar 2017, 2018). In what follows we elaborate on the difference between effects and impact, we describe the intricacies of the impact model, and finally we conclude by highlighting the added value of using such a model.

46

4  Star Architecture’s Interplays and Effects on Cities

2 Interplays of Effects and Impact In economics, effects are measured to determine the productivity of ­outputs. Effects can be direct or indirect, short, medium or long term. However, in sociology, reference to “effect” is under the suspicion of determinism with some areas of specialisation. The idea of an impact model may be positively assessed by analytical sociologist; it often finds critical appraisal with constructivist sociology. This latter suspicion is especially the case when the object of study is not a phenomenon whose reach can be isolated – for example, a cast that mends a broken leg. Such is the case of star architecture projects. Here effects can occur potentially in very ­different fields, such as the urban structure, the economic prosperity of a city, the self-perception of the inhabitants, etc. Sociologists argue that in analysing such phenomena, it is structurally impossible to know all the influencing causes – the so-called chains of causes and effects. To address the concerns of sociology, this chapter uses alongside the concept of effect, the concept of impact, to expand the consideration of effects beyond the confines of strictly linear causalities. Impact is a multidimensional, multi-scalar process; it encompasses the semantic dimension of “working”. The German term Wirkung captures more than its literal translation in English, i.e. impact. Wirkung denotes to how effects are generated. But more importantly in the context of this chapter, the term describes what the various effects generate, that is, how effects “work” on the city. For example, if one’s knee is injured, the effect could be an impaired physical mobility. This impairment might impede one’s work performance, it might lead to job loss and eventually to a change in the social status. These changes might not only be related to the injured knee, other factors might play in, for example, lack of a social support network, weak medical infrastructure and so on. Nevertheless, the loss of social status is a cornerstone in the impact of the knee injury. This example illustrates that while effect has a linear relationship to cause, impact is a process that is multidimensional and multi-scalar. Both terms, effect and impact, are under-defined in the social sciences. Only few discussions takes into consideration elaborate, interdisciplinary bodies of knowledge, although hardly any sociological or spatial planning analysis manage without these concepts. Nevertheless, it is obvious that if an exceptional architectural design is placed in a small or medium-sized city with only few comparably exceptional buildings around, this placement will have (1) various effects, which must also be explored in social and spatial sciences, and (2) these effects will result in multi-scalar impacts that surpass the immediate vicinity of these projects to encompass the entire city. Within this context, it is worthwhile to adapt concepts and tools from the economic sciences to the needs of research into the impact of star architecture projects in order to structure the many effects that are triggered by these projects and that could possibly be responsible for the

47

A. Thierstein et al.

transformation of a sociocultural investment into a diverse array of multi-­ scalar impacts. Indeed, economic impact analysis can be a useful tool in that it (1) scales down the notion of effect to a notion that can be connected to causes and (2) links effects to impacts which are multidimensional and multi-scalar. Origin of economic impact analysis lies with input-output models (Lahr 2001; Leontief 1986), which stipulates that a combination of resources called “inputs” generates production goals called “outputs”. In order to reveal the mechanisms of change involved in moving from identifiable inputs to desired results, several researchers have suggested the use of logic models (refer to, e.g. (Julian 1997; McLaughlin and Jordan 1999; Weiss 1997; Wyatt Knowlton and Philips 2013)). The logic model is a systematic and visual way to present the relationships among the resources available, the activities that are planned and the changes or results that are hoped to be achieved (Kellogg Foundation WK 1998, p. 1). By providing the hypotheses of how a program is supposed to work to achieve the intended results, the logic model articulates a “theory of change” (Weiss 1997). The logic model, put differently, theorises change by organising the causal links between inputs, activities taken, outputs, outcomes and longterm effects. These are the basic categories of the logic model used in economic impact analysis. This chapter uses the categories and basic structure of the logic model, but responds also to the systemic nature of causal relationships and the difficulty of isolating causality. In other words, economic impact analysis inspires the conceptual impact model, which this chapter presents. However, it is not used to isolate causality or to focus on the economic realm only. Rather the entire picture and its plausibility are more important than the individual causal relationships.

3 The Intricacies of the Impact Model We now turn to describing in more detail the impact model. The basic building blocks of the impact model are (1) the starting conditions, out of which a project idea emerged, (2) the activities taken, (3) the resulting outputs and (4) the effects generated by these outputs (Fig. 4.1). The impact model sets off with “starting conditions” and replaces the category “inputs” of the logic model. This is done, because accounting for only inputs without considering the political and social condition out of which these projects is too restrictive. Hence, the category “starting condition” expands the ­category “inputs” into the consideration of sociopolitical inputs too. The starting conditions indicate that the development of these projects is related to a city’s underperformance and the intentions of city’s decision makers to address this. Underperformance is meant as a situation in which a city is experiencing, either levels of decline or unsatisfactory levels of growth. Levels of decline can be either “real” or “perceived”. Real decline would, for example, be measured by the loss of an employment base due to ­structural change, deindustrialisation and subsequent urban restructuring. The opposite way around, unsatisfactory levels of 48

4  Star Architecture’s Interplays and Effects on Cities

Effects economic diversification of economy

socio-cultural collective representation

place / city marketing

tourism

pride

direct economic effects

collective agency

physical urban restructuring

direct social effects

urban regeneration

media content

morphological

an icon pictures / talks

an experience

a signature a building

a spectacle

a function

Outputs new actor networks

Actions implementation on a strategic site

initiation of competition

city officials set intentions

commission / design of building by star architect

operation with star institution

city under-performing

pressure to act

capacity to act

Starting Conditions Fig. 4.1  A conceptual impact model of how a star architecture project ‘works’. It depicts the flow from starting condition to actions, which result in outputs with their respective effects. The particular offerings of star architecture, as a subset of outputs, are indicated by the dashed rectangle. (Adapted version from Alaily-Mattar, Dreher and Thierstein 2018a: 9)

49

A. Thierstein et al.

growth relate to the idea that a city is believed to have the capacity to perform better. Shifting positions in city rankings may create an awareness among certain pressure groups that the relative performance of the city is falling behind, and thus the perception of this state of underperformance triggers initiatives for change. The second part of the impact model pertains to actions taken to develop these projects based on these starting conditions. As a response to pressures, city officials take a decision to allocate public resources for the development of a star architecture project. They formulate ambitions and set intentions. Often the declared rationale is that such public investment is needed because they help cities to attract residents, businesses, investments and tourists in the context of international competition among locations. Actions taken include setting up an architectural competition, commissioning a star architect for the design of this project, implementing the project and finally operating its function. The third part in the impact model identifies the outputs produced by these actions. These outputs occur incrementally at each step of the activities taken. Interest groups may form novel alliances around the intention to reposition the city, and thus new actor networks emerge within this process, besides the usual construction project outputs. Unlike most buildings that are simply ignored, these buildings “arouse public attention causing disputes and controversies” (Yaneva 2009, p. 8), an attention that accentuates along this process. The process of developing these projects usually takes many years; it is more often than not accompanied by media exposure from its onset. The impact model identifies four main outputs, namely the emerging new actor networks; the material building; the function, which is operated inside this building; and the complex and dynamic bundled offerings that are indicated in the dashed rectangle. We borrow the term “offerings” from Pine and Gilmore (Pine and Gilmore 1999) who use the term as it highlights the intangibility of outputs that could also be offered. The offering of spectacle is associated with avant-garde architectural style, their costs and surrounding controversies. With the commission of a star architect, spectacularity begins, as analysed in Chap. 7 by Alaily-Mattar and Thierstein. Hence, media attention starts even before the project is being built. The second offering is that of a signature, it relates to the recognition value of the architect’s signature associated with the fame of the star architect’s persona and the brand value of his/her other artefacts. The third offering is that of an icon and relates to the specific architectural form. Designed to become icons in their respective cities, Jencks (2006) argues that iconic buildings must successfully deform codes; they “must carry a negative charge, a paranoia that challenges contemporary taste, a disturbing value, and something new” (Jencks 2006, p. 12). Both signature and icon offerings are related to the materiality of the building. With implementation, an abstract architectural design becomes a physical object, a material reality. This signature of a well-known architect, an icon in the city, contributes to spectacularity and also to the production of p­ ictures and talks, the fourth offering of star architecture projects. The production of pictures and 50

4  Star Architecture’s Interplays and Effects on Cities

talk become media content that is circulated widely. This media content packages and transforms these projects into an experience. Pine and Gilmore argue that experiences have become new economic offerings for which demand exists like for services and goods (1999). Hence, experience is the fifth offering of star architecture projects. The dashed rectangle with dynamic and bundled offerings describes the particularity of star architecture as one of the outputs of star architecture projects. The fourth part of our impact model lists effects, which these outputs are supposed to trigger. This part merges the two categories of outcome – short-term effects and long-term effects of the logic model – into one overarching category. These star architecture projects are developed by public authorities based on the hypotheses that they can deliver certain benchmarked effects. Effects may be morphological, social or economic. These three fields of effects do not exclude other potential realms of effects. For example, such projects might have an effect on technological innovation in the field of architecture. However, such an effect will not likely play a role in the repositioning of a city. The impact model selects those wide-ranging effects that might contribute to the repositioning of cities. Urban morphological effects could relate to physical reconfiguration in relation to the direct surrounding. Economic effects could relate to the direct economic effects of these projects, the diversification of the economy, city marketing, boosting tourism and urban competitiveness. Social effects could relate to the direct social effects of these projects, access to enhanced ­amenities in the city, enhancing citizen pride, collective representation and agency. It is worth noting that our impact model has one clear limitation in its current visual figuration. The key underlying inter-temporal aspect only vaguely surfaces. The multifarious sequences, starting from the initial conditions, give rise to action, output, and then effect is weakly represented visually as an approximation of real-time investment, which is needed to achieve the initial set of objectives.

4 Managing Complexity The impact model illustrates the wide-ranging effects, related to economic transformations, sociocultural shifts and urban morphological transformations. The conceptual impact model deliberately does not connect the outputs to effects. Rather the particularity of each case study would dictate investigations as to which outputs generate which effects (refer to Alaily-­ Mattar et al. 2018a) for an illustration of how the impact model is put into use). In addition, the conceptual impact model does not elaborate on how effects generate impact on cities, that is, how, and if, certain individual or a combination of effects eventually results in repositioning of cities. Here, too, the particularity of the effects of each case study yields different explanations of how, and if, such a process unfolds. The conceptual impact model unfolds its relative strength as a visual and didactic tool that complements 51

A. Thierstein et al.

more traditional forms of communication grounded in speaking and writing. It enables paying attention to the whole while analysing how the parts are interrelated. The conceptual impact model enables weaving the findings of various disciplinary perspectives into a more comprehensive account. Hence, the conclusions take into consideration the key structures that are at work and are drawn from a rich pool of findings and are not restricted by the boundaries or biased by the problematisations of a single discipline. This exercise is pressing in the context of widely celebrated success of such projects many times occurring in parallel to loud and vocal opposing views of their failure. Architects often are concerned with the critique of the physical output of the process, they lament the instrumentalisation of their profession to produce outputs that serve political purposes rather than address spatial problems. For political scientists the process is the object of their inquiry, a process in which there are winners and losers. Economic geographers are frequently concerned with the effectiveness of the outputs of the process, while sociologists are concerned with long-term impact in which different effects intertwine. Any scientifically grounded discussion of failure or success of star architecture projects must first start with a common ground of identifying, describing and explaining the object of inquiry and managing its complexity. The conceptual impact model does that.

References Alaily-Mattar N (2017) Vorzeigearchitektur und Urbane Transformation. In: Transformation findet Stadt. Internationales Städteforum Graz, Graz, pp 36–49 Alaily-Mattar N (2018) Repositioning Cities through star architecture. Metrópolis del futuro, Bilbao Alaily-Mattar N, Dreher J, Thierstein A (2018a) Repositioning cities through star architecture: how does it work? J Urban Des 23(2):169–192 Alaily-Mattar N, Dreher J, Wenner F, Thierstein A (2018b) Public real estate development projects and urban transformation: the case of flagship projects. In: Heurkens E, Peiser R, Squires G (eds) Companion to real estate development. Routledge, Abingdon/New York, pp 43–55 Jencks C (2006) The iconic building is here to stay. City 10:3–20 Julian DA (1997) The utilization of the logic model as a system level planning and evaluation device. Eval Program Plann 20:251–257 Kellogg Foundation WK (1998) Using logic models to bring together planning, evaluation, and action. Logic Model Development Guide. Kellogg Foundation, Michigan Klingmann A (2007) Beyond Bilbao. In: Klingmann A (ed) Brandscapes, architecture in the experience economy. The MIT Press, Cambridge Lahr ML (2001) A strategy for producing hybrid regional input-output tables. In: Lahr ML, Dietzenbacher E (eds) Input-Output analysis: frontiers and extensions. Palgrave Macmillan UK, Basingstoke, pp 211–244 Leontief W (1986) Input-Output economics. Oxford University Press, Oxford McLaughlin JA, Jordan GB (1999) Logic models: a tool for telling your program’s performance story. Eval Program Plann 22:65–72 Pine BJ, Gilmore JH (1999) The experience economy: Work is theatre & every business is a stage. Harvard Business School Press, Boston Plaza B (2009) Bilbao’s Art Scene and the “Guggenheim effect” revisited. Eur Plan Stud 17:1711–1729 Plaza B, Haarich SN (2015) The Guggenheim museum bilbao: between regional embeddedness and global networking. Eur Plan Stud 23:1456–1475

52

4  Star Architecture’s Interplays and Effects on Cities Plaza B, Tironi M, Haarich SN (2009) Bilbao’s Art Scene and the “Guggenheim effect” revisited. Eur Plan Stud 17:1711–1729 Weiss CH (1997) How can theory-based evaluation make greater headway? Eval Rev 21:501–524 Wyatt Knowlton L, Philips CC (2013) The logic model Guidebook. Better strategies for great results. SAGE Publications Inc, Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore/ Washington DC Yaneva A (2009) The making of a building. A Pragmatist Approach to Architecture. Peter Lang AG, Oxford

53

5

Star Architecture and the Field of Urban Design Giovanni Semi and Magda Bolzoni

Abstract

The chapter addresses the professional and intellectual field of urban design, increasingly crucial in shaping the urban public space and closely intertwined with major architectural project. Firstly, it argues the connection of urban design with the contemporary urban fabric and its recent changes, giving special attention to the transformation of the field through different contexts, times and scales. Then, the chapter gives room to the voices and points of view of European professionals involved in projects of urban design, discussing the field and the profession. Viewing this emerging though not autonomous field of practice helps understanding recent urban transformations and the position of star architecture. Keywords

Urban design · Architecture · Public space · Field · Profession · Urban regeneration If life between buildings is given favourable conditions through sensible planning of cities and housing areas alike, many costly and often stilted and strained attempts to make buildings “interesting” and rich by using dramatic architectural effects can be spared…Life between buildings is both more relevant and more interesting to look at in the long run than are any combination of coloured concrete and staggered building forms. (Gehl 2011, p. 21)

G. Semi (*) · M. Bolzoni Università di Torino, Department of Cultures, Politics and Society, Torino, Italy e-mail: giovanni. [email protected]; magda. [email protected]

While cities long for international visibility through cultural and physical regeneration processes, their citizens ask for liveable and festive environments. Urban design is the professional world that is asked to provide this urban stage. It does so by adopting abstract models of public life ­settings, such as the Italian piazza, or by accepting the spatial and behavioural determinism of early pioneers such as WH Whyte or Jan Gehl. Buildings and master plans are among the most visible products of star architects, and the public space “in between” is becoming progressively crucial in shaping cities and their images too. In this chapter we will briefly show the connections between the contemporary urban fabric and urban design, with a special attention to the professional field and its making through different contexts, times and scales. The result of our inquiry is a scattered picture of several clusters of professional activities in cities. We will therefore provide a description

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_5

55

G. Semi and M. Bolzoni

from above of the field of urban design, paying attention to both its historical formation and geographical differentiation. The main empirical part of the chapter will then delve into the field from below, giving space to the voices of professionals. Born as a branch of architecture, is urban design steadily growing as an autonomous professional and intellectual field?

1 The City and Urban Design: A View from above The globalisation of signature architecture, flagship projects and the ­making of a stardom system of architects both signifies and is one of the most visible outcomes of the global diffusion of place-making activities under new regimes of urbanisation (Alaily-Mattar et al. 2018; King 2004; Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). This is essentially the reflection of the contemporary transformations of both capitalism, with its essential turning towards the second circuit of capital and the real estating of the world, and of its geography, with the emergence of huge areas of investments in China, the Arabian Peninsula and along the highest levels of urban hierarchies, namely, throughout global cities (Rossi 2017). Not only we are facing a new phase of unprecedented global urbanisation, but also within the “Old World” there are clear facets of renewal, regeneration and transformation that increasingly include urban design. Mobile urbanisms and fast policy regimes are increasingly in the making, and different professionals work beyond the (urban) scenes to diffuse standardised projects at a global scale (McCann and Ward 2011; Peck and Theodore 2010, 2015).

The Semantic Field of Urban Design In this chapter we will draw on the concept of field, such as developed, among many others, by Pierre Bourdieu all across his life.1 We use here a definition, elaborated in his work on television: …a structured social space, a field of forces, a force field. It contains people who dominate and people who are dominated. Constant, permanent relationships of inequality operate inside this space, which at the same time becomes a space in which various actors struggle for the transformation or preservation of the field. All the individuals in this universe bring to the competition all the (relative) power at their disposal. It is this power that defines their position in the field and, as a result, their strategies. (Bourdieu 1998, pp. 40–41)

Urban design is part of a wider field of urban professionals, in which architects play the main role, disposing of both economic and cultural capitals (we also might distinguish star architects from other architects, with the former being at the absolute top of both capitals), but hosting several other species, namely, landscape architects, planners and scholars The notion of “field” in Bourdieu’s thinking has been developed since 1971 until his latest works and has therefore evolved significantly through time (Thomson 2008). 1 

56

5  Star Architecture and the Field of Urban Design

that often are also professionals (Childs 2010; Marshall 2009, 2016; Schurch 1999). As Bourdieu pointed out, fields are dynamic and therefore positions change through time, reflecting struggles between actors. As we will show in the following paragraphs, urban designers emerge precisely as “little brothers”, as one of our interviewees brilliantly puts it, to grow up constantly and asking for wider consideration. Positions change because of power at disposal of each of the social groups, and, in the following lines, we will sketch where this power comes from. The first source of power is internal to the field of urban professionals. It deals with the trajectories that shaped the field or, to say it differently, with its historical formation. If we look at the histories of urban design, some common elements emerge, for instance, the role played by Center of International Arts Management (CIAM) before and after World War II (WWII) in making a new generation of architects and urbanists visible and influent across both sides of the Atlantic. The divergence happened especially after WWII, when geographies as well as the approaches that we are investigating here became significantly dependent on both national and local contexts. Schools did reproduce themselves, and programmes that developed early, such as Graduate School of Design (GSD) at Harvard University or the equivalent at the Bartlett-University College London (Bartlett-UCL), Technische Universiteit Delft (TU Delft) or Eidgenössische Technische Hochschule Zurich (ETH Zurich), have provided cohorts of skilled professionals that have had a significant impact on both public and private sectors. The relationship between national and local contexts, internal markets and regulations and the different urban trajectories and specificities shaped specific clusters of traditions (Palazzo 2011). The development of urban design as a “way of thinking” (Marshall 2009, p. 55) between practice and theory, firms and academia, is related internally. The nexus between the architectural curriculum and the making of this field has given a specific historical imprint to urban design, eschewing other professional as well as academic traditions from contributing to its own development (planning and critical social sciences, especially). (Mumford 2009)

There not only appears to be a scholarly path dependence with a somehow clear geography but also an urban path dependence. Besides the few, gigantic global firms such as SOM, ARUP or HOK that run offices worldwide and hire thousands of skilled architects and urban designers, most of the other firms are middle to low size. The latter are locally embedded in the city they are based in to get commissions and foster their social capital throughout meetings, conferences and events (Tiesdell and Adams 2011). In a similar way to what was shown by Fainstein on local developers, urban design firms, even when they “go global”, have to keep their local roots (Fainstein 2001). Clusters between universities and professionals coalesced around locally regulated markets (both national and urban) and developed specific traditions. According to our sample of interviews, there is clearly a ­difference both between the UK and a wider cluster based in Northern Europe and an internal differentiation. In the UK, for instance, Londonbased firms and universities played a different game to other UK-based 57

G. Semi and M. Bolzoni

universities and firms. This means that even though we have found a UK method to urban design, it is internally fragmented. A similar picture arises from Northern Europe, with a common understanding of the role played by urban design in place-making activities and a significant interconnection among universities, but also with differences between cities, with Copenhagen currently leading the innovation rather than Rotterdam or Stockholm.

The Emergence of Urban Design in Neoliberal Times The second source of power, likely providing the background scenario for the evolution of the field of urban professionals, deals with the structural materiality of the city, with its production. Externally, urban design has profited from the changed landscape of space production. On the one hand, the rise of signature buildings, flagship projects and star architecture has boosted the visibility and commitment of urban design as a support for built environment interventions (Ponzini 2014; Ponzini and Nastasi 2016; Sklair 2005). On the other hand, a specific and historical growing demand for place-making activities has coalesced around a typical urban setting: the public space (Gospodini 2002; Madanipour 2006; Sorkin 2009). Architects’ primacy in urban design and architectural fortune in the contemporary production of space is thus particularly evident in streets, squares, parks and waterfronts, as well as in master plans, large-scale interventions and urban regeneration activities. If we follow the perspective of aesthetic capitalism analysis (Böhme 2017), and its recent translation through the notion of “enrichment”, as in Boltanski and Esquerre (2017), cities have become primarily attracted by an aesthetic transformation of their visible façade. The need for a beautiful city – with some historical roots in the City Beautiful Movement, as well as in the critical perspective held by Benjamin or Simmel on the modern metropolis – is now playing a new key role in the government of the city, as far as ­aesthetics plays the role of protecting the economic value of the buildings and of the land. In neoliberal environments, urban governments provide vibrant local scenes to creative citizens to foster international investments in the real estate sector (Sassen 2014; Silver and Clark 2016), as it is recognised by urban designers as well: Copenhagen I think really considers public space a part of their branding strategy, and a part of attracting knowledge people, I mean, like all the capitals of Europe and globally are all trying to get this specialists, good work force in. (Firm DK4, Copenhagen)

Public spaces thus become pivotal for the city, as they play the role to reassure residents, tourists and investors of the authenticity and coolness of the place in which they are. The New York City High Line project by James Corner Field Operations, Diller Scofidio + Renfro, and Piet Oudolf, together with the new Whitney Museum designed by Renzo Piano, stands 58

5  Star Architecture and the Field of Urban Design

as the clearest example of such interventions (Lang and Rothenberg 2017; Sacco et  al. 2018), but urban design projects with these goals may be found both in major and smaller European cities too, for example, and among others, the waterfront of Stockholm with the Harbour Bath project by BIG + JDS or the BLOX waterside by OMA, the project for the old harbour of Marseille by Foster + Partners, the Madrid RIO project by West 8 and MRIO Arquitectos, the Israels Plads project by Sweco Architects and COBE in Stockholm, the Harbour Bath project by BIG in Aarhus, etc.

Urban Renaissance Public space design nonetheless gained new attention within different temporalities, following the trajectory of urban renaissance after the 1970s. To limit the scope of this description to the Western City, the cycle of industrialisation and deindustrialisation opened up a window of change since then, according to the capacity that each urban environment had in interpreting its post-industrial role. Public spaces that were mainly designed as political public spaces throughout the twentieth century, namely, as places for parades, rallies, conflicts and even riots, became afterwards conceived as mainly places for gatherings, outer living and enjoyment (Mitchell 2003). As the shift from a Fordist time conception moved towards a more fragmented one, dominated by leisure rather than work, the public space also changed, asking for regenerations and new design. The 1980s and 1990s, all across Europe, were decades of radical transformation of the urban core, with massive regeneration programmes providing a new vision for the city. Lord Rogers’ political and ideological vision of this transformation may be considered here as the manifesto of the urban renaissance driven by architecture and design (Urban Task Force 1999). As one of our interviewees puts it: … and then we had the Richard Rogers, Lord Rogers report in 1999, which was about Towards an Urban Renaissance, which was very definitely said, coming from one of the preeminent sort of architects of his generation, very definite sense that in this country [UK] the ceiling of policy is separate and now it was going to be, and was being, disastrous for our towns and places […] After the Richard Rogers report and the change of government there was a feeling that this scrutiny about the quality of buildings, and then increasingly urban design, needed to be taken a lot more seriously by government […] so the government said, right, we’re going to get rid of the whole Fine Art Commission and we’re going to have a Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment […] so CABE came into. (Firm UK6, Newcastle)

We see here the interplay of urbanisation as a general process (the neoliberal city) with national and local regulations (the emergence of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE) and the dismissal of the Royal Fine Arts Commission) and the pivotal role fulfilled by architects such as Rogers, who played both a global and a local role, political and professional.

 he Second Phase of Regeneration T When that phase of general reorientation of policies and projects was achieved, with huge differences between the UK and the rest of Europe but also under the umbrella of the well-known EU-funded programmes such 59

G. Semi and M. Bolzoni

as URBAN I and URBAN II, cities in Europe operated more on a basis of acupuncture urbanism, paving the way for more targeted interventions. Here is when urban design became crucial. We see this from a double standpoint: on the one hand, many firms were created after the 2000s precisely with a visible and declared label of “urban design”. In this sense, we see here a moment in time in which self identifying as a European professional of urban designer was not problematic or reductive anymore. This is a supply-side interpretation. There is also a demand-side one: since the early 2000s, municipalities and also private commissioners started asking for more “in-betweenness”, paying more attention to both urban landscape and the interstitial spaces for the new urban middle classes: They figure out that they also need to integrate some kind of life into it somehow. But unfortunately that life is mostly connected with economy, so they think that if they place a café, or a shop where people can go and buy a caffe latte2, then it’s urban life […] there’s a tendency to focus on the middle, middle, over middle class user group who has the money, who can go out and have a good cup of coffee in the sun and looks good. (Firm DK2, Copenhagen)

The demand came from both commissioners and the public, with a wider cultural transformation of values that reversed previous usages of the city. In this sense, the growth of urban design might also be considered as a public demand for liveable environments, one that was not there before the 1990s. The quest for authentic, vibrant and beautiful public spaces has been the engine of recent urban transformations across Europe and the world. New lifestyles were brought by new generations of urban users (a demographic and cultural transformation), which were often also middle-class educated people. This added a specific class understanding of urban life and space. Sustainable, safe and aesthetically pleasing places became the new target for urban policies. Urban design therefore emerged as their key provider. We have to be careful, nonetheless, with such historical reconstruction, since this professional field has a much fragmented and longer story to tell.

2 The Field from Below The analyses of this chapter rely on a qualitative research developed in 2014 and 2015 on the field of urban design in Europe and the USA, which resulted in a body of 39 semi-structured interviews with scholars and professionals. We were looking for firms producing projects and visions of urban design for public and/or private clients, and university programmes in urban design, considering them as sites of critical thinking on the field and training the next generation of urban designers. In this chapter we focus on the European strand of the research, developing what emerged in the interviews carried out between April and May 2015 with European firms. To build the sample, we began by analysing the This also resonates with the “domestication by cappuccino” discussed in gentrification literature (Atkinson 2003; Zukin 1995). 2 

60

5  Star Architecture and the Field of Urban Design

winners of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) awards, section of urban design, of the previous 5 years and the directories partly or entirely devoted to urban design (i.e. archdaily, laud8, urban design group and dexigner). We also adopted a snowball sample strategy, asking to the firms and scholars contacted to recommend up to five firms that carried out interesting and/or influential works in the previous couple of years. As much as possible, we tried to include firms that were different in terms of dimension, history and geographical presence of their projects (see Table 5.1). While part of the interviews focused on the field of urban design, its definition, boundaries, goals and most relevant references, we also wanted to investigate the personal path and the firm trajectory within the field, stimulating considerations on the profession of urban designer too. Once again, these interviews confirmed that urban design may be considered a “field of practice” (Ponzini 2018) rather than a fully institutionalised and self-contained discipline, with clear and precise boundaries (Carmona and Tiesdell 2007; Palermo and Ponzini 2012).

Firms and Urban Design The firms we contacted carried out projects that were labelled (by the firms themselves or by external observers) as “urban design projects”. Table 5.1  The European firms with urban design projects. These were interviewed and considered for this paper, with some of their characteristics demonstrating their location of the office, number of employees in the firm, when the firm was founded, and their respective project location* Firms UK1 UK2 UK3 UK4 UK5 UK6 DK1 DK2 DK3 DK4 SE1 SE2 SE3

Location of office London London London (+ affiliated offices worldwide) London London Newcastle Copenhagen Copenhagen Copenhagen Copenhagen + Dublin Stockholm Stockholm + Malmo Stockholm

Size (no. of employees) 15 6 20 (UK) 175 7 5 7 10 7 15 6 100 8

Founding date 1995 1995 1989 1990 2008 2011 2012 2010 2013 2014 1980s 1940 2010

SE4 NL1 NL2 NL3

Stockholm Haarlem (NL) Utrecht (NL) Rotterdam (NL)

20 9 32 7

2001 1991 2005 2009

Project location Mostly local Global Global Global Local/global Local European European European European Local Local European/ global Local European Global European

The names of the firms have been replaced with codes to guarantee anonymity. In a similar way to what was shown by Fainstein on local developers, urban design firms, even when they “go global”, have to keep their local roots (Fainstein 2001) *

61

G. Semi and M. Bolzoni

Despite this, only a minority of these firms fully and exclusively embrace the label of “urban design firm” and develop urban design projects only. On the one side, most of them are first and foremost firms of architecture, landscape architecture and/or urban planning that more or less occasionally develop projects of urban design. On the other side, even those firms that mostly focus on urban design develop a variety of projects, in which the boundaries between urban design, urban planning and architecture are often crossed. The incorporation of urban design into architectural or broader firms is a topic sometime directly addressed by the interviewees, and, interestingly enough, such ancillary, minor role within wider practices does not seem to mirror a perception of scarce importance. As one of our interviewees puts it: I know very few firms that are only doing urban design. They are always architecture firms and then they do also urban design. So, again, it’s this, urban design is this hidden thing, this little brother that you… super-important, really, really important because it can influence a lot of people’s lives, where a building just influence people that actually use that building. It’s strange, in a way. (Firm DK3, Copenhagen)

Rather, the issue seems once again related to the difficulty in communicating and describing what urban design is all about, it’s relevance for the public sector and therefore the opportunities to attract commissions. In other words, “It’s hard to make a living at it, just doing urban design, because often the building is still where the money is” (Firm DK3, Copenhagen).

The importance and weight of urban design within each practice are different, and they also appear to change through time. Indeed, it seems possible to point out a general trend across Europe towards an increasing relevance of such field within firms, at least in terms of labelling and branding: We’re just over twenty five years old, started as an architectural practice, and remains kind of a full-service architectural practice [...] at a certain stage, projects just started getting kind of larger and larger, and required more kind of urban, sort of thought in how they’re designed and built [...] Since I’ve joined the firm, we’ve developed a master planning aspect of the work, and I guess we have two strands of urban design, which are public space design and master planning. (Firm UK4, London) Many firms now, especially architect firms, start to brand themselves doing not only buildings but also urban design and landscape architecture and all of that. […] There’s just so many more commissions today worldwide, building new cities, redeveloping cities, I think it’s a, it’s really a field that has grown. (Firm SE3, Stockholm)

While the approach or the role of urban design within the firms may have not drastically changed, the visibility and use of the label seems to have generally increased. This can also be interpreted as an adjustment related to transformation in cities’ approaches and practices, as shown in the previous paragraphs, that led to an increased attention to urban design, as expressed before: The city is branding itself as having good public space, and it also is an investment in being competitive in the competition of international big cities. (Firm DK4, Copenhagen) 62

5  Star Architecture and the Field of Urban Design

Such trend was apparently slowed down by the burst of the economic crisis, which reduced, at least for a period, the public investments in the sector and has implied downsizing and even closure of some firms (this was also true for the USA, where in the same period we observed both merging between firms and closures). This has happened across Europe both in firms hosting multiple branches and approaches and in those more specifically focusing on urban design: The practice was founded under twenty years ago […] then first the recession in 2008, which meant things started to slow down, work started to drop off, and in 2010, change in government, there just wasn’t enough work around to sustain the company, so it was sort of, sunk, sunk, sunk, sunk, sunk, which was pretty tough, […]. And then at some point, in 2012 or 2013, basically, the decision was made by the directors, to basically close down, and out of that closure we just really started this small outfit. (Firm UK2, London) I think there have been some, you know, we have had to let some people go in, what was it? 2010, because at the time we were working on the master plan, I think it was 2008 or something, then it was, the office became really big, we even had people sitting in the hallway, we were expanding rapidly, and then the crisis came, so we had to let some people go and go smaller again. (Firm NL1, Haarlem)

Different projects and different firms are therefore considered as belonging to the field of urban design, making clear, once again, that the discipline and its boundaries are fuzzy and blurred, not easy to define.

Professionals – Urban Designers? By meeting professionals working in the field of urban design, we were interested in understanding their educational and professional background, as well as their view of the profession and their positioning in the field. Most of the interviewees, who headed or worked in the firms outlined in Table 5.1, were not trained specifically as urban designers. Most of them obtained degrees in Architecture, Landscape Architecture or, in a smaller number of cases, Urban Planning. While some focused on urban design during their university period already, many of them started working in the field afterwards, because of a personal interest or following the demands of their job. Six of the people we met were living and working outside of their home country, while other four spent abroad periods of work or study. Having this in mind, the Danish and Swedish professionals we interviewed, especially the younger generations, appear quite mobile, having often spent periods abroad (mostly in the Netherlands or the USA) before going back to their home country. On the other side, the Netherlands and the UK (and London in particular) seem to attract foreign professionals more than Denmark and Sweden, either for short (such as for training or internship) or long periods (even launching there their own firms). The lines between public and private sectors have been crossed in multiple cases, and at least one of the persons we interviewed in each country had previous experience in the public sector, having acted as civil servant in the field of architecture, planning or design in the previous years. Knowing 63

G. Semi and M. Bolzoni

local regulations and conditions, but also the history and the composition of the main actors of local public and private sectors, is indeed highly valued. For instance, a Danish firm developed an internal branch devoted to “study the laws and policies of Denmark compared to other countries […] to advise their policy makers of how to do some of the things that we are doing here in Denmark” (Firm DK2, Copenhagen). It is part of the skills and it is often discussed when talking about both locally based projects and projects developed abroad, where the relevance of such knowledge (and the implications of its absence) more clearly emerge. Moreover, this local knowledge skill is tied to the dimension of the firm, with smaller ones not likely to develop global strategies precisely because of such transaction costs (North 1987): We did one project there [in China], but for us it’s also hard because if you want to get connected to the site, then distance is a problem […] You are in this completely different environment and we, we want to be an office here, based here, and work in different countries, and not have an office here and then a kind of Chinese office over there. (Firm NL2, Utrecht)

If the local scale plays a central role in terms of professional activity, does this impact on professional identity? When and how these urban professionals came to consider themselves as urban designers? Indeed, few of our interviewees clearly express an urban designer identity. It is not possible to point out a clear pattern, but we may say that most of those who underlined such belonging are also running their own firm, after working into different sectors and firms and therefore arriving to such self-­definition through time – which is sometime closer to a declaration of interest rather than to an affirmation of belonging. In most cases, when asked how they would present themselves or think about themselves, the reply refers to architecture, landscape architecture or urban planning. To understand the reasons behind this decision is of particular interest. Some of the explanations regard purely self-perception and belonging: despite working on projects that can be described as projects of urban design, the professional identity remains connected to the field in which they were trained, that of architecture, landscape architecture or urban planning. However, in some other cases, the explanations attain to the field’s outer visibility and definition, both in positive and negative terms: I tend to say I’m an architect, I don’t tend to publicise myself. […] Because people wouldn’t, it depends who you’re talking to, but people wouldn’t understand what was meant by urban design. […] I do think because it hasn’t got, you know, it’s not like saying you’re an architect or a planner, you know, it hasn’t got its own, you know, institute, it’s not recognised and, what can I say, disciplined. It’s a recognised discipline, but it’s not recognised…[…] But just someone talking, asking, I would just say I run a practice. (Firm UK1, London) For a lot of us who were practicing, the expression ‘urban designer’ was just a helpful label, particularly for those who actually worked in towns and cities. (Firm UK6, Newcastle)

Not surprisingly, regional differences, real or perceived, emerge too: I think I’d more say I’m an urbanist, but that’s, that can mean different things in different situations. […] I could probably have more confidence if I was, if I said 64

5  Star Architecture and the Field of Urban Design I was an urban designer going into mainland Europe. You say urban designer in the UK, I think they have less status than an architect. (Firm UK4, London) I’m an architect. But in Denmark it’s, it’s not something, you don’t say architect or urbanist or… I know in some countries, when I was in the Netherlands, for instance, they say architect and urbanist, and it’s a separate thing, but we call it architecture. (Firm DK3, Copenhagen)

In some cases, the self-definition is even more nuanced and complex and a sort of refusal to declare a belonging to a discipline over others emerges. Overall, the interviews underline that the field of urban design hosts/ welcomes a variety of professional figures, often hybrid and complex, with different trainings, approaches and belongings, rather than an ideal-typical “urban designer” model. In terms of field analysis, this might imply on one hand that the struggle to get an autonomous status among other urban professionals is still ongoing and the current status of urban designers do not appear sufficiently strong. On the other hand, the costs of becoming autonomous might also be too heavy. As several interviewees put it: I find that people which have a design background, either being architects, landscape architects are better urban designers in the end than people which come from other fields into urban design because they know how to design. (Firm UK2, London) It’s very good for me being a taught landscape architect, because I had a knowledge that I could bring into this maybe more generalist urban design, and we really like to work with somebody who has specific knowledge about architecture or urban planning because you have to combine those three. Maybe it’s a risk that people kind of become urban designers but not go the full way to one of those disciplines. (Firm SE3, Copenhagen)

3 Conclusions To conclude, we have observed two different trends that deserve a closer scrutiny. The first one deals with the growing relevance of urban design projects in urban development nowadays. As far as the contemporary city is getting more visibility through its urban landscape, the quality of its environment becomes crucial. Parks, waterfronts, squares, benches and amenities are viewed as crucial elements in urban life, getting increasing attention by both users and local governments. Urban design and designers are thus what helps cities to become attractive. The second trend deals with the rise of professionals that are asked to foster the first trend. This is where things get ambivalent. While we have observed firms, scholars and professionals claiming the existence of an autonomous field of urban design, when asked to provide their professional identity definition, architecture and landscape architecture seemed to obscure the role of urban design. The above-mentioned urban scenario requires a growing integration between disciplines, perspectives and practices: the scales of intervention but also the multiplicity of interests, stakeholders as well as the social and economic components of design as a whole all point towards collaboration and integration. 65

G. Semi and M. Bolzoni

We are witnessing a changing scenario, both from the standpoint of c­ ities and from that of their professionals. The little brothers, as one of our interviewees defined them, are growing (up), especially in terms of visibility. We might therefore be at a verge of a change, but also in long-standing continuity with the traditional hegemony of architecture over all other urban disciplines.

References Alaily-Mattar N, Dreher J, Thierstein A (2018) Repositioning cities through star architecture: how does it work? J Urban Des 23(2):169–192 Atkinson R (2003) Domestication by cappuccino or a revenge on urban space? Control and empowerment in the management of public spaces. Urban Stud 40(9):1829–1843 Böhme G (2017) Critique of aesthetic capitalism. Mimesis International, Milano Boltanski L, Esquerre A (2017) Enrichissement. Une critique de la marchandise. Editions Gallimard, Paris Bourdieu P (1998 [1996]) On television and journalism. Pluto, London [Originally published as Sur la television, suivi de l’emprise du journalisme (Paris: Raisons d’agir)] Carmona M, Tiesdell S (2007) Urban design reader. Architectural Press, Amsterdam Childs MC (2010) A spectrum of Urban design roles. J Urban Des 15(1):1–19 Fainstein SS (2001) The city builders: property development in New York and London, 1980–2000. University Press of Kansas, Lawrence Gehl J (2011) Life between buildings: using public space. Island Press, Washington Gospodini A (2002) European cities in competition and the new ‘uses’ of Urban design. J Urban Des 7(1):59–73 King AD (2004) Spaces of global cultures: architecture, urbanism, identity. Routledge, London Lang S, Rothenberg J  (2017) Neoliberal urbanism, public space, and the greening of the growth machine: New  York City’s high line park. Environ Plan A 49(8):1743–1761 Madanipour A (2006) Roles and challenges of Urban design. J Urban Des 11(2): 173–193 Marshall R (2009) The elusiveness of Urban design: the perpetual problem of definition and role. In: Krieger A, Saunders WS (eds) Urban design. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 38–57 Marshall S (2016) The kind of art Urban design is. J Urban Des 21(4):399–423 McCann E, Ward K (eds) (2011) Mobile urbanism: cities and policymaking in the global age. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Mitchell D (2003) The right to the city: social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford Press, New York Mumford EP (2009) Defining Urban design: CIAM architects and the formation of a discipline, 1937–69. Yale University Press, New Haven North DC (1987) Institutions, transaction costs and economic growth. Econ Inq 25(3):419–428 Palazzo D (2011) Pedagogical traditions. In: Banerjee T, Loukaitou-Sideris A (eds) Companion to Urban design. Routledge, London, pp 41–52 Palermo PC, Ponzini D (2012) At the crossroads between urban planning and Urban design: critical lessons from three Italian case studies. Plan Theory Pract 13(3):445–460 Peck J, Theodore N (2010) Mobilizing policy: models, methods, and mutations. Geoforum 41(2):169–174 Peck J, Theodore N (2015) Fast policy: experimental statecraft at the thresholds of neoliberalism. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis Ponzini D (2014) The values of Starchitecture: commodification of architectural design in contemporary cities. Organ Aesthet 3(1):10–18

66

5  Star Architecture and the Field of Urban Design Ponzini D (2018) The unwarranted boundaries between urban planning and design in theory, practice and research. In: Sanchez TW (ed) Urban planning knowledge and research. Routledge, London, pp 182–195 Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture: scenes, actors, and spectacles in contemporary cities. The Monacelli Press, New York Rossi U (2017) Cities in global capitalism. Wiley, Chichester Sacco PL, Tartari M, Ferilli G, Tavano Blessi G (2018) Gentrification as space domestication. The high line art case. Urban Geogr 40:529 Sassen S (2014) Expulsions: brutality and complexity in the global economy. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Schurch TW (1999) Reconsidering Urban design: thoughts about its definition and status as field or profession. J Urban Des 4(1):5–28 Silver DA, Clark TN (2016) Scenescapes: how qualities of place shape social life. University of Chicago Press, Chicago Sklair L (2005) The transnational capitalist class and contemporary architecture in globalizing cities. Int J Urban Reg Res 29(3):485–500 Sorkin M (2009) The end(s) of Urban design. In: Krieger A, Saunders WS (eds) Urban design. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp 155–182 Thomson P (2008) Field. In: Grenfell M (ed) Bourdieu. Key concepts. Acumen Publishing, Stocksfield, pp 67–84 Tiesdell S, Adams D (2011) Urban design in the real estate development process. Wiley, Chichester Urban Task Force (1999) Towards an urban renaissance: the report of the urban task force chaired by Lord Rogers of Riverside: executive summary. Mimeo Zukin S (1995) The cultures of cities. Blackwell, Oxford

67

6

Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015 Davide Ponzini and Mina Akhavan

Abstract

This contribution is the first attempt to provide a systematic study of the spread of culture-led waterfront projects in Europe that are designed (or inclusive of substantial elements designed) by major transnational firms, often labelled as star architects. We introduce a new method for mapping transnational projects and firms, including a database covering design firms and details of their completed projects within the period 1990–2015. After describing the trajectories of such projects in Europe, this contribution traces the spread of star architecture projects before and after the opening of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao in 1997, one of the most reputed case of this kind, namely, a star architecture project for a cultural facility that is the centrepiece of a larger waterfront redevelopment master plan. By focusing on five case studies of similar projects being completed from the early 1990s to the mid-­ 2010s (in Genoa, London, Oslo, Reykjavik and Lyon), we argue that, despite the spread of the belief in the regenerative power of single star architecture buildings (i.e., so-called “Bilbao effect”), the effects of such projects depend on a wider set of urban planning and policy actions. In addition, we observe that the spread might be due to the political legitimisation of projects in similar urban and planning conditions rather than the mere transfer of the same scheme. Keywords D. Ponzini (*) · M. Akhavan Department of Architecture and Urban Studies Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: davide. [email protected]; mina.akhavan@ polimi.it

Star architecture · Transnational firms · Culture-led projects · Waterfront regeneration · Master plan

1 Introduction: Transnational Mobilities of Star Architecture Projects and New Mixed Methods Cities in Europe have been witnessing unprecedented urbanisation processes, being increasingly connected and crossed by transnational resources, people, ideas, technologies and narratives. Advocators of iconic

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_6

69

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

and highly visible projects resort to well-known and reliable architectural firms, both for their architectural/technological and management expertise (Sklair 2005, 2017; Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). However, so far, there has been a limited consideration of long-term and broad-scale views on the works of such architectural firms; the arguments in international debates typically refer to a limited number of projects and designers. Apart from a recent publication of ours (Ponzini and Manfredini 2017), no other study in particular has conducted a systematic mapping and comparative analysis to address the issues relevant to transnational architecture. The latter has been addressed by different disciplines, though with a limited set of methods (besides the introduction and the variety of approaches adopted in the chapters of this book, see the literature review in Ponzini, Manfredini and Akhavan 2018). For this reason, our understanding of such trends, in Europe and elsewhere, is restrained. Besides the intellectual challenge, our limited knowledge and methods and the absence of a general picture at the European and global scale impede posing central questions and ultimately grounding arguments in favour or against recurrent positions in international debates on systematic evidence. In particular, here we shall consider the discourse on the so-­ called “Bilbao effect” (Rybczynski 2002; Ponzini 2010; Gonzalez 2011) as a reference to discuss the spread of culture-led waterfront regeneration projects in Europe. Although a number of qualitative investigations and comparisons in limited sets of case studies have already investigated several Bilbao-like projects in Europe, there is no single attempt at verifying and quantifying the magnitude and characteristics of this spread, nor to see if there is a relationship between the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, that is, as a highly celebrated best practice, and following projects in European cities. This chapter, hence, intends to fill the gap in the literature and address the following questions: Is it possible to see an increase of star architecture-branded and culture-led waterfront regeneration projects in Europe after the success of Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao? What does this European geography convey regarding cultural facilities and culture-­ led waterfront master planning? For an ongoing research on transnational urbanism and architecture, we have developed a database of projects1 designed by transnational firms and completed in the 1990–2015 period (based on our definition, those with at least 25% share of their projects completed abroad are transnational firms) (Ponzini et al. 2018). According to our database, 67 transnational studios (both strong-idea and strong-service; see Sect. 2 of this chapter) completed a total number of 1326 projects in Europe. This broad picture will be useful to provide a context to our investigation (as well to other chapters in this book). Here it is worth emphasising that our database is not a comprehensive analysis of each and every star architecture project worldwide The collection of projects is based on buildings (singular or complexes), landscape designs (e.g. parks) and infrastructures (e.g. bridges), excluding master plans, as they require different and more complex data, small-scale and generic projects, interior designs and small refurbishments. 1 

70

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

(however defined), yet it is a purposive sampling to interpret certain trends; we believe that it is extensive enough for our purpose, withstanding it can be expanded. For the purpose of this chapter and according to the literature, we have selected a proxy of the so-called star architecture firms (strong-idea only; see Sect. 2 of this chapter), which are 48 in total with 953 projects in Europe. This database can be linked to other available data sets and integrated in a relational database of projects, firms, neighbourhoods, cities and nations as well as to other economic, social, demographic, urban and town planning, visual and photographic information (e.g. OpenStreetMap, Google Street View, Google Earth, Flickr, etc.), in order to produce further investigations and analytical maps (see, e.g. Chap. 9 by by Jacquot and Chareyron and Chap. 15 by Cominelli and Jacquot in this volume). This method of mapping architectural and urban projects allows a wide array of analyses. In this chapter, we narrow our scope and perform the analysis of culture-led waterfront redevelopments (a total of 64 projects) and their characteristics to see when and where they have appeared in Europe.

2 Background Study: Transnational Mobilities of Culture-Led Projects for Waterfront Regeneration Urban geography and planning scholars have tried to cast light on the mobility of urban policies and urban development schemes. Building on the works by Manuel Castells (1996), John Urry (2000, 2007) and others, scholars have shown that multiple urban actors tend to make policies, ideas and approaches to make urban planning, design and architecture to circulate internationally. McCann (2011) suggested adopting a wide interpretation of mobilities as a complex of agents, practices and performances that adapts policy ideas, solutions, etc. while they circulate. This is not a linear process; one can expect different local adaptations, hybridisation and assemblages with reference to local planning systems, institutional framework, actors and interests involved (Guggenheim and Söderström 2010). The multinational organisation and networks of transnational design firms have been studied extensively. The strategies for international urban and architectural design firms to distinguish themselves in a hypermobile global market are known today inasmuch as architectural practice is an economic activity (see, e.g. Gutman 1988; Knox and Taylor 2005; Sklair 2005; Faulconbridge 2010). Following the pioneering work of Gutman (1988), Olds (2001) adopted a simplified classification of firms, dividing them into two categories: (i) firms focusing on design excellence (strong-idea firms, namely, Frank Gehry, Richard Meier, etc., generally known as the “starchitects”) and (ii) those opting for complex design production and services levering reliability as a key (strong-service firms, such as Skidmore, SOM, Gensler, etc.). The studios which are capable of entering the star architecture system are 71

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

in fact less vulnerable to global competition for certain types of works, such as outstanding public facilities, museums, concert halls, institutional and corporate headquarters, luxury housing and so on (Kloosterman 2010). In this chapter, we concentrate on strong-idea firms as they are typically involved in designing architectural centrepieces. In the last two decades, European cities have built a number of cultural-­ led projects designed by firms operating internationally in order to ­revitalise significant parts of their urban fabric, such as their waterfronts. Historically, waterfronts and ports have been the backbone of many cities’ economy for trade and, hence, the location to many manufacturing operations in the nineteenth century throughout the Western world (Akhavan 2015). Yet, because of the technological changes and deindustrialisation of the 1980s, these former industrial sites, mainly adjacent to the historical centres, have become a challenge for their deterioration, as well as an opportunity – an important regenerative basis for functional, symbolic and aesthetic reasons. Since the late twentieth century, waterfront regeneration and redevelopment plans and projects have indeed played a key role in the economic development and image-making of post-industrial cities worldwide and in Europe especially (Marshall 2001). In this sense, urban waterfronts are referred to as new frontiers for conventional development processes (Malone 1996), mainly due to their strategic location and high visibility as the intersection between the city and the water. The city of Bilbao represents a remarkable example of how a waterfront can provide opportunities for the creation of a new image and identity, evolving from an industrial city – that like many others, witnessed a post-­ industrial crisis and economic decline in the 1970s and 1980s – to a major centre of culture in Europe. The often-told story of Bilbao’s regeneration efforts concentrates on the redevelopment of the Nervión River waterfront, where plans included the creation of a new museum for the Guggenheim Museum, completed in 1997. According to the narrative, the Gehry-­ designed museum put the city on the global map and induced its economic revitalisation, thanks to the museum’s spillover effects; yet, we believe that the story is much more complex (Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). The overall infrastructure of the city and higher accessibility supported the redevelopment of the site, through a larger master plan. The governance process was eased through a mixed public private entity – the urban development corporation Bilbao Ría 2000 – that managed a number of crucial planning passages. Previous studies of ours show how the Guggenheim building and the waterfront regeneration plan was capable of representing a season of renaissance for the city (refer to Ponzini 2010), which is very different from causing an economic revitalisation as others have suggested. However, policymakers, throughout Europe as well as other parts of the world, have concentrated on few aspects of this complex story: waterfront redevelopment through a mixed use master plan, and more specifically on new cultural facilities, placing the name and fame of the designer at the centre of the narration.

72

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

3 Exploring Transnational Star Architectural Projects in Europe: A General Overview Before focusing on exploring the spread of culture-led waterfront projects that are designed by name architects, and in order to provide a reference for deepening the culture-related projects, it is important to show a general overview of projects designed by strong-idea firms in Europe that are completed in the period 1990–2015. Figure 6.1 shows the localisation of 953 projects completed in Europe by the strong-idea firms of our database, organised according to a 5-year interval over 26 years. They are mostly located, respectively, in the United Kingdom (199 projects), Germany (144 projects) and France (135 projects); Scandinavian and Mediterranean Europe have lower presence, which is also the case of Eastern Europe. In almost all quadrants, one can

500

1000km

Fig. 6.1  Localisation of projects by strong-idea transnational firms in Europe and completed between 1990 and 2015. In the early 1990s, a limited number of projects are located in Europe, mostly located in the United Kingdom and France, in larger cities. A wider geographical spread in leading countries in Continental Europe and the United Kingdom occurred in the second half of the 1990s, with presence in the Scandinavian and Eastern Europe. The booming period of the 2000s shows a strong presence of Mediterranean countries like Italy and Spain (but not Greece). In almost all quadrants, one can see a spread to multiple locations and reach of smaller and lower-rank cities. Overall the number of projects in Europe declined slightly since the late 2000s. (Source: Mina Akhavan) 73

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

see a spread to multiple locations also towards smaller and lower-rank ­cities throughout time. During the 1990s, a limited number of projects were recorded (196 overall), while in the booming 2000s, the number has more than doubled (489 projects). The latter shows on the one hand a stronger presence of Mediterranean countries like Italy and Spain (but not Greece) and, on the other hand, a consolidation of the leading countries of previous phases. In the more recent period of 2010–2015, in general, the number of projects in Europe declined slightly (268 records) perhaps due to the financial crisis of the late 2000s and the slowdown in the real estate market. Again, our database allows one to see whether the variations of such projects corresponded to countries and cities suffering more or less from the crisis in Europe and beyond (Ponzini et al. 2018) Europe-based firms have shown to have internationalisation strategies and behaviours: the fact that firms typically consolidate their profile in their home countries first and then move to other markets (of course trying to keep their clients for subsequent works) is very important. Based on our descriptive country-level data analysis, the United Kingdom, with 9 strong-idea firm headquarters and 199 overall projects, has about 20% of its projects completed by foreign firms; France has 5 strong-idea firm headquarters and with 48% of its projects (135 overall) completed by foreign firms; the Netherlands, a small country compared to the others, has 3 strong-idea firm headquarters with 87 projects, 38% of which are designed by non-Dutch firms; Italy has only 2 main headquarters and a relatively high number of projects (72 overall) with a significant share of non-Italian designers having completed their projects there (65%). Although Spain and Germany have a number of notable architects, only one national transnational strong-idea firm was considered, respectively, Miralles Tagliabue EMBT and Studio Libeskind. Both countries show openness and interest in international firms that cover about 90% of the works. Further qualitative analyses, nevertheless, can help discussing the effect of national policies in strengthening design firms in their typical trajectories for consolidating their status in one’s country and then exporting projects, as well as in abating the – regulatory, managerial and cultural – barriers for international designers to develop their practice in specific countries. Zooming into the city scale, London by far stands out as the main European city with the highest count of projects (125), while other global capitals like Paris and second-tier cities like Barcelona, Amsterdam, Basel and Berlin are in the highest positions of transnational architectural projects.

4 Cultural Facilities as Part of Waterfront Redevelopments in Europe Culture-Led Projects in Europe By using part of our database that includes descriptive information on building functions and types, and by means of mapping software (here QGIS), we have mapped the presence and distribution of newly con74

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

500

Fig. 6.2  Cultural facilities designed by strong-idea transnational firms in Europe (1990–2015). The map shows the distribution of cultural facilities. Certain cities and region (e.g. London, Paris) show significant clusters over time with variable share of the national level, while other countries do not have clear clusters, with a spread in cities of different rank (e.g. Italy or the Netherlands). (Source: Mina Akhavan)

1000km

structed cultural facilities designed by star architects in Europe in the period 1990–2015. Figure 6.2 shows the overall distribution of 340 culture-­ led projects. A simple count helps considering the use of transnational architecture for cultural purpose in different countries. The trend is similar to the one explained in the previous section. The high number of cultural facilities in the United Kingdom (72 projects) is perhaps driven by the dominance of London as a global cultural capital (more than half of the records are located in this city, 40 overall). France (54 records) shows a less concentrated distribution with reference to its capital city, Paris (18 records), where a great amount of world famous cultural facilities can be found, but perhaps designed by firms having lower transnational mobility or simply being hosted in older facilities. Many other French cities typically have one single cultural facility designed by star architect. In Germany, we recognised 40 projects, of which 8 are located in Berlin. In comparison to the latter, Italy is less ­concentrated (31 records, 5 located in Rome). Non-capital cities are taking the lead in Spain (27 overall, 7 in Barcelona) and the Netherlands (21 overall, 4 in Amsterdam).

75

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

 ulture-Led Waterfront Redevelopments in Europe C 1990–2015 As mentioned beforehand, the topic of waterfront regeneration plans and projects in general is well documented in the academic literature. Despite previous studies having analysed and discussed the significant role of ­cultural facilities in the renewal of waterfronts, we know little about the overall number and locations of such projects developed alongside these new urban areas in the European context. In order to conduct a systematic study on culture-led waterfront projects in Europe, we extracted from our database those cultural facilities located within a 2-kilometre distance from the coastline or water body,2 identifying 155  in total; with further desktop investigation, we realised that only 64 projects are waterfront redevelopment projects (i.e. those being part of a larger scheme located along a water body) (see Appendix in this chapter). Table 6.1 shows the spread of these particular kinds of projects over time. Before the mid1990s, one can find only one project: in 1992 the “Porto Antico” project designed by Renzo Piano, in Genoa, Italy. As mentioned, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao was completed in 1997. Looking at our data, a higher number of star architect designed culture facilities in waterfront redevelopment projects appeared in Europe in the 2000s. Yet, despite a recurrent urban narrative, one cannot assume that the increase is simply due to the replication of a model in search of the “Bilbao effect” and that all the items in our 64 project list have similar success stories. As we stated beforehand, the general process of waterfront redevelopment is often linked to an overall economic restructuring of a city and the rise of such vacant sites made available to other urban uses. Bilbao’s remarkable regeneration process was not only due to its star architecture building but also for a complex set of urban policy and planning interventions. In our hypothesis, hence, we analysed whether star architecture buildings, being part of a not only larger master plans (as we selected waterfront redevelopments) but also a set of broader (e.g. city and metropolitan scale) plans involving large-scale infrastructure, public space, changing land uses and urban development visions (Ponzini 2010). In addition, by delving into case studies, we expect to see how the new cultural facility becomes internationally visible and representative of urban transformation when broader plans and visions succeed (even if the project is not spectacular). In our case studies, reference is made to Hayes (2009) four aspects in analysing culture-led flagship projects: vision, design, visitor attractiveness and its adaptation to the context and community to understand urban redevelopment more thoroughly. We have used multiple sources in order to have the most accurate filter regarding the proximity of projects to water bodies: rivers (retrieved from http://www.naturalearthdata.com/downloads/10m-physical-vectors/10m-rivers-lake-centerlines), lakes and inland water bodies (retrieved from WISE, water information system for Europe: https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/data/wise-wfd-spatial), while for the coastline, we used the Environmental European Agency data (https://www.eea.europa.eu/ data-and-maps/data/eea-coastline-for-analysis-1) 2 

76

(Source: Authors)

Denmark France Germany Greece Iceland Ireland Italy Monaco The Netherlands Norway Poland Portugal Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom Total

1

1

2

1

1

1

4

2

1

2

2 3

1

1

4

1 2 1

1 1

3

1

1

5

1

1

3

1

4

1

2

1

4

1 1

1

3

1

3

1

1

5

3

3

2

1

1

7

1

1

1

1

64

4 1 3 6 2 2 17

1992 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total 3 1 1 2 7 1 1 1 1 1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5

Table 6.1  Number of waterfront culture-led projects by year and country in Europe. The table shows an increase after 1997, that is, the year of completion of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. As it will be argued, similar star architecture projects occurred in comparable waterfront areas of cities undergoing similar restructuring towards service and tourism economies and more generally. This increase, per se, does not imply the mere copy or transfer of one model project from one city to others

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

77

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

From our 64 projects, we have selected 5 that have been previously studied and deepened in the literature to be able to make use of significant secondary sources. The selection seeks, as much as possible, to include diverse geographic locations (Mediterranean, Anglo-Saxon, Continental, and Nordic quadrants of Europe), with diverse completion dates and located in different urban contexts. Besides discussing the different degrees of iconicity and spectacularisation of architecture and the surrounding urban environment (Ponzini 2012), each case will consider the plans, spatial visions and more general urban transformations that were connected with the intervention.

Fig. 6.3 The location of Porto Antico in the historic centre of Genoa. The map shows the organic shape of the old port that is marked by the elevated highway and partly by the railway line. Thanks to the transformation of the port, the sea is reconnected to the dense old town area. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt)

 ive Case Studies of Culture-Led Waterfront Regeneration F and Star Architecture Projects  orto Antico (Genoa, 1992), Designed by Renzo Piano P Porto Antico in Genoa, Italy, is our only case study that was built in the early 1990s. This former port site in the heart of the historic city went through major transformations, which was linked to a broader vision of regenerating the waterfront and the city centre. The shift of port-related activities towards the periphery, in the early 1980s, freed up the central area that was previously dedicated solely to port activities. Several tourism and leisure projects were proposed for converting the waterfront and surrounding spaces, an extremely dense urban fabric, and thereby reconnecting the historic city to the water and promoting a new city image (Bobbio 2005) (Fig. 6.3). A series of mega-events became crucial throughout this transformation process.3 The old port was at the heart of these events, and Renzo Piano’s team worked on different projects in this area from 1987 onwards: Piazza delle Feste, restoring the cotton warehouses which was then transformed into a convention centre; an aquarium built with a bio-marine research facility; and the Bigo that supports the panoramic elevator (refer to Fig. 6.4). The development as a whole represented a new focal point for the city.4 Genoa’s successful waterfront regeneration approach, the transformation of the “Porto Antico” into a spectacular centre for the city, can be attributed to a number of factors: a long-term vision for urban development and restructuring of the economic base (e.g. strengthening tourism); a master plan approach – by means of the Genoa Port Master Plan, in ­addition to the city’s General Master Plan  – which has allowed effective mediation between opposing interests and radical changes in land use; relatively The 1990 World Cup in Italy set an important base for an influx of visitors; 2 years later, the city organised an international exhibition celebrating the Christopher Columbus Quincentenary (Expo ‘92); in 2001, Genoa hosted the G8 summit, channelling the state allocated funds into an extensive programme to upgrade public spaces; the city shared the title of the European Capital of Culture in 2004 with the French city of Lille (Fedeli and Gastaldi 2004). 4  http://www.portoantico.it/en/la-societa/the-renzo-piano-project/ 3 

78

Fig. 6.4  View of the Porto Antico in Genoa. In Genoa, the design of branded facilities, the conversion of the old port space and the redesign of the public realm along the waterfront depicted here went hand in hand with a long-term strategy that included the revitalisation of the historic city centre and the systematic use of mega-events (e.g. Genoa 2004 European Capital of Culture). (Source: Photo­ graph by Mina Akhavan, 2018)

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

79

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

enlightened and positive relationships between the Port Authority and the municipality and a “design-led” approach that involved the Port Authority; and a combination of leisure-, cultural- and tourism-based activities and a strong redesign and renewal of public spaces and historic environments along the waterfront and in the surrounding areas (Marshall 2001).

 ate Modern (London, 2000), Designed by Herzog & de T Meuron The project of the Tate Modern Gallery (refer to Fig. 6.5) is an early piece of a broader scheme for regenerating the South Bank area in the city of London and more in general the south side of the Thames, since the beginning of the millennium. The former Bankside Power Station was redesigned by Herzog & de Meuron for hosting exhibitions and inaugurated in the year 2000 with significant success (Dean et  al. 2010). The museum size and renewal were functional to host contemporary art exhibitions more than to impress through its design. The Switch House is a new and more spectacular addition to the gallery, also designed by Herzog & de Meuron, inaugurated in 2016. Figure 6.6 shows the location of the project within a complex urban system. The Tate Modern and other projects joined the improvement of the accessibility from Waterloo Station, among others, through the opening of the Jubilee line station in 1999. The change in the surrounding public spaces (that now allows citizens and tourists to access the whole city river side along continuous walkway) has been a long-term process composed of different interventions including other cultural, entertainment, retail and civic facilities (Carmona and Wunderlich 2012). Some of them were designed by noted architects as Norman Foster: the Millennium Bridge, and further eastward and as part of a broader waterfront scheme (Palermo and Ponzini 2015). The successes of the riverside conversions into an appealing public space and the concentration of cultural facilities in this part of the South Bank5 generated new opportunities for lucrative real estate investment, as the area has become a target “Opportunity Area” – designated by the city of London as a major source of brownfield land with a significant capacity for development – in the London Plan of the mid-2000s. Several buildings and areas have been redesigned while increasing the area’s density (e.g. South Bank Tower). Next to the Tate Modern lies Neo Bankside, a complex of luxury towers designed by Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, and was completed in the early 2010s.  orwegian National Opera and Ballet (Oslo, 2008), Designed N by Snohetta As stated by Snohetta, the firm that designed the project for the Norwegian National Opera and Ballet in Oslo: “the opera house is the first element in the planned transformation of this area of the city. Due to its size an Cultural buildings such as Tate Modern, the Hayward Gallery, Royal Festival Hall and Rambert Dance Company headquarters and the National Theatre. 5 

80

Fig. 6.5 View of the Tate Modern and the waterfront. The design by Herzog & de Meuron for the reuse of the former Bankside Power Station as the seat for the Tate Modern was not spectacular. This operation was part of a larger set of transformations that changed the area, some of which branded by star architects: behind the main facility of Tate Modern is the medium-rise facility (Switch House) also designed by Herzog & de Meuron, on the left the luxury housing Neo Bankside by Richard Rogers and in front of it the Millennium Bridge by Norman Foster. (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2015)

Fig. 6.6 The location of Tate Modern and the South Bank. The museum facility connects with the public spaces of the South Bank. Clearly visible are the garden and the bridge in front of it. The high level of accessibility enhanced the effect of multiple policies and invest­ ments that fostered the transformation of the area. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt)

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

81

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

aesthetic expression, the opera house will stand apart from other buildings in the area. The marble clad roofscape forms a large public space in the landscape of the city and the fjord. The building connects city and fjord, urbanity and landscape”.6 The opera house is indeed one of the major investments for a single facility, and a landmark, in the broader plan of the waterfront redevelopment area known as the Fjord City urban renewal project, which provides a long-term vision and large-scale infrastructure redesign. The transformation area, once a harbour and industrial site, stretches over more than 12 km from east to west of Oslo’s city centre (City of Oslo 2004). Within this programme, Bjørvika  – where the new National Opera House is located – is one of the main areas of the Fjord City that was publicly owned and occupied by a variety of transport infrastructures: the port, a main road system and railway. Since the 1990s, a programme to reduce the surface traffic was foreseen, the relocation of the heavily used European E18 motorway into a new immersed tunnel. Eventually, the Bjørvika Tunnel was scheduled to be completed 2  years after the Opera House’s opening (Hofseth 2008); today it has significantly helped to reduce the surface traffic in this area by 70%, therefore improving the air and noise pollution. More recently, other infrastructural projects were completed: in 2015, a new street network connecting this area with the rest of Oslo was completed; a 9-kilometre promenade along the waterfront is also an important connecting element (City of Oslo 2004; refer to Fig. 6.7). The cultural facility designed by Snohetta provides a new public space to reconnect the city to the sea. It is clearly a flagship project with a national importance and considered to be “the largest single culture-­ political initiative in contemporary Norway”,7 being a goal even before the completion of the project (Statsbygg 2005). Some studies show that its role as a flagship cultural and regeneration project is one of the most important justifications for this building, while they also confirm the project’s enduring success story and its contribution to a wider regeneration of the area; tourism attraction seems serve a secondary goal (Smith and von Krogh Strand 2011). Today, the building, which stands out within the system of the transformed area, has become an icon for national identity. Though the project is iconic, its aesthetics and size fit in the context and do not involve the use of spectacular visual technologies to this end.

Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/440/oslo-opera-house-snohetta Retrieved from http://terella.no/2009/05/05/oslo-opera-house-is-recreational-culturefor-the-people/ 6  7 

82

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

Fig. 6.7  The location of the Norwegian National Opera within a wider context. The new building is part of a broader vision for the development of the city and its waterfront. In particular the opera house is located in a focal point that was enhanced by heavy investments for infrastructure change, pedestrianisation and redesign of the public realm. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt)

83

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

 arpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre (Reykjavik, 2011), H Designed by Henning Larsen Architects On 7 June 2013, the European Union Prize for Contemporary Architecture/ Mies van der Rohe Award, dedicated to excellence in architecture, was granted to the team composed of Batteríið Architects, Henning Larsen Architects and Studio Olafur Eliasson which designed the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre in Reykjavik, Iceland (Fig. 6.8). Although the plans to build a new concert hall for Reykjavik was set in the 1980s, the construction did not commence until 2007. Due to the great crisis that brought the collapse of financial and economic activities in Iceland, the government put the half-finished construction site on hold, since this was the masterpiece in a larger redevelopment scheme (World Trade Center Reykjavík), which included one luxury hotel, retail and restaurants, luxury apartments and parking and office space for the new headquarters of one Icelandic bank. Nevertheless, Icelanders continued with the Harpa project – the only building to be constructed for some years after the economic crash. Eventually, the 28,000 m2 development was opened in 2011 with a cost of ISK 18.6 billion (€120 m).8 The preliminary idea of transforming the Old Harbour, as an important part of the Icelandic heritage, to serve the cultural economy, emerged in 1997. Eventually in 2009, the Association Icelandic Port (AIP), the main land owner, organised an international design competition for a master plan and strategic vision considering the future development of the harbour area, with approximately 190 acres, including the Harpa building which was under construction (Konior 2018). The winner, the British design studio Graeme Massie Architects, proposed a spine that forms an extension towards the city centre to create a vibrant new waterfront and a mixed use area, to strengthen the relationship between the city and harbour area with a focus on cultural activities and creative industries – including also educational institutions, cinema, hotel, shopping streets and residential buildings (Fig. 6.9). In addition to the spectacular and technologically advanced architectural design, one may probably read some slight political message in this prize: the project in this European capital city is the symbol for Iceland (and perhaps other European countries) finally exiting a deep crisis. Some believe that “instead of becoming a symbol of the economic crash, Harpa has become a symbol of recovery, a new landmark in Reykjavik and stunning feature of the harbour area” (Jóhannesson 2013, p.  36). This example demonstrates the broader expectations that cities tend to attach to star architecture go well beyond architectural design, touching on urban design (e.g. accessibility and connection to the existing city and to other segments of the waterfront development), planning for large-scale projects, urban policy issues (e.g. iconicity and symbolic meaning of the building for local and global populations as well) and regional planning as well. Retrieved from http://www.nordiclabourjournal.org/i-fokus/in-focus-2014/icelandback-on-its-feet/article.2014-06-16.3867424063 8 

84

Fig. 6.8 The redevelopment of the harbour area with the focus on cultural activities and creative industries. It is premised on a spine connecting the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre with the city centre as a dominant element. (Source: Adapted from Openstreet Maps by Alexander Arndt)

Fig. 6.9 A view of the Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre in Reykjavik. The new cultural facility of the Harpa involved signifi­ cant redevelopment of the waterfront site as well as its surrounding with infrastructural works, mixed-use and housing developments that are visible in this 2018 photograph. (Source: Photograph by Davide Ponzini, 2018)

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

85

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

 usée des Confluences (Lyon, 2014), Designed by Coop M Himmelb(l)au Described by the designers of the Musée des Confluences (refer to Fig. 6.10): “right from the 2001 international competition for a natural history museum in Lyon, the museum was envisioned as a ‘medium for the transfer of knowledge’ and not as a showroom for products. In order to build a museum of knowledge, a complex new form had to be developed as an iconic gateway”.9 Likewise the previous four case studies, this project is also part of a broader programme that is situated at the confluence of two rivers being the Rhone and Saone (hence the name), adjacent to the historic city yet isolated by infrastructure (river, railway and motorway). Figure 6.11 shows the location of the project, emphasising the main urban elements and infrastructures intersecting the site. The 150-hectare site of La Confluence, formerly home to industries and Lyon’s river port, has undergone a massive redevelopment project since 2003, though the discussion for an urban renewal of this area had already started in the late 1990s. It is considered to be Europe’s largest regeneration plan led by mainly public investment; a semi-public single purpose company was responsible for the urban planning and design principles.10 The main objective of this urban development project was “to build a smart and sustainable city”, to be completed in two main phases: (Phase 1, 2003/2018, and Phase 2, 2010/2025).11 La Confluence not only strives to be “best practice” for sustainable urban development and urban quality in Lyon (Carpenter and Verhage 2014), yet also it becomes a laboratory for star architectures to design and construct housing, offices, cultural spaces and public spaces.12 The £200 million natural history museum – a deconstructivist architecture that resembles a spaceship and extends over an area of 27,000 m2 – is currently becoming a new symbol for Lyon. It took more than a decade to complete the building that was eventually inaugurated in 2014. Because of the project’s particular complex design and its especially visible location at the meeting point of the rivers, it seems that the city has desired its “own Guggenheim”.13 Whether it is iconic and spectacular,

Retrieved from https://www.archdaily.com/585697/musee-des-confluences-coophimmelb-l-au 10  Retrieved from http://www.themayor.eu/mt/lyon-confluence-is-the-largest-urbanregeneration-project-in-europe 11  Retrieved from http://www.lyon-confluence.fr/ressources/flipbooks/.../GB/files/ assets/.../publication.pdf 12  Examples of some buildings in this area are the Lyon Confluence Housing complex designed by Massimiliano and Doriana Fuksas, the Ycone building by Jean Nouvel and the Confluences Museum by Coop Himmelb(l)au, which is dedicated to science and society. 13  Retrieved from https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/france/rhonealpes/lyon/features/Lyons-Musee-Des-Confluences-the-new-Guggenheim/

Fig. 6.10 A view of the Musée des Confluences and the waterfront. The location and the aesthetics of this new museum were selected with the explicit intention of creating a new icon for this transforming area at the confluence of the Rhone and Saone ­rivers and for the city of Lyon. The area has been targeted by a number of planning and real estate development initiatives. (Source: Photograph by Duccio Malagamba, Barcelona 2015)

9 

86

Fig. 6.11  The location of the Musée des Confluences within a wider context. This map shows the high visibility of the location of the new museum on the tip of the island and the infrastructure that connects it to the rest of the city. Also visible is the d­ ifferent pattern of the fabric of the island. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt)

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

87

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

ugly or beautiful, the building as a large public space has so far succeeded, not just as a museum, but also it has become an event in the cityscape, a flagship urban project and inspiring for collective urban imaginations (Shin 2015).

5 Conclusion: Star Architecture, Urban Transformation and the Waterfront Project Spread In this chapter, we presented a study of star architecture projects as part of culture-led waterfront redevelopments in Europe. A systematic approach is used for producing evidence-based analyses of the spread of such projects and their contribution to urban development processes. Before the completion of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, one can see few projects of this kind (5 projects of our 64 project list are completed before 1997). Waterfront projects of different sorts, including not only those with spectacular cultural facilities, could spread where the economic conditions needed or welcomed them, such as stages of restructuring, or when industries and port-related activities near city centres have declined and started to move to other parts of the region or the world and left behind large brownfields. The shift towards tertiary industries, tourism and entertainment activities (Evans 2003; Clark 2004) called for more urban facilities, often combined with festivals, events and urban environments prepared to accommodate them and potential consumers; the waterfront became the perfect site for new projects. Yet, this paradigm followed different forms in the United States (e.g. Baltimore Inner Harbour; refer to Harvey (1989)) and Europe (most notably Barcelona). Within the picture of a significant increase in the late 1990s and in the 2000s across Europe, Bilbao can be seen as a forerunner for a new generation of spectacular projects, where star architecture plays a stronger visual and symbolic role. The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao enjoyed the reputation for wider urban effects because it was perhaps a brilliant signifier to which several meanings were attributed (eventually by self-interested parties, as architects and museum institutions). Once again, expecting a positive “effect” from Bilbao-like projects alone and especially by an individual museum is delusionary (Ponzini 2010). According to our analysis, one can see the contribution of cultural facilities designed by a star architect as part of a long-term programme for the regeneration of waterfronts, of broader planning visions for economic restructuring, of a set of heavy infrastructural investments, of the transformation of public space and of surrounding areas through master plans. The ability of museums to become an icon for a season of renaissance of the whole city or of an area can be explained visually (Nastasi and Ponzini 2018). Iconic projects can be

88

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

identified as “unabashed visibility” (Ockman 2004, p. 236), mainly triggered by their will to be exhibited in isolation, rather than as part of an ensemble. This can explain why many of the iconic buildings are placed along waterfronts. After Bilbao other cities and transnational actors, dealing with their own abandoned waterfronts, have used the narration of the “Bilbao effect” in order to promote redevelopments that were motivated by multiple public or private goals, including economic restructuring and adding cultural cachet to the city (Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). The master plans, larger infrastructure and waterfront investments, the provision of new public space and the opportunities for real estate redevelopment and appreciation  – as described in our case studies  – were often part of a long-term strategic vision. The latter allowed a broader coordination among the local government and higher institutional levels (regional, national and EU), port authorities, local and multinational investors, cultural institutions and others. We understand the strategy of using Bilbao as a reference model can be explained as a “narrative” rather than the transfer of the same planning scheme (as described in Gonzalez 2011). Cities tend to imitate one another or at least tell similar stories in order to legitimise projects and policies (Czarniawska 2002). Perhaps similar projects and plans would have taken place even without museums, though star architecture adds visibility and legitimisation, helping generate new identities and re-narrating cities and nations (McNeill and Tewdwr-Jones 2003). Finally, the proposed overview of transnational architecture in Europe opens up new questions and hypothesis that can be developed by using our data set in further detail and perhaps subsets of it. The central methodological point that is made is the need to interpret this quantitative approach with other quantitative and qualitative approaches (media analysis, social network analysis, visual analysis, in-depth case studies, as the chapters by Cominelli and Jacquot and by Jacquot and Chareyron in this volume show). Further research has been undertaken and represented in this book by drawing on our database and linking to others, yet we believe much more can be done to develop systematic evidence-based arguments regarding star architecture, its transnational trajectories and urban effects.

89

90 Gehry Partners LLP aLL Design Renzo Piano Building Workshop (RPBW) David Chipperfield Architects Michael Wilford & Partners Herzog & de Meuron Henning Larsen Architects Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners (RSHP) Ateliers Jean Nouvel Ateliers Jean Nouvel Herzog & de Meuron Michael Wilford & Partners Studio Libeskind

Guggenheim Museum Jersey Cafe

NEMO (National Center for Science and Technology) River & Rowing Museum

Tate Gallery

Küppersmühle Museum, Grothe Collection Malmö City Library Millennium Experience

The Lowry

Imperial War Museum North

Culture and Convention Center Palais de Justice Tate Modern

Museum Jean Tinguely SECC Conference Centre

Arata Isozaki & Associates Dominique Perrault Architecture Mario Botta Foster + Partners

Firm Renzo Piano Building Workshop (RPBW) Coop Himmelb(l)au

Domus: La Casa del Hombre French National Library

Groninger Museum – The East Pavilion

Project name Porto Antico

Manchester

Salford

Lucerne Nantes London

Duisburg Malmö London

Henley-on-­ Thames Liverpool

Amsterdam

Bilbao St Helier

Basel Glasgow

La Coruña Paris

Groningen

City Genoa

Switzerland United Kingdom Spain United Kingdom The Netherlands United Kingdom United Kingdom Germany Sweden United Kingdom Switzerland France United Kingdom United Kingdom United Kingdom

The Netherlands Spain France

Country Italy

2001

2000

2000 2000 2000

1999 1999 1999

1998

1998

1997

1997 1997

1996 1997

1995 1995

1994

Year of completion 1992

List of projects for cultural facilities along the waterfront completed by strong-­idea firms between 1990 and 2015

Appendix

Y

Y

Y N Y

Y Y N

Y

N

Y

Y N

N N

Y N

N

Working abroad N

Manchester Ship Canal Manchester Ship Canal

Lake Lucerne River Loire River Thames

Lake Ruhr Coastline River Thames

Coastline

River Thames

Oosterdok

Nervión Coastline

River Rhine River Clyde

Coastline River Seine

Zuiderhaven

Waterbody Coastline

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

David Adjaye David Chipperfield Architects SANAA UN Studio Ateliers Jean Nouvel David Chipperfield Architects Snohetta RMJM Álvaro Siza Zaha Hadid Architects Snohetta Santiago Calatrava Ateliers Jean Nouvel David Chipperfield Architects Charles Correa

Mercedes-Benz Museum Museum Du Quai Branly Am Kupfergraben 10 Petter Dass Museum Arp Museum Biblioteca Municipal de Viana do Castelo Bridge Pavilion Norwegian National Opera and Ballet Agora – Ciudad de las Artes y las Ciencias Copenhagen Concert Hall Neues Museum Champalimaud Centre

Henning Larsen Architects Shigeru Ban Architects

Copenhagen Copenhagen Viana do Castelo Gateshead

Studio Libeskind Henning Larsen Architects Souto de Moura Foster + Partners

Copenhagen opera house Institute, Centre d’Interpretation du Canal de Bourgogne Nobel Peace Center America’s Cup Building (Veles e Veints) De Kunstlinie Theater & Cultural Center

Wismar Copenhagen

Ateliers Jean Nouvel Henning Larsen Architects

Wismar Technology Centre A.P. Moller Maersk – Extension of Headquarters Danish Jewish Museum IT University of Copenhagen Pavilion in Viana do Castelo The Sage Gateshead

Stuttgart Paris Berlin Alstahaug Remagen Viana do Castelo Zaragoza Oslo Valencia Copenhagen Berlin Lisbon

Copenhagen Pouilly-en-­ Auxois Oslo Valencia Almere

Tenerife London

Santiago Calatrava Herzog & de Meuron

Adan Martin Auditorio de Tenerife Laban Dance Centre

City Haarlemmermeer

Firm Asymptote Architect

Project name The HydraPier Pavilion

Norway Spain The Netherlands Germany France Germany Norway Germany Portugal Spain Norway Spain Denmark Germany Portugal

Denmark Denmark Portugal United Kingdom Denmark France

Country The Netherlands Spain United Kingdom Germany Denmark

2006 2006 2007 2007 2008 2008 2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2010

2005 2006 2006

2005 2005

2004 2004 2004 2004

2003 2004

2003 2003

Year of completion 2002

Y N Y N Y N Y N Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y

N Y

Y N N N

Y N

Y Y

Working abroad Y

River Neckar River Seine Lake Spree Coastline River Rhine Coastline River Ebro Coastline Coastline Coastline Lake Spree Coastline (continued)

Coastline Coastline Weerwater

Coastline Canal de Bourgogne

Coastline Coastline Coastline River Tyne

Coastline Coastline

Waterbody Westeinderplassen Lake Coastline Lake Thames 6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

91

92 Kolding Umeå Monaco Spijkenisse

David Chipperfield Architects Renzo Piano Building Workshop (RPBW) Foster + Partners Grimshaw Architects Renzo Piano Building Workshop (RPBW) Coop Himmelb(l)au Arata Isozaki & Associates Coop Himmelb(l)au Henning Larsen Architects Snohetta Foster + Partners UNStudio Herzog & de Meuron

The Hepworth Wakefield

Astrup Fearnley Museum of Modern Art

The Cutty Sark Conservation Project

Genoa New Cetaceans Pavilion

SDU University of Southern Denmark – Campus Kolding Väven Yacht Club de Monaco Theatre Spijkenisse

Tate Modern Switch House

House of Music Ii ICE Krakow Congress Centre Musée des Confluences

The SSE Hydro

Arata Isozaki & Associates David Chipperfield Architects

Megaron Concert Hall Turner Contemporary

London

Aalborg Krakow Lyon

Genoa

London

Glasgow

Oslo

Wakefield

Thessaloniki Margate

Dublin Reykjavik Glasgow

Studio Libeskind Henning Larsen Architects Zaha Hadid Architects

Grand Canal Theatre Harpa Concert Hall and Conference Centre Riverside Museum

City London

Firm Grimshaw Architects

Project name ExCel Phase II

(continued)

Sweden Monaco The Netherlands United Kingdom

Denmark

Denmark Poland France

United Kingdom United Kingdom Italy

Country United Kingdom Ireland Iceland United Kingdom Greece United Kingdom United Kingdom Norway

2015

2014 2014 2014

2014

2014 2014 2014

2013

2012

2012

2012

2011

2011 2011

2010 2011 2011

Year of completion 2010

Y

Y Y N

N

Y Y Y

N

N

N

Y

N

Y N

Y Y N

Working abroad N

River Thames

River Ume Coastline Oude Haven

Coastline River Vistula Rive Rhone and River Saone Coastline

Coastline

River Thames

River Clyde

Coastline

River Calder

Coastline Coastline

Coastline Coastline River Clyde

Waterbody Lake Thames

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan

6  Star Architecture Spreads in Europe: Culture-Led Waterfront Projects Between 1990 and 2015

References Akhavan M (2015) Port development and port-city interface dynamics. Unpublished PhD dissertation, Politecnico di Milano. https://www.politesi.polimi.it/handle/ 10589/102901 Bobbio R (2005) Complessità di rapporti e iniziative di integrazione fra la città e il porto di Genova. Portus 10:35–41 Carmona M, Wunderlich FM (2012) Capital spaces: the multiple complex public spaces of a global city. Routledge, London Carpenter J, Verhage R (2014) Lyon city profile. Cities 38:57–68 Castells M (1996) The rise of the network society. Blackwell, Oxford City of Oslo (2004) “The Fjord City”- the plans for urban development of the waterfront. Agency for Planning and Building Service. 81.47.175.201/plalitoral/SIGlitoral/ altresplans/oslowaterfront.pdf Clark TN (ed) (2004) The city as an entertainment machine. Elsevier, Amsterdam Czarniawska B (2002) A tale of three cities: or the glocalization of city management. Oxford University Press, Oxford Dean C, Donnellan C, Pratt AC (2010) Tate Modern: pushing the limits of regeneration. City Cult Soc 1(2):79–87 Evans G (2003) Hard-branding the cultural city – from Prado to Prada. Int J Urban Reg Res 27(2):417–440 Faulconbridge JR (2010) Global architects: learning and innovation through communities and constellations of practice. Environ Plan A 42(12):2842–2858 Fedeli V, Gastaldi F (2004) Pratiche strategiche di pianificazione. Riflessioni a partire da nuovi spazi urbani in costruzione. Franco Angeli, Milan Gonzalez S (2011) Bilbao and Barcelona “in motion”: how urban regeneration models “travel” and mutate in global flows of policy tourism. Urban Stud 48(7):1397–1418 Guggenheim M, Söderström O (2010) Re-shaping cities: how global mobility transforms architecture and urban form. Routledge, London Gutman R (1988) Architectural practice: a critical view. Princeton Architectural Press, New York Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism., Geografiska Annaler. Series B, Human Geography 71(1):3-17 Hayes D (2009) From dome to dome: exploring cultural flagships and their contribution to achieving regeneration goals. In: Kent T, Brown R (eds) Flagship marketing: concepts and places. Routledge, London, pp 91–106 Hofseth M (2008) The new opera house in Oslo–a boost for urban development? Urban Res Pract 1(1):101–103 Jóhannesson B (2013) Now you have one more excuse to come to Iceland! Iceland Issues and Images 8(1):36 Kloosterman RC (2010) Building a career: labour practices and cluster reproduction in Dutch architectural design. Reg Stud 44(7):859–871 Knox PL, Taylor PJ (2005) Toward a geography of the globalization of architecture office networks. J Archit Educ 58(3):23–32 Konior A (2018) The revitalization of the Old Harbor in Reykjavik by a cultural economy. Space Cult (online first):1–15 Malone P (1996) City, capital and water. Routledge, London/New York Marshall R (2001) Waterfronts in post-industrial cities. Spon Press, London McCann E (2011) Urban policy mobilities and global circuits of knowledge: toward a research agenda. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 101(1):107–130 McNeill D, Tewdwr-Jones M (2003) Architecture, banal nationalism and reterritorialization. Int J Urban Regional Res 27(3):736–743 Nastasi M, Ponzini D (2018) Towards a photographic urbanism? Images iconizing cities and swaying urban transformation. In: Lindner C, Meissner M (eds) The Routledge companion to urban imaginaries. Routledge, London, pp 217–231 Ockman J (2004) New politics of the spectacle: ‘Bilbao’ and the global imagination. In: Lasansky D, McClaren B (eds) Architecture and tourism: perception, performance and place. Berg, Oxford, pp 227–240 93

D. Ponzini and M. Akhavan Olds K (2001) Globalization and urban change: capital, culture, and Pacific Rim ­mega-projects. Oxford University Press, Oxford Palermo PC, Ponzini D (2015) Place-making and urban development: new challenges for contemporary planning and design. Routledge, London Ponzini D (2010) Bilbao effects and narrative defects. Cahiers de Recherche du Programme Villes & Territoires. http://blogs.sciences-po.fr/recherche-villes/ files/2010/08/Ponzini-Bilbao-Effects-and-Narrative-Defects.pdf Ponzini D (2012) Competing cities and spectacularizing urban landscapes. In: Anheier HK, Isar YR, Hoelscher M (eds) Cities, cultural policy and governance. Sage, London, pp 99–110 Ponzini D, Manfredini F (2017) New methods for studying transnational architecture and urbanism: a primer. Territorio 80:97–110. Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture: scenes, actors, and spectacles in contemporary cities. Monacelli Press, New York Ponzini D, Manfredini F, Akhavan M (2018) Transnational architecture and urbanism: outlining and testing a new method for studying the global mobilities of projects and designers. Paper submitted for publication 2019- under review at time of print. Rybczynski W (2002) The Bilbao effect. Atl Mon 290(2):138–142 Shin N (2015) Lyon’s new Musée Des Confluences. https://coolhunting.com/culture/ lyon-musee-des-confluences-science-museum/ Sklair L (2005) The transnational capitalist class and contemporary architecture in globalizing cities. Int J Urban Regional Res 29(3):485–500 Sklair L (2017) The icon project: architecture, cities, and capitalist globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford Smith A, von Krogh Strand I (2011) Oslo’s new Opera House: cultural flagship, regeneration tool or destination icon? Eur Urban Regional Studies 18(1):93–110 Statsbygg (2005) New Opera House. Oslo, November Urry J  (2000) Sociology beyond societies: mobilities for the twenty-first century. Routledge, New York Urry J (2007) Mobilities. Wiley, London

94

II

STAR ARCHITECTURE AND THE MEDIA

7

The Circulation of News and Images: Star Architecture and Its Media Effects Nadia Alaily-Mattar and Alain Thierstein

Abstract

Based on the idea that star architecture projects cannot be read at ground level only, instead, the media is their primary site of reading as Foster (2008) has argued of Pop architecture, this chapter reads star architecture projects through the media. The “Bilbao effect” idea has supported the circulation of the unproven assumption that a star architecture project can disrupt or transform the image of a city in the media. Making use of case studies of three public cultural facilities commissioned to star architects and put into use in three medium-sized cities in Europe in the past 10 years, this chapter investigates the extent to which a transformation of exposure in the print media has accompanied the development of star architecture projects in their respective cities. Findings of quantitative research of selected international and national newspapers and media platforms are presented. This chapter concludes that despite possible increase in the inauguration year, star architecture can have quite short-lived quantitative media effects. Keywords

Media · Star architecture · Bilbao effect · Image · City marketing

1 The “Star” in Star Architecture

N. Alaily-Mattar (*) · A. Thierstein Urban Development, Technische Universität München, Munich, Bayern, Germany e-mail: N.Alaily-Mattar@tum. de; [email protected]

Owing to globalisation, the Internet and “media’s newfound consciousness of architecture” (Klingmann 2007, p. 246), news and digital images of buildings have come to circulate globally at a pace and scale never witnessed before. Underlying the Bilbao effect narrative is the assumption that by commissioning a star architecture project, a city can tap onto the media exposure of that project and in doing so can change its image. However, the assumption that this global distribution and effortless circulation of news and images of buildings has an impact on cities in which these buildings are located is yet to be proven. Untangling this unproven assumption that a star architecture project generates positive media effects is the focus of this chapter.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_7

97

N. Alaily-Mattar and A. Thierstein

To start our discussion, we need first to unpack the term star architecture; a central issue here is the definition of “star”. The term star denotes a focus on the recognition status of an architectural project. This can be related either to the recognition status of the architect and by extension the signature product or to the recognition status of an architectural project irrespective of the status of its architect. In the former case, star architecture is closely related to “marketing weight” (Fuerst et  al. 2011) of its architect. In the latter case, star architecture is closely related to iconicity of architecture and the capacity of this iconicity to make an architecture project a star that is recognisable. We first elaborate on the recognition status of the architect (refer to Fig.  7.1). The architects’ award of the prestigious Pritzker Architecture Prize has often been used to operationalise the concept of star architect (Fuerst et al. 2011; McNeill 2005, p. 502; Patterson 2012). This “official badge of approval” (Larson 1993, p. 183) by the “symbolic gatekeepers of a specialised field” (Ibid, p. 182) is, however, only a measure of professional recognition in confirmation of distinction. McNeill (2005) argues that alongside professional recognition, there is also global commercial recognition and public recognition (McNeill 2005, p. 504). Global commercial recognition relates to the expansion of commissions in terms of quantity and geographic location. Public recognition relates to increasing media coverage and name recognition outside the field of architectural profession, i.e. becoming a household name. Public recognition relates to the development of the “image of the architect” (Saint 1983), architects’ “flirt with fame” (Bayley 2005) and the pursuit of star status, which is not necessarily associated with professional merit or artisanal skill (Jarzombek 2008) but with “mass appeal” (Adler 1985). Although the figure of the architect “as a possessor of privileged vision, has been with us since the Renaissance (at least)” (McNeill 2005, p. 501), the idea of star architects is a century-old phenomena in the history of architecture (Baus 2015); the production of star architects as publically recognized figures has accelerated in a “winner-take-it-all society” (Frank and Cook 1995).

Distinction

Professional recognition

Commercial recognition

Public recognition

98

Exposure

Fig. 7.1  The interrelationship between distinction, recognition and exposure in the making of star architects. This figure illustrates the three forms of recognition rely on exposure, with public recognition of celebrity architects created by the critics, the media and architects themselves, through the exploitation of circulation of images of iconic architecture. (Source: By authors)

7  The Circulation of News and Images: Star Architecture and Its Media Effects

Larson has indicated already in the early 1990s that the “roster of international celebrity architects, known outside architecture for their personas as much as for their work, is created by the critics, the media, and the architects themselves, with more than a little push from their clients” (Larson 1993, p. 285). In the past 10 years, this has also been supported by the expansion of global architecture awards. Roudbari’s analysis (2018) shows that new international, web-based design awards are lowering barriers to entry into the star architecture realm, enabling the production and consumption of recognition transnationally at a scale previously unseen and democratising recognition by crowdsourcing the judgement of projects. First, the transformation of architectural awards from juried to crowdsourced (Roudbari 2018) and the growth of the visibility and fame of architects beyond the confines of purely professional circles to reach the consciousness of a much wider general public (Belogolovsky 2015, p. 7) means that the basis of symbolic capital in architecture is evolving from one related to distinction to one related to exposure. In other words, in today’s media-savvy world, recognition seems to become more related to exposure rather than to distinction in a field. This of course must be a major concern to any field of expertise, which would be hollowed of value. The award of the Pritzker Prize between 2016–2018 to architects who were yet unknown outside the architecture fields might be a reaction to such concerns. While it is not surprising that in the architecture field the phenomenon of the star architect is negatively charged (Belogolovsky 2015), the scientific investigation of the impact of such exposure could shed light on how this process is unfolding. Second, as we have indicated, the star factor is sometimes related to the architecture rather than the architect. Here iconicity is a central factor. Sklair (2006) argues that “an icon originally meant a representation”. Its development, what Sklair (2006) terms iconic II, means difference and uniqueness and the intention to be famous. Jencks (2006) argues that the term “iconic” refers to the architectural specificity of buildings that facilitate their transformation to become icons, that is, identity-generating and attention-capturing symbols of a city, affecting both the perceptions of visitors and the local population. While monuments petrified collective memories (Heynen 1999), iconic buildings petrify “meanings [that] are plural, mixed as metaphor, and carry a paranoiac charge but, more importantly, carry significant and relevant suggestion” (Jencks 2011). This is why iconic buildings use “enigmatic signifiers” (Jencks 2011). “The capitalist quest to transform places and cities into marketable brands” (Stierli 2016, p. 311) has increased the focus on the visuality of architecture, that is, the performance of architecture as image. Iconicity is a key aspect of this. However, how do enigmatic signifiers capture attention? The concept of schema incongruity used in advertising can provide interesting clues here. Schema is a knowledge structure stored in a person’s memory (Bobrow and Collins 1975). Schema incongruity is defined as the state in which people’s pre-existing knowledge about an object does not match what they are recognising about the object (Mandler 1982). In advertising, 99

N. Alaily-Mattar and A. Thierstein

Enigmatic signifiers

Attention

Involvement

Exposure

Attitude

it is argued that schema incongruity has the potential to draw a person’s attention and leads to better involvement with the advert and better attitude towards the brand (Kim and Kim 2018). In the context of iconic architecture, we can argue that enigmatic signifiers result in the experience of schema incongruity as the architecture which is experienced is inconsistent with the viewer’s schema of how such an architecture is expected to look. This attention is also captured in accentuated media attention, which in turn feeds back and supports the viewer’s experience (refer to Fig. 7.2). This also supports the argument that iconicity is not a given materiality but that circulation is a key aspect of iconicity. Both aspects of the “star” in star architecture projects attribute a key role to media exposure. Just as Foster (2008) has argued that Pop architecture cannot be read at ground level only, instead, the media is their primary site of reading, we argue that this statement holds true for star architecture as well. Indeed underlying the Bilbao effect narrative is the assumption that by commissioning a star architecture project, a city can tap onto the media exposure of that project and in doing so can change its image. Hence, it makes sense to analyse the media exposure of these projects with a view at the impact of this exposure on cities.

2 How to Research the Media Effect of Star Architecture on Cities In order to understand how these projects work in the media, it is necessary to analyse the media content in terms of what is producing it and how it contributes to the effective impacts of these projects. Therefore, the media analysis addresses the following three questions. First, how has the volume of media content about the star architecture project developed while taking into consideration what is creating this volume (e.g. function, iconic architecture and/or architect)? Second, has media coverage about the city changed – quantitatively or qualitatively – with the arrival of the project? 100

Fig. 7.2  The interrelationship between enigmatic signifiers, viewers’ experiences and exposure in the making of iconic architecture. As such, iconicity in architecture is not created by materiality but through exploiting the circulation of the images thereof. (Source: By authors)

7  The Circulation of News and Images: Star Architecture and Its Media Effects

Third, what is the effect of the circulation of images of the project on the circulation of images of the city? As part of a multidisciplinary research project concerned with the role of star architecture projects in repositioning medium-sized cities in Europe, three case study projects were selected, namely, the phaeno science centre in Wolfsburg, the Culture and Congress Centre Lucerne (KKL) and the Kunsthaus Graz. To answer the above questions, quantitative and semi-­ qualitative media analyses were conducted for the three case study projects, their associated architects and their respective cities. In certain instances, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, the city of Bilbao and Frank Gehry were included in the search as well, in order to provide a benchmark. Towards this purpose the Avery Index to Architectural Periodicals (http:// www.proquest.com), LexisNexis database (www.lexisnexis.com) and Flickr database (www.flickr.com) were used, as well as the digital archives of The New York Times, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Le Monde (for KKL and Kunsthaus Graz), El País (for Kunsthaus Graz) and Der Standard (for Kunsthaus Graz). While Avery offers a listing of journals on architecture, Lexis Nexis database includes daily newspapers and magazines. Lexis Nexis database also includes some architecture journals and magazines; these were filtered out in the searches. As such the research uses Avery as a proxy for the architecture field and Lexis Nexis as a proxy for the mainstream media. Flickr is a photo-community platform, launched 2004. In August of 2011, the site reported that it was hosting more than 6 billion images, and in March 2013 Flickr had a total of 87 million registered members and more than 3.5 million new images uploaded daily (Jeffries 2013). The research of Lexis Nexis database was restricted to the research on the case study projects only. It resulted in the assessment of the total amount of media coverage on the projects as well as the longitudinal development of architecture-related articles. The research of Avery database and selected newspaper archives resulted in a longitudinal analysis of the development of media coverage of the architects, case study projects and more importantly their respective cities. By investigating the titles of the articles, the development of prevailing topics that were covered was tracked. The research of Flickr investigated the total amount of images available on the case study cities, case study projects as well the total amount of images of selected key landmarks in these case study cities. Before going on to present the findings of the media analyses, a short description of the three case studies is presented.

3 Architecture Projects That Are Bigger than Their Cities: Three Case Studies All three case studies presented in this chapter are big projects in terms of project cost, architects’ professional status, intended impact and risk taken. They are examples of how local public authorities engaged a big name architect in a small and medium-sized city to counter the contexts of ­provinciality and peripherality. In this sense these projects were bigger than their respective cities. 101

N. Alaily-Mattar and A. Thierstein

The Kunsthaus Graz is an exhibition space designed by Peter Cook and Colin Fournier for the city of Graz and inaugurated in 2003 (refer to Chap. 10 for detailed analysis). The inauguration of the Kunsthaus Graz was staged as an important event within the activities of Graz’s programme as European Capital of Culture (ECOC) 2003. Brand positioning and brand management of ECOC 2003 positioned the brand core of Graz as selfconfident, distinct, fast, creative, surprising, intelligent, demanding and ironic (Lorenz 2003, translated by authors of this chapter). Designed as an “architectural pièce de résistance of Graz’s year as European Capital of Culture” (Joanneum 2017), Colin Fournier even states a direct allusion to the GMB stating that “the Kunsthaus Graz playfully celebrates its own iconic image, such as Frank Gehry’s Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. Deliberately not a white box, the architecture of the Kunsthaus Graz used enigmatic signifiers, such as the nozzles and the blue bubble. The Kunsthaus Graz soon became known as the “friendly alien”. In that sense, “schema incongruity” was an intrinsic aspect of the design of the Kunsthaus Graz (refer to Fig. 7.3). Peter Cook, the better known of the two architects, had until then not realised any significant buildings and was far from having acquired commercial recognition. Peter Cook was largely known in architecture circles through his work in the 1970s with the provocative Archigram group. In the Avery database, we see that Peter Cook has been consistently “there” since the mid-1960s (refer to Fig. 7.4). However outside the architecture field, he was not a well-known figure. This is confirmed in the search of articles on Peter Cook the architect in The New York Times. Jean Nouvel and Zaha Hadid are in a different league. Cook’s profile as architect, hence, did not, could not, support the projects’ media exposure; nevertheless, it contributed to the consistency of its message which played into the tropes of being provocative and ironic. phaeno is a Science Centre (Fig. 7.5) designed by Zaha Hadid for the city of Wolfsburg, Germany, and inaugurated in 2005. In the 1990s, Wolfsburg found itself in a precarious situation. As a result of a crisis in the automobile industry and Volkswagen (VW) in 1992/1993, Wolfsburg faced unprecedented levels of unemployment. A city that had for decades been at the forefront of progress and prosperity became suddenly aware that it lagged behind, and as a result, its future was in jeopardy. In response to the shock of the early 1990s, Wolfsburg tried to reorient itself. Its main objectives became to diffuse the dominance of VW by increasing competitiveness and local attractiveness in relation to external stakeholders such as investors, companies, highly skilled workers as well as regional tourists. A cornerstone for this restructuring was the implementation of a strategic mission statement, called the AutoVision. The most striking feature of this new strategy was the development of major urban projects in a very short time period. VW had already set a precedent, namely, a 28-hectare exhibition park, “Autostadt”, opened in time for the World Expo 2000 held in Hanover. The development of phaeno coincided with the implementation of this AutoVision strategy. The architecture competition brief of the ­science centre specifically states the request of the municipality that the 102

Fig. 7.3 The Kunsthaus Graz is deliberately not a white box. “The blue shimmering Kunsthaus Graz floats above the glazed ground floor like a bubble of air. Its soft forms fuse organically with the older buildings on the adjacent lots. The nozzles, the prominent skylight openings sloped northward for ideal lighting, emerge from the plexiglass skin” (https://www. museum-joanneum.at/en/ kunsthaus-graz/architecture/the-building accessed on 28.08.2018). (Source: Photograph by Nadia Alaily-Mattar, 2016)

103

N. Alaily-Mattar and A. Thierstein

0

Zaha Hadid

Peter Cook

Jean Nouvel

science centre becomes a postcard image. In that sense, here too the project was commissioned to deliver iconicity (as discussed in Chap. 11 by Nägeli in this volume). Figure 7.4 shows that in the year 2000 when Zaha Hadid won the competition for the design of the science centre in Wolfsburg, her media exposure in architecture circles was already on the rise since the mid-1990s, but at the time she had not yet entered the mainstream media. Her meteoric rise in exposure in The New York Times came after her award of the Pritzker Prize in 2004. The Culture and Congress Centre Lucerne (KKL) is designed by Emmanuel Cattani and Jean Nouvel for the city of Lucerne and inaugurated at two stages, in 1998 and 2000. Lucerne is a small-sized city of about 80,000 inhabitants in Switzerland. The city has been the stage for an international music festival, namely, Internationale Musikfestwochen Luzern (IMF) that goes back to 1938. Already back then it is said that Lucerne’s Mayor Jakob Zimmerli saw music as the driving force to abate the ailing tourism, the festival seen to be used to “ensure prominence for sensational news”. Known as the “Meili Bau”, the building that housed this music festival was in a decaying condition in the late 1980s. As a result, a complicated process was kick-started, including the development of several reports that studied whether the old Meili Bau should be kept or demolished, what the programme of the building should and could be and how the project could assist in boosting the ailing tourism industry while assuring a fair distribution of public resources to high-end and alternative culture. Hence, the idea of the KKL was rooted in the objective of ­anchoring and retaining the IMF in Lucerne. In that sense, although the city aspired to create a landmark for central Switzerland, the KKL project was never conceived as star architecture in its iconic dimension nor in the sense of tapping onto fame of its architect. Rather there was foremost a

104

2015

0

2005

20

1995

20

1985

40

1975

40

2015

60

2005

60

1995

80

1985

80

1975

100

1965

The New York Times

100

1965

Number of Articles

Avery Database

Fig. 7.4  The development of number of articles mentioning each of the three architects in the Avery database of architecture journals and in the The New York Times. (Source: Own calculations based on Avery database and The New York Times archive. Status July 2016)

7  The Circulation of News and Images: Star Architecture and Its Media Effects

Fig. 7.5  phaeno is deliberately not a tin box with a sign on it (paraphrasing a jury member for the phaeno architecture competition). Rather it “looks like a spacecraft that has just landed. Resting on its ten cone-shaped “feet”, the concrete structure spanning 154 metres seems to almost hover in the air.... The architect has devised a home for phaeno that breaks with many conventions and that liberates the area beneath it as a kind of urban space in the form of a covered artificial landscape with gently undulating hills and valleys. Since November 2005, the futuristic apparition has been raising eyebrows in amazement and making eyes gleam with awe among passers-by” (https:// w w w. p h a e n o . d e / e n / , accessed on 28.08.2018). (Source: Photograph by Dominik Bartmanski, 2015)

desire to create a “worthy” concert hall with exceptional acoustics for the IMF. It is telling then that the KKL building itself is not iconic, but rather only an element of it, that is, its boldly cantilevered roof, which seems to float over the construction and unites the three parts of the building. In that sense, the KKL’s iconic roof is used to frame and hence perceive and thematise the existing city rather than compete with it (Fig. 7.6). As the proponents of this project were aware that this project was ambitious and costly, they brought in Emmanuel Cattani and Jean Nouvel as master builders on board. Thomas Held discusses this more elaborately in Chap. 12 of this volume. Jean Nouvel, the better known of the two architects, received substantial exposure in the architecture news since the mid-­ 1980s. Interestingly Jean Nouvel’s rise to fame in the architecture journals and The New York Times preceded his award of the Pritzker Prize (refer to Fig. 7.4). In other words, his professional and public media recognition preceded his “official” professional recognition. When he was commissioned by the city of Lucerne in 1992, he was already recognised by the architecture media but had not yet made it to the mainstream media.

4 Empirical Findings The search of architecture-related articles in the Lexis Nexis database and Avery database reveals that these projects are first discussed in the architecture media and then a trail follows behind in the mainstream media. Attention in the architecture media is compact, it does not last long (refer to Fig.  7.7). One can assume that it is this trail of media attention that would cause a change in the exposure of a project’s respective city. As the sheer volume of articles on a city in LexisNexis is massive, a more detailed

105

N. Alaily-Mattar and A. Thierstein

Fig. 7.6  The main iconic aspect of the KKL is its cantilevered roof. “The height of the markedly overhanging roof decreases against the roof edge to practically zero. With this feature, it resolves the thickness of the steel construction into a thin line. The flat aluminium plates of the view from below reinforce the impression of lightness, as they reflect the waves of the lake and this in turn reflects the roof of the KKL Luzern” (https://www.kkl-luzern.ch/en/dienstleistungen/das-kkl-luzern/architektur/, accessed on 28.08.2018). (Source: Photograph by Nadia Alaily-Mattar, 2015)

account in individual newspapers could shed more light on the impact of a project’s exposure on the exposure of its respective city. Towards this purpose the archives of selected newspapers were searched. The findings here are more nuanced for each case study (refer to Fig. 7.8). In the case of the Kunsthaus Graz, the search of The New York Times archive shows that following ECOC 2003 and the inauguration of the Kunsthaus Graz, there has not been any added exposure of the city of Graz nor has there been any significant reporting about the Kunsthaus Graz (refer to Fig. 7.4). Research of articles related to art, culture, entertainment and Graz in the archive of German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung show a hike in 2003, but no sustained increase. A more detailed search in selected

106

40

20

20

0

0

Lexis Nexis

Fig. 7.7  The development of architecture-related articles on the projects in LexisNexis database and Avery database. It shows that attention in the architecture media is shortlived, while mainstream media attention trails behind. (Source: Own calculations based on LexisNexis and Avery database. Status July 2016)

2010

40

1980

60

1970

60

2010

80

2000

80

1990

Kunsthaus Graz

1980

KKL

2010

0

2000

0

2000

20

1990

20

1990

40

1980

40

1970

60

2010

60

2000

80

1990

80

1980

phaeno

1970

Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao

1970

Number of Articles

Number of Articles

7  The Circulation of News and Images: Star Architecture and Its Media Effects

Avery

European newspapers specifically for articles related to culture and Graz (by taking keywords Graz and culture as a basis for the search) shows a peak of cultural themes in Graz between 2000 and 2003 in El País and Le Monde but no elevated level or increasing trend of reporting on Graz and culture after 2003. The Guardian does not show a peak at all. By taking these newspapers as a proxy for European media exposure, we can argue that at a European scale there has not been a sustained accentuated media attention to cultural topics in Graz following ECOC 2003 or related to the Kunsthaus Graz. Although the overall volume of articles is higher, research of the archives of the Austrian newspaper Der Standard also show a similar trend, a hike in 2003, but no sustained increase. The Kunsthaus Graz received substantial coverage in Der Standard, the overwhelming majority of articles; however, these pertain to its programme and are not related to the architecture (only 7% of all classified articles are classified under the theme architecture). However, indications of a shift of discourse can be found in a qualitative media analysis of selected articles. In 2000, the Süddeutsche Zeitung titles its article about the upcoming ECOC 2003 “Small castle with big ambitions” (Spahn 2000, translated by authors of this chapter). Three years later, following the ECOC 2003 activities, an article of Süddeutsche Zeitung titled “Escape from pensionopolis: The capital city, once the nucleus of the literary avant-garde, creates a new image with unusual projects” 107

N. Alaily-Mattar and A. Thierstein

Graz 80 60 40

2015

2010

2005

2000

1990 1990 1990

1995

1985 1985 1985

20

0

0

2010

2005

2015 2015

20

2010

40

2015

40

2010

60

2005

60

2000

80

1995

80

2005

Lucerne

2000

100

1970

120

2000

0

1995

140

1995

20

1990

1980

160

1970

40

1985

1975

80

180

1980

1980

Project

60

1975

1980

Architect

Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao

1970

Number of Articles

1975

Wolfsburg

The New York Times City

1975

0

1970

20

Süddeutsche Zeitung

20

0

0

0

2012

20

2007

20

1997

40

1992

40

2012

40

2007

60

2002

60

1997

60

1992

80

2012

80

2007

80

2002

Lucerne

1997

Graz

2002

Project

Wolfsburg

1992

Number of Articles

City (Culture, entertainment & arts)

Fig. 7.8  The development of articles related to the case studies in The New York Times. None of the three cases can compare to the GMB in terms of their media exposure. The development of articles related to the case studies in the Süddeutsche Zeitung shows that none of the three case studies had an impact on the cultural media exposure of their respective cities. (Source: Own calculations based on The New York Times and Süddeutsche Zeitung Archives. Status July 2016) 108

7  The Circulation of News and Images: Star Architecture and Its Media Effects

(Klute 2003, translated by authors of this chapter). A more profound shift is indicated in the The New York Times single article on ECOC 2003, “With the pending expansion of the European Union, Graz moves from the eastern fringes of twentieth century Europe to a strategic position as a 21stcentury crossroads… And while Graz has some of Austria’s most beautiful Gothic, Renaissance and Baroque architecture … the sites built for Graz 2003 are innovative and forward-looking, even eccentric” (Pfanner 2003). In 2016, an article of the travel section of The Guardian goes on to describe “Why avant-garde Graz is Vienna’s cooler little sister” (Sayej 2016). While all of these articles are not about the Kunsthaus Graz, indeed, some of them do not even mention it; they signal, nevertheless, a change of discourse about the city of Graz. The question of how much the Kunsthaus Graz has been a contributing factor can only be answered in that the changed discourse picks up on the very same vocabulary of the Kunsthaus Graz’s architecture, that is, hip, provocative, surprising and ambitious. Indeed, the architecture tropes spill over to the articles in the mainstream media; they are also picked up and further circulated in Graz’s marketing brochures and help package the Kunsthaus Graz as an experience and the city of Graz as the hip and cool enabler of such an experience. In the case of phaeno, the development of the profile of the city of Wolfsburg in The New York Times shows the dominance of VW (refer to Fig. 7.8). As mentioned earlier, by investigating the titles of the articles, the development of prevailing topics that were covered was tracked. In the case of the development of article titles on Wolfsburg, we can confirm the following. After the VW emissions manipulation scandal in 2015, the VW dominance over Wolfsburg dramatically accentuated and became negatively charged. However, previous to the emissions scandal, a notable aberration to the VW dominance is the year 2005, in which the science centre and Zaha Hadid made some news on Wolfsburg; however, VW was still dominant even in that year. What is more noteworthy is the fact that starting from the late 1990s Zaha Hadid’s media exposure was substantially more than the entire city of Wolfsburg, particularly in the period between 2000 and 2014. Indeed in 2005, Hadid’s coverage was more than 2.5 times the coverage of the city of Wolfsburg. This underlines the fact that the city of Wolfsburg brought to town an architect that was in a league of media coverage beyond the city’s reach. Indications that the city of Wolfsburg was looking for a star architect to design the science centre can be found in the architecture competition brief, which asks for an architecture that would live up to the architectural legacy of Scharoun and Aalto (Wolfsburg 1999: 2). Both Scharoun and Aalto had been commissioned in the 1960s and 1970s for civic projects in the city. Hadid’s media supremacy over the city can also be identified in the titles of the international news articles that covered the inauguration of the phaeno. The Observer titles its coverage of the event “Zaha meets the Beetles, Zaha Hadid’s first signature building – in Volkswagen’s hometown – is genuinely revolutionary” (Sudjic 2005). The Observer falls short of spelling out the name of the city of Wolfsburg and its inhabitants. In a play with words, the city inhabitants all become the “beetles”. Similarly the The New York Times titles 109

N. Alaily-Mattar and A. Thierstein

“Science Center Celebrates an Industrial Cityscape” (Ouroussoff 2005), avoiding mentioning the name of the city in its title. In 2007, The Guardian listed phaeno as “one of the twelve most significant modern works of architecture in the world”. Hadid’s confirmation as a star architect following her award of the Pritzker Prize in 2004 and the confirmation of phaeno’s ­spectacular architecture by The Guardian have a high symbolic value in the city of Wolfsburg. The article of The Guardian continues to be quoted locally in Wolfsburg. Wolfsburg’s local newspaper, Wolfsburger Allgemeine, titles in 2005 “Wolfsburg celebrates Zaha Hadid architect in a flurry of flashlights: Media celebrate Zaha Hadid as star” (Wolfsburger Allgemeine 2005, translated by authors of this chapter). To answer the question of whether phaeno assisted Wolfsburg to change its profile at a regional scale, research of the archives of the German newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung was undertaken (refer to Fig.  7.8). The search included articles that are culture, art and entertainment related. The development of these articles on Wolfsburg in the Süddeutsche Zeitung shows a clear increase starting from 1992. The phaeno inauguration year of 2005 is the peak of this development, which sustained but showed a sharp drop in 2014. This development indicates that the city of Wolfsburg did, indeed, at a German scale reorient its culture, art and entertainment profile. However, only a small amount of the development of this curve is due to the phaeno. The phaeno could not have increased this exposure as it did not receive so much exposure itself in the Süddeutsche Zeitung. Hence, this increased exposure must have been tied to the larger strategy of the AutoVision, which saw the inauguration of several culture- and entertainment-related projects and activities in Wolfsburg. In the case of KKL, Lucerne’s profile in The New York Times is diverse and not really culture or music related up until 2002. The turning point then was when Lucerne Festival started to gain more international media exposure. The development of news articles on Lucerne in The New York Times shows how the increasing exposure of Lucerne Festival has buoyed the whole curve of Lucerne. This accentuation commenced in 1998, that is, after the inauguration of the concert hall. The KKL also received some coverage; however, it is clear that the coverage of the music festival is behind this accentuation. An article in The New York Times in 1998 titles “Architecture joins music as star of Lucerne festival”. Clearly, at an international scale, the architecture of KKL is coupled foremost with the festival and by extension to the city of Lucerne. By comparing Lucerne’s media exposure to the media exposure of other music festival cities like Salzburg and Bayreuth, we see that Lucerne has lagged behind consistently especially in the 1980s. Only since 2007 does Lucerne start to gain more exposure owing to the growing exposure of Lucerne Festival. In addition, most articles on these music cities are actually about music. In the case of Lucerne, the content of the news articles is more diversified. The search of art-, culture- and entertainment-­related articles of Lucerne in the Süddeutsche Zeitung shows a similar pattern,

110

7  The Circulation of News and Images: Star Architecture and Its Media Effects

that is, an upward shift of the curve, but related to the increased exposure of the Lucerne Festival and not the KKL architecture. Regarding the circulation of images, out of the three case studies, with a total of 6684 photos, the Kunsthaus Graz is tagged the most in Flickr (refer to Fig.  7.9). However, in terms of percentage of all pictures with respect to their cities, phaeno has the highest percentage of 4.5%, followed by Kunsthaus Graz 2.2% and KKL 2%. By comparison the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao has a total of 166,918 pictures which is 17% of all pictures on the city of Bilbao. Clearly the three case studies are in a different league than the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. However, the comparison of these projects to the dominant landmarks in their respective cities is more telling. In the case of Graz, compared to the dominant landmark in the city, namely, the clock tower, the Kunsthaus Graz has three times more pictures. In the case of Lucerne, the iconic Kapellbrücke has 4.4% of all pictures, while the KKL has 2%. In the case of the Wolfsburg, the Autostadt has a staggering 23.5% of all pictures, while the phaeno’s share is 4.5%. Of course we must take into consideration the limitations of drawing conclusions from these findings due to the limited representativeness of the Flickr photo community. Nevertheless, these findings indicate that star architecture projects can provide competitive images for their cities. This begs us to investigate further the making of iconicity, a process in which enigmatic signifiers first provide a spark which then goes on to capture

Fig. 7.9  The total volume of pictures of the three case study projects in Flickr database is in a different league than the ­ GMB.  Nevertheless, a comparison to dominant landmarks in their respective cities provides more nuanced findings. (Source: Alaily-Mattar et al. (2019), own calculations based on Flickr. Status January 2017)

25

23.5

20

800 000

17 600 000

15

400 000

10

Guggenheim Bilbao

Bilbao

Phaeno

0.7 Wolfsburg

Kunsthaus Graz

Graz

Chapel Bridge

KKL

Total amount of pictures

Clock Tower Graz

2.2

2.1 0

5

4.5

4.4

Autostadt Wolfsburg

200 000

Percentage of Pictures

1 000 000

Lucerne

Number of Pictures

Flickr

0

As a percentage of total city's pictures

111

N. Alaily-Mattar and A. Thierstein

wider attention. How and why the media then catches fire as a result of this spark cannot be answered by the limited scope of the investigation presented above.

5 Busting the “Media Effect” Myth of Star Architecture! The research findings of the media analyses show a differentiation between (1) mainstream media and architecture media and (2) between media exposure at the inauguration year and medium-term media exposure. Attention in the architecture media is compact, it does not last long. Despite the hikes of media attention at the inauguration year, this attention fades away. Contrary to the hypotheses underlying the discourse of the Bilbao effect, the research findings of the media analyses presented in this chapter suggest that these projects fall short of setting off a sustained quantitative change of the media exposure of the projects’ respective cities. Indeed, the hype regarding the impact of the volume of media exposure of these projects on their respective cities’ media profile is exaggerated. While the GMB represents a case of such exposure, unlike Bilbao, none of the three selected case study cities have experienced a dramatic or sustained increase of exposure in the media owing to the case study star architecture projects developed in the cities. The chapter concludes that research into the media transformative power of star architecture must be more nuanced to include a qualitative analysis of exposure. In particular further research must expand into a discourse analysis of selected newspaper articles that signal a shift of discourse about these cities. Especially in medium-sized cities where the dominant objective of these projects was inwardly directed, and related to fostering citizen pride and collective representation, even slight shifts of discourse in international media have great value locally. Research about how such a shift of discourse in international media was reflected, received or even initiated in the media of local cities will yield interesting findings as to how these projects were first legitimised and then instrumentalised. More research is needed to assess the volume of images created and the intensity and geographic outreach of the circulation of these images. In particular it would be interesting to investigate the question of how a carefully crafted message petrified in a material architectural project is communicated, shared and transformed as images of these projects are circulated in traditional and social media. What is the outreach of these images, how far do they travel geographically? By whom are these images used and linked? Among which groups of people or lifestyles do such images circulate at all? Does this fast proliferation really contribute to revamping a specific city’s image or to homogenise it with other cities? In other words, one picture of an architectural icon is carefully crafted to say a thousand words, but what does the viral proliferation of a thousand pictures say? 112

7  The Circulation of News and Images: Star Architecture and Its Media Effects Acknowledgements  Figures 7.4, 7.7, 7.8, and 7.9 have appeared in the Alaily-Mattar N, Büren N and Thierstein A. (2019) Transforming the media exposure of a city through star architecture projects? disP – The Planning Review 55(2):36–48. https://doi.org/10. 1080/02513625.2019.1630187. Nicolas Büren conducted the quantitative media analyses. He was funded as a research assistant by the DFG project “star architecture and its role in re-positioning small and medium sized cities”.

References Adler M (1985) Stardom and talent. Am Econ Rev 75(1):208–212 Alaily-Mattar N, Büren N, Thierstein A (2019) Transforming the media exposure of a city through star architecture projects?. disP – Plan Rev 55(2):36–48. https://doi.org /10.1080/02513625.2019.1630187 Baus U (2015) Stars und “starchitecture”, Teil 2. frei04 publizistik Bayley S (2005) Forward. In: Davies P, Schmiedeknecht T (eds) An architect’s guide to fame. Elsevier, Oxford, pp ix–xiv Belogolovsky V (2015) Conversations with architects. In: The age of celebrity. DOM publisher, Berlin Bobrow DG, Collins A (eds) (1975) Representation and understanding. Studies in Cognitive Science. Academic Press Inc., New York/San Francisco/London Foster H (2008) Image building. In: Vidler A (Ed) Architecture between spectacle and use. Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts Frank RH, Cook PJ (1995) The Winner-Take-All Society: how more and more Americans compete for ever fewer and bigger prizes, encouraging economic waste, income inequality, and an impoverished cultural life. The Free Press, New York Fuerst F, McAllister P, Murray CB (2011) Designer buildings: estimating the economic value of ‘signature’ architecture. Environ Plan A 43(1):166–184 Heynen H (1999) Petrifying memories: architecture and the construction of identity. J Archit 4(4):369–390. https://doi.org/10.1080/136023699373765 Jarzombek M (2008) The (Trans)formations of fame. In: Vidler A (ed) Architecture between spectacle and use. Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, Massachusetts Jeffries A (2013) The man behind Flickr on making the service ‘awesome again’. The Verge, 20 March 2013. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2013/3/20/4121574/ flickr-chief-markus-spiering-talks-photos-and-marissa-mayer. Accessed 13.03.2019 Jencks C (2006) The iconic building is here to stay. City 10(1):3–20. https://doi. org/10.1080/13604810600594605 Jencks C (2011) The coming of the cosmic icons. In: The story of post-modernism. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, pp 200–247 Kim T, Kim O (2018) Effects of ironic advertising on consumers’ attention, involvement and attitude. J Mark Commun 24(1):53–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/1352726 6.2015.1096817 Klingmann A (2007) Beyond Bilbao. In: Klingmann A (ed) Brandscapes, architecture in the experience economy. The MIT Press, Massachusetts, pp 237–255 Klute H (2003) Die Flucht aus Pensionopolis. Die steirische Hauptstadt, einst Keimzelle der historischen Avantgarde, schafft sich ein neues Image mit ausgefallenen Projekten. SZ, Süddeutsche Zeitung, 08.04.2003 Larson MS (1993) Behind the postmodern facade. Architectural change in late twentieth-­century America. University of California Press, Berkeley/Los Angeles/ London Lorenz W (2003) Graz Zweitausenddrei. Kulturhauptstadt Europas. http://www.graz03. at/ Mandler G (1982) The structure of value: accounting for taste. In: Clark MS, Fiske ST (eds) Affect and cognition. 17th annual Carnegie Mellon symposium on cognition. Psychology Press, New York, pp 3–36 McNeill D (2005) In search of the global architect: the case of Norman Foster (and partners). Int J Urban Reg Res 29(3):501–515 113

N. Alaily-Mattar and A. Thierstein Ouroussoff N (2005) Science centre celebrates an industrial cityscape. The New York times, 28.11.2005, pp 6–7 Patterson M (2012) The role of the public institution in iconic architectural development. Urban Stud 49(15):3289–3305. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098012443862 Pfanner E (2003) What’s doing. In: Graz. New York Times, 16.03.2003, p 13 Roudbari S (2018) Crowdsourced and crowd-pleasing: the new architectural awards and the city. J Urban Design 23(2):206–222. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.20 17.1340799 Saint A (1983) The architect as hero and genius. In: The image of the architect. Yale University Press, New Haven/London, pp 1–18 Sayej N (2016) Why avant garde Graz is Vienna’s cooler little sister. The Guardian, 04.10.2016 Sklair L (2006) Iconic architecture and capitalist globalization. City 10:21. https://doi. org/10.1080/13604810600594613 Spahn S (2000) Kleine Burg mit großen Ambitionen. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 24.08.2000, p 12 Stierli M (2016) Architecture and visual culture: some remarks on an ongoing debate. J Vis Cult 15(3):311–316. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470412916665144 Sudjic D (2005) Zaha meets The Beetles. Zaha Hadid’s first signature building  - in Volkswagen’s hometown - is genuinely revolutionary. The Observer, 27.11.2005 Universalmuseum Joanneum (2017) About Kunsthaus Graz. Mission Statement. https:// www.museum-joanneum.at/en/kunsthaus-graz/about-us. Accessed 13.02.2017 Wolfsburg, Stadt Wolfsburg Vertreten Durch Neuland GmbH (1999) Realisierungswettbewerb Science Center. Auslobungsbedingungen unpublished, Wolfsburg Wolfsburger Allgemeine (2005) phaeno: Wolfsburg feiert Zaha Hadid. Architektin im Blitzlichtgewitter: Medien feiern Zaha Hadid als Star. Wolfsburger Allgemeine, 24.11.2005, p 1 and p 20–21

114

8

Architecture of the Image: Photography Acting in Urban Landscapes Michele Nastasi

Abstract

Spectacular urban development is closely linked to the photographic images of the designs that circulate globally. A wide array of pictures get used in all the different phases of the projects and widespread at all levels of public. This chapter brings representation and the media to the core of the debate on contemporary cities. It shows that photographic images have an active role in determining iconic and spectacular transformations—an “agency” that takes place, thanks to the multiplicity of professional figures that erode and complement one of the architects. The chapter addresses the theme of the spectacular through examples and analysis of photographic images of three different kinds: photorealistic renderings, professional architectural photographs and “spontaneous” photographs taken by amateurs and uploaded on social media, showing how different types of images are intertwined and functional to the construction of a real and virtual imagery of architectural icons and star architects. Keywords

Photography · Rendering · Spectacular architecture · Social media · Architectural media · Visual studies

1 Spectacular Architecture and Photographic Images The idea of spectacular urban development is closely linked to the photographic images of the designs and their circulation on a global scale.1 These depictions are widespread at all levels of the public and in all the This chapter derives from the broader research I conducted for my PhD, which I presented in March 2018 at the Ca′ Foscari University of Venice: Image Cities. Skylines, Renderings, and Icons Transforming Urban Landscapes. The dissertation text contains all the interviews cited in this chapter. A previous draft version of this chapter focused on architectural photographs and social media was presented at the VIII AISU Conference in Naples in September 2017, under the title “Souvenir e architettura spettacolare. La fotografia come agente di trasformazione urbana”. Both texts are in Italian.

1 

M. Nastasi (*) Milano, Italy e-mail: studio@ michelenastasi.com

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_8

115

M. Nastasi

different phases of the projects and cover a wide range of pictures: from photorealistic renderings of the designs to specialised architectural photography, from planned advertisement to spontaneous photographs of buildings uploaded on social media. Despite their importance, these images are not studied by architects, nor by urban planners, nor by architectural historians. At the same time, scholars of art history and visual and cultural studies have recently reverted their approach, considering images as autonomous subjects endowed with their own presence and vitality, whose peculiarity lies precisely in having an active power over reality. A clear example is Image Acts. A Systematic Approach to Visual Agency by Horst Bredekamp (2017), but this is a broad trend built on the researches of several other historians, such as Hans Belting (2005) and WJT Mitchell (2005), or the anthropologist Alfred Gell (1998). In this chapter it is argued that photographic images have an active role in determining iconic and spectacular transformation processes of contemporary urban landscapes, an agency that takes place, thanks to a multiplicity of professional figures that erode and complement one of the architects. The images that build up the communication process related to different generations of “star architects” are the result of social and cultural constructs in which various actors (visualisers, photographers, PR and real estate agents, media professionals and the architects themselves) contribute in shaping the perception of the image of the cities and influence their concrete transformations. After sketching out the current state of the specialised media system in relation to the photographic image, I will address the theme of the spectacular through examples of images of three different kinds: photorealistic rendering, thanks to which the projects are easily readable even by a broad audience of non-professionals; professional architectural photography, which produces for the most part promotional imagery of architecture and cities; and “spontaneous” photographs taken by amateurs (tourists, users) and uploaded in millions on social media with the effect of strengthening the iconic side of projects. I intend to bring photography and the media to the heart of the discussion on the transformations of the contemporary city, showing how all these different types of images are intertwined and functional to the construction of iconic architecture. The spectacular conception of urban spaces and the exploitation of them through photography appears to be an intrinsically global theme, but one that takes on particular significance when observed from a European perspective, since the cities of the Old World—unlike many others—are characterised by a long history of pictorial representations, a tradition of monumentalisation of public space (Nicolin 2012, p. 173–188), and are the established destinations for centuries of tourism.

116

8  Architecture of the Image: Photography Acting in Urban Landscapes

2 Contemporary Architecture in the Media System Over the last decade, a complex system of production, circulation and reception of various kinds of images has taken shape, that has subverted many of the mechanisms linked to traditional publishing, bringing into question the figures and the role of producers—architects, magazines and photographers—as well as users. A series of interviews that were conducted recently with the editors of some of the internationally most widely followed architectural blogs and websites has revealed, with great clarity, the way in which those who work in the field of architecture come to know of projects carried out around the world has changed. Both the current audience and the contents of online architectural publishing are hardly comparable with the system of media of only a decade ago, in terms of figures, of global exposure and of rapidity of communication. For example, a website like ArchDaily registers 13 million visits a month to a total of 169 million pages (http://www.archdaily. com/content/about), numbers far in excess of those achieved by any publication on paper. In relation to these structural changes, we are also witnessing a radically different fruition of the contents. The promptness with which new projects are published and received by a global audience today has an equivalent in the minimal time of observation devoted to each design: it is almost always a question of a rapid (a few seconds) and inattentive glance (on a smartphone, in newsletters sent by email or on Facebook), based solely on the images (people often only look at the first images, it is more rare for the projects to be studied online and the texts to be read) and on the assimilation of many projects in a short space of time. An Italian interviewee reported that the average visitor to the website he directs watches nine projects in 2 minutes, that means 13–14 seconds of attention for each project, and much less for each image. In this sense the images placed at the beginning of reports on projects, in newsletters and on the homepage of websites become the true “façade” of a project (Schianchi 2014), and often the ones chosen are those with the most direct effect, easy to understand and apt to magnetise the attention of “readers”. This logic determines some of the practical choices made by architects, photographers and other image-makers—who have to make their own pictures stand out from the vast quantity of images available online in order to gain visibility—and has had the consequence of creating over the years a sort of “visual literature” (Elkins 2003, 2009) of global contemporary architecture that tends towards the immediate visual effect, one that is iconic and highly standardised. For example, the peculiarity of an influential blog like Dezeen is that of having been configured for the first time as a “global” magazine, capable of communicating a sort of “earth style” built around a certain group of stylistic and formal conventions of ­modernist derivation, and it is also true that every website that wants to be relevant has its own style.

117

M. Nastasi

3 Rendering Architectural The category of images of rapid consumption and great impact includes not just photographs but also renderings. This kind of image has witnessed a shift from abstraction and lack of context to its opposite, now featuring a high level of photorealism and contextual elements, especially in the case of projects located in Western cities of which detailed photographs and 3D models exist. Photorealism makes the images of projects easy to understand to a broad public of laymen and therefore is now expected by investors and stakeholders. Rendering and its evolution towards photorealism and virtual reality is in itself an interesting subject for much of the public, and a significant part of any project is based on the communicative power of images, especially if it is public or involves a high level of speculative investment as in the case of luxury real estate. Photorealistic renderings are usually conceived instrumentally to support, found, or sell specific projects through a large and nuanced spectrum of media. Being placed at the very heart of its conception, they play a primary role in contemporary architecture, not only related to its communication processes. They are turned into a field of multiple agencies where the imagination and the ambition of the architects—as well as the skills and techniques of the visualisers—interact with the requests of the market and the needs of political consensus. Some renderings have attracted such attention from the public as to overshadow the projects themselves in the public imagery, with a range of significant social and political implications. An example of this is Herzog & de Meuron’s Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg, whose rendering produced by the visualisation agency Bloomimages in 2006 proved such a success that it outshone the actual project, becoming an icon of the city long before a series of difficulties and delays were encountered during its realisation. Subsequently, as construction was many years behind schedule and the cost rise up to three times the estimate, the building “has been prematurely criticised as inferior to the renderings before being able to express its true qualities” (Zöllner 2012). Another case is the Tour Triangle in Paris, again designed by Herzog & de Meuron. The public debate sparked off by renderings of the new tower led to the mayor and the city planning commissioner, supporters of the project in the name of the renewal of a Paris crushed beneath the weight of its past, having to fend off protests from a large group of historians, curators and citizens. The question ended up being debated in the National Assembly, and it is still uncertain whether the project will go ahead. Paris is often at the centre of visions and visualisations: a large part of the consultation and public showcase “Le Grand Pari(s)” that took place at the end of the last decade as well as the more recent series of competitions called “Réinventer Paris”, where architects compete in team with ­developers, were based on renderings that follow a variety of visual narratives, each one involving implicit ideological premises and meanings. Another interesting European example is the opposition to the uncontrolled growth of the skyline of London, mostly based on renderings of 118

8  Architecture of the Image: Photography Acting in Urban Landscapes

future developments (refer to, e.g. the website www.skylinecampaign.org). Even a “context-conscious” star like Renzo Piano has been contested to the point that his proposal for a 72-storey tower in Paddington, designed for the same developer of the Shard, in 2016 was reduced in scale to a 14-storey building on the base of a few renderings previously broadcasted. The rendering, in fact, is an image of great success and interest not just for architects, who in the past maintained control over their design and the representations that they produced themselves, but also for investors, real estate promoters, public decision makers and other figures involved in various ways in the processes of production of architecture. Photorealistic renderings imply a number of potential criticalities, the first of which is the tendency to be confused with photographs and taken literally, as a document of something existent and real—a mistake that can occur both to the design and the context. In fact, notwithstanding the photorealism, which is generally associated with an idea of objectivity, renderings are often blamed for their arbitrariness in representing the actual conditions of the physical and social contexts, as spectacular forms that can divert attention from the known or uncertain difficulties of the projects they represent. Again, the features of these images are the result of a strategy relating the visual and the market, directed at potential investors who recognise in certain characteristics of the imagery, the canon of an international standard of reference. Moreover, study of this specific area reveals the progressive spread of virtual reality and technologies for the visualisation of urban spaces (e.g. the VUCITY system: https://vu.city) whose accuracy is so great that they bring into question the role of photographers of architecture and of all static images in general (refer to Figs. 8.1 and 8.2).

4 Architectural Photography: Promotion and Critique The transfer of architectural publications on blogs and websites that do not have a critical editorial programme and a budget to commission photographs nor to cover copyright fees has resulted in a drastic reduction of assignments from magazines and publishers, by now confined to isolated episodes, and an emerging need for photographers, for the most part, to work directly for architects for their documentation and promotion purposes. A general consequence of this phenomenon is a decrease in the capacity of photography to serve as a means of critical interpretation of architectural designs and urban space, a role that journals and magazines used to cover, as a result of a more openly promotional approach that relies on the most iconic aspects of architecture (even though, in reality, the scope of a “critical” function of photography has always been sporadic and is perhaps overvalued). This tendency is partly due to the emergence of the new figure of the public relations (PR) agency for architecture, which has altered the personal and direct relationships between architects and photographers. More and more architectural offices, today, commission the photographer to depict their buildings, pay for a full copyright of 119

M. Nastasi

the pictures, then hand the images to the PR agencies that then make a selection that is used freely by online and traditional publishers, with the result that those few images are chosen by the editors and published repeatedly. During a series of interviews with six professional photographers,2 the interviewees with long-term experience told of difficulties in maintaining the standards of the past in terms of image value, quantity of available work, awareness of the value of their work by customers and the time dedicated to each individual project. On the other hand, the tales of life of the youngest photographers today most widely published in architectural magazines are emblematic of how the world of architectural publishing has changed. They speak of an everyday existence made up of incessant travel, of buildings photographed in a very short time and of the contradiction that arises from the need to be distinctive but without proposing an image that is outside the promotional mainstream of the magazines and blogs, which mainly publish promotional images provided by the archiThe interviewed photographers are Iwan Baan, Richard Bryant, Allan Crow, Dennis Gilbert, Fernando Guerra and Christian Richters. I could add my personal experience as a professional architectural photographer working in the field. 2 

120

Fig. 8.1  Bloomimages’ ren­ dering of the Elbphil­ harmonie in Hamburg, 2006. This rendering of Herzog & de Meuron’s Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg, produced by the visualisation agency Bloomimages in 2006, proved such a success that it outshone the actual project, becoming an icon of the city long before a series of difficulties and delays were encountered during its realisation. (Source: Bloomimages, 2006)

8  Architecture of the Image: Photography Acting in Urban Landscapes

Fig. 8.2 Iwan Baan’s photographed view of the Elbphilharmonie, Hamburg, 2017. Comparing renderings and photographs of buildings shows that the architects’ design idea is reproduced in photography, sometimes replicating the project representations, especially when these have been particularly successful. The evolution of rendering into an increasingly photorealistic image and the photographic replication of points of view fixed by virtual images lead to overlap the images of the projects and those of the completed buildings, such that the real and the virtual are sometimes indistinguishable. (Source: Iwan Baan, 2017)

tects and PR agencies. It is fair to note, however, that the interviewed photographers are themselves part of this extremely rapid production and consumption system and, especially the younger ones, contribute creating it, so that their success and the lamented lack of critical spaces in the media are in a certain way related. They instrumentally conceive the most famous architectural blogs as showcases giving an enormous international visibility to their images. Moreover, the hectic succession of their photographs poses a radical question on how the constant and accelerated traveling of photographers conditions their way of perceiving and understanding reality, even before it is actually returned to us. All these are very important changes, because they structurally influence the ways in which professional photographs are created. And what is modified, again, is the type of image through which the large public of professionals comes to know and is aware of architecture, an imagery which tends more and more to the immediacy of reading and emphasises the spectacularity of buildings.

5 Architectural Portraits and Social Media If this, broadly speaking, covers the range of professional representations of contemporary architecture, it is important to remember that the whole system is conditioned by the existence of an unlimited and constantly growing number of amateur photographs of buildings and parts of cities

121

M. Nastasi

Fig. 8.3  Extract from the Instagram page tagged #elbhilharmonie (photographs by various Instagram users uploaded on 29 August 2018). “Social” photography is an active practice of appropriation of architectures and urban spaces, and a potential tool for surveying architecture, able to “liberate” its image by exploring the new expressive potentialities, uses and meanings, made visible by billions of possible perspectives. On the other hand, the infinite repetition of the icon in imminently recognisable images tends to reinforce it, due to the huge and ever-growing number of photographs taken globally.

taken by the general public and shared on social media (see, e.g. Mirzoeff 2016). They are the product of mobility and tourism on a global scale; the widespread distribution of digital cameras and smartphones and the ­possibility of uploading and publishing images in real time at almost zero cost form the basis for active practices of exploration and appropriation of architecture and urban space, but also reinforce the iconic side of projects through continuous repetition of the same points of views on buildings (Wilkinson 2015), a tendency that begins to be exploited by the 122

8  Architecture of the Image: Photography Acting in Urban Landscapes

communication managers of certain architectural firms, as we will see in the next paragraph (refer to Fig. 8.3). In this relationship between the architectural project, photography and tourism, we can find further confirmation of the extent to which the image contributes to the transformation of architecture and places: it is an ambiguous contribution, sometimes capable of producing new global icons but very often underlying the disorientating effect that characterises many contemporary cities which have made a recent appearance on the global scene precisely because of the high figurative value of some of their ­buildings. Since the turn of the century, the number of photographs taken annually has skyrocketed, from an estimate of 80 billion in 2000 to one of 1200 billion in 2017 (Heyman 2015; see also the website http://blog. infotrends.com). But that is not all; the percentage of pictures taken with the smartphone, which therefore can potentially be shared and stored online in real time, is growing continually and is thought to have reached 85% in 2017,3 which is based on data supplied by the InfoTrends market research firm. The other factor is that tourism has also grown considerably, passing from a figure of 674 million international tourist worldwide arrivals in 2000 to an estimated 1186 million in 2015, 53% of which are for holidays, recreation and other forms of leisure (international tourist arrivals—overnight visitors—according to the report Tourism Highlights 2016 of the World Tourism Organisation4). The technological evolution of photography is certainly not the only reason for the emergence of the iconic building and the reappearance of monumental forms in urban space. These are, in fact, phenomena that stem from an outgrowing of the anti-monumental conception of the architecture of the Modern Movement and from radical technical and industrial changes triggered by the introduction of digital technologies into architecture. Yet it is hard to imagine that the spread of this paradigm and its rapid establishment worldwide are not linked to the growth of tourism on a global scale as well as of photography, whose “volume” has multiplied 15 times in less than 20 years. Today there are many different social media platforms devoted expressly to the sharing of pictures, such as Instagram, Tumblr, Flickr, Pinterest and semi-public channels like WhatsApp or Facebook Messenger, but social media of a broader reach like Twitter and Facebook are also widely used to publish photographs (Riva 2016). Instagram, now the most influential in terms of imagery, was launched in October 2010 as an App (application) able to take and save pictures taken with the smartphone immediately “improvable” by a series of graphic filters that simulate the visual character of analogue prints, including in this retro aesthetic effects of fading and deterioration in colour with which we associate some of our photographic memories. Today Instagram has over 1 billion active users and has become See http://mylio.com/true-stories/tech-today/how-many-digital-photos-will-be-taken2017-repost 4  The data were consulted on the official webpage of the World Tourism Organization http://www.e-unwto.org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145 3 

123

M. Nastasi

a channel through which people communicate in a large variety of ways: keeping a visual diary of their lives, their journeys and the things they have seen; publishing a portfolio of professional images; using their profiles to promote products, brands or simply themselves; building up galleries of their own or other people’s photographs centring on precise subjects or themes, for example, architecture and its representation. An interesting example of how icons of architecture, of the present or the past, are reinforced by the practices of bloggers is provided by Murad Osmann, an Instagram user from Moscow who has 4.6 million followers. In 2012 Osmann went “viral” on Instagram with the series #followmeto, created together with his wife Natalia. This is a highly coherent group of images of travel in which the photographer portrays a famous tourist site, always with his wife in the foreground, viewed from the back and pulling him along by the hand. The product of chance, the scheme of this photo has become the model for an extremely popular series of images in which the girl in the foreground changes her dress, jewellery and hairstyle to suit the local traditions, while in the background are set the monuments and principal buildings of the “most iconic places on Earth”5 and therefore immediately recognisable. The success of #followmeto is demonstrated not just by the millions of followers of Murad’s Instagram account, but also the fact that the series has become a genuine production that receives commissions from international travel and fashion magazines and sponsorships from the tourist boards of cities and places all over the world that want to be promoted, as well as from clothing and jewellery brands. In addition, the couple now has a website devoted to promotion of the tourist destinations they have visited and is the subject of a travel programme broadcast by a major Russian TV network. But what in my view is most surprising when you browse through the photographs on Osmann’s Instagram profile is the way in which all these elements are nonchalantly related to the most famous recent iconic buildings of Dubai, Moscow, New  York and Paris, as well as the Eiffel Tower, the Blue Mosque in Istanbul, the Statue of Liberty, Milan Cathedral, the Colosseum, the Golden Gate Bridge and many others, forming a spectacular repertoire and a sort of meta-geography of architectural icons of every age and global souvenirs that holds up a mirror to contemporary tourism.

6 Strategies of Communication, Strategies of Design: Three Examples The founders of the Dutch practice MVRDV have recently taken on as a new partner—not an architect but a journalist, who had managed the public image of OMA for 10 years before joining MVRDV in 2008 and whose role is to actively contribute to the creation of any projects’ imagery. The firm’s appointment of Jan Knikker as head of the “Strategy and Communication Department” makes clear that public relations and the See https://followmeto.travel/about

5 

124

8  Architecture of the Image: Photography Acting in Urban Landscapes

Fig. 8.4  Pages from the book MVRDV Buildings. In these pages Rotterdam Markthal is presented mixing aerial photography and selfies from social media. The volume MVRDV Buildings is an example of how the borderline bet­ween the “formal” portrait of architecture and the images created by the public and by visitors is blurred today. The iconographic plan puts a subtler kind of promotion into effect, being constructed as a narrative sequence formed by many small images in which professional and amateur pictures, selfies and portraits of architecture alternate with disguised nonchalance, overcoming the conventions of architectural monographs.

management of images of architecture are not practices concerned solely with obtaining exposure through publications, but on the contrary are now an integral part of the studio’s projects and growth strategies. The volume MVRDV Buildings (Ruby and Ruby 2015) is an example of how the borderline between the “formal” portrait of architecture and the images created by the public and by visitors is blurred today. It is a monograph of over 400 pages devoted to more than 40 buildings designed by MVRDV between 1994 and 2014, presented predominantly with photographs taken by users and uploaded to websites and social networks (refer to Fig. 8.4). It is an interesting attempt to tone down the celebrity rhetoric that characterises publications in the sector—based largely on an iconographic plan that highlights the formal aspects of the architecture and reinforces its iconicity—in which a certain emphasis is given to the life of the projects and their utilisation, rather than to the original conception of the architects and the design. The book contains a very large number of photographs, many of them peopled with inhabitants, users and tourists, rarely showing the building in its entirety and focusing instead on many interiors and spaces in use that are generally inaccessible to professional photographers. The iconographic plan puts a subtler kind of promotion into effect and is constructed as a narrative sequence formed by many images that rarely exceed 125

M. Nastasi Fig. 8.5 Extract from SOM website (www.som. com). Announcement of the winning photograph of the One World Trade Center Photo Contest. The firm SOM has begun to include “social” pictures in its strategy of communication. On the opening of the 1WTC skyscraper, SOM launched a competition inviting amateur and professional photographers to send or upload on Instagram their pictures of the tower. The winning image celebrates the new landmark on the skyline, without telling specific aspects of the architecture and its uses, in a way eluding the descriptive and narrative potentialities of social media photography. (Sources: Website by SOM and photograph by Gerry Padden @gmp3, posted on Instagram on 15 August 2014)

the dimension of half a page, in which professional and amateur pictures, selfies and portraits of architecture alternate with disguised nonchalance, in such a way that some sequences end up looking like the result of a search carried out on Google Images rather than a product of the conventions of the architectural monograph. A type of approach made possible in part by the iconic character of many of the firm’s projects and the fact that it has over 130,000 followers on Facebook, and that reveals the photographic potential of the Internet in the hands of an editor with a good idea (refer to Fig. 8.5). A different example, although not in Europe, is provided by a more corporate-oriented practice like SOM, which has begun to include pictures taken by the public in its own strategy of communication. On 3 November 2014, the day of the official opening of the One World Trade Center skyscraper, the firm launched a competition in which amateur and professional photographers were invited to upload their pictures of the tower onto Instagram or submit them by email. The winner would be rewarded with a one-of-a-kind model of the building and a limited edition print of a photograph of the skyscraper taken by the architectural photographer

126

8  Architecture of the Image: Photography Acting in Urban Landscapes

Fig. 8.6  Charles Graham, The Sky Line of New York, 1896. This watercolour was published on the New York Journal as a pictorial supplement on 3 May 1896 (Source: The New York Public Library Digital Collection). The comparison of Graham’s watercolour with the prizewinning photograph of SOM 1WTC competition shows the photograph summing up many classic clichés of the imagery of New York, legitimating its role as a new icon. The skyscraper is framed at the centre Lower Manhattan’s skyline seen at the sunset, in line with a pier of the Brooklyn Bridge, while in the foreground a sailing boat passes through a reflection of the sun on the water. (Source: The New York Public Library Digital Collection)

James Ewing, who carried out the official photoshoot of the tower.6 The jury was made up of the principal architects of the firm who had worked on the design of the tower, its public relations consultant and the photographer James Ewing. An interesting series of pictures from about 350 photographers can be seen on Instagram, in which the building is represented in a broad range of visual manners, but chiefly as a landmark visible from afar, or from very close up and from below, reflecting a tendency to geometric abstraction (refer to Fig. 8.6). The prizewinning photograph sums up many of the classic clichés of the photographic imagery of New York: it portrays the skyline of Lower Manhattan viewed from Brooklyn, against a cloudy sky lit up with the colours of sunset; the skyscraper is clearly visible at the centre of the photo, in line with one of the piers of Brooklyn Bridge, while in the foreground, we see part of the waterfront and a sailing boat passing through a reflection of the sun on the water. The picture echoes iconographic aspects of the early images of the city’s skyline from the end of the nineteenth century (e.g. Charles Graham’s watercolour The Sky Line of New  York of 1896, published in the New York Journal. It is known as the first image to appear in the press for which the words “sky line” were used as a description), but it also resembles the photograph by James Ewing offered as a prize, in which the building is photographed from a distance with a telephoto lens, at sunset, and compared with the principal icons and symbols of New York, the Empire State Building in the foreground and, in the distance, the Statue of Liberty—to legitimate its role as a new icon. The image celebrates the new landmark on the skyline, See the webpages http://www.som.com/news/som_announces_one_world_trade_centre_photo_contest; http://www.som.com/news/part_1_welcomeonewtc_photo_contest_finalist_showcase; http://www.som.com/news/som_announces_winner_of_one_ world_trade_centre_photo_contest 6 

127

M. Nastasi

without telling specific aspects of the architecture and its uses—and thus in a way eluding the descriptive and narrative potentialities of the many photographs uploaded onto social media. The whole operation shows how this sort of amateur photography often sets out to imitate the professional kind (Wilkinson 2015)—all the more so on the occasion of a competition—with all its clichés and conventions. In 2016 SOM launched a second “Instagram contest”, #SOM80, a “Celebration of 80 years of Design”.7 In the results of this competition, some 750 pictures, the prevailing attitude is again one of imitation of the more established style of architectural photography, in which buildings are presented more as giant objects than as parts of the city. Nevertheless, they represent a remarkable experiment owing to the variety of projects photographed and to the wide range of approaches, genres and manners. The photograph that won the competition, a portrait of the Centre for Character & Leadership Development at the US Air Force Academy, is a very formal composition that emphasises the geometric aspects of the architecture and of the photograph itself. The picture is framed from a low point of view over a pool of water in which the building is reflected, so that an ambiguity of scale is created between the architecture and the other elements of the landscape, accentuated by the transparencies and the reflections of the different materials. In this case too, the photograph uploaded onto social media has been chosen to replicate the icon of architecture, whose image that is immediately recognisable is reinforced. A third example of how the photographs of social network users are by now an integral and exploitable part of the publicity of the more advanced architecture practices in terms of the conception of the public image of their works is provided by the website of the OMA firm. Since 2016 all of the studio’s public projects have been presented both with a short series of “official” images and through a selection of photographs taken from Instagram: around 15 per year, arranged chronologically and regularly updated. The result is very interesting because looking at the chronology of the images, we note that the web editors had initially favoured views of the exteriors, whose repetition strengthened the iconic aspect of the building—with variations and shades of framing, lighting and weather conditions—and its immediate recognition. But with the passage of time, the selection has come to form a more varied archive, in which the snapshots of users represent the use of the space (especially in the interiors), the fittings and their continual transformations, showing the architecture as a living and constantly reinterpreted entity. The architectural aspects of the buildings are investigated, but they are also utilised as instant sets for portraits, selfies and staged photographs, bearing witness to the extent to which the space is actively utilised and to which

See http://www.som.com/news/announcing_the_som80_instagram_contest_a_celebration_of_80_years_of_design; http://www.som.com/news/announcing_the_winner_ of_the_som80_instagram_contest 7 

128

8  Architecture of the Image: Photography Acting in Urban Landscapes

Fig. 8.7 Extract from OMA website (www.oma. eu). Two of the photographs of the firm’s Casa da Música in Porto selected from Instagram to present a public image of the building. The snapshots represent the use of the space (especially interiors), the fittings and their continual transformations, showing the architecture as a living and constantly reinterpreted entity. The architectural aspects of the buildings are investigated, but they are also utilised as instant sets for portraits, selfies and staged photographs, bearing witness to the extent to which the space is actively utilised and to which photography can become a mode of interacting with it for the public. (Source: website OMA; designed by Bengler)

photography can become a mode of interacting with it for the public (refer to Fig. 8.7). These examples show the dual nature of “spontaneous” amateur photography: on the one hand, “social” photography is an active practice of appropriation of architectures and urban spaces, and a potential tool for surveying architecture, able to “liberate” its image by exploring the new expressive potentialities, uses and meanings, made visible by 1 billion possible perspectives. On the other hand, the infinite repetition of the icon in imminently recognisable images tends to reinforce it, due to the huge number of photographs taken, and therefore it can be argued that photography contributes to orienting urban transformations iconically.

7 Conclusions: Acting to Construct the Real and Virtual Imageries of Spectacular Architecture One can see how the system of spectacular architecture is intertwined with the production of spectacular photographic images of different kinds and linked to their repetition and circulation on a global scale. The examples briefly outlined in this chapter show that virtual and real images of spectacular architecture are not just “passive” representations, but “agents” (Bredekamp 2017; Gell 1998) that can play an active role in the processes of spectacularisation of buildings and urban landscapes (similarly, one can consider the power of historic images as in the case of the Bellotto vista’s influence in Vienna’s debate regarding new projects, or the precedent of the reconstruction of post-war Warsaw (refer to Mersom 2016). In the imagination both of professionals and of a much more general public, this 129

M. Nastasi

is an ongoing process which is rooted in the images themselves and in the ways they are thought, crafted, used, circulated and shared; that ends up in concrete and tangible transformations of the built urban environment. The images are produced and used instrumentally by a variety of players, who act only partially in direct relationship with the architect. All these pro­ fessionals contribute to erode the historical role of architects as the sole producers of architectural images, a role that they actively complement and increase with their wide and uncontrolled range of skills and purposes. They reveal that the present figure of the star architect should be understood more comprehensively in a wide system of media, political and personal relations (direct and indirect), where the images become, in their most spectacular versions, a currency which is necessary for the development of projects and careers. The study of images shows that they have an independent existence, one that follows the mechanisms of the media and social networks in ways which, compared to the past, are multiplied and accelerated and whose trajectories are often unpredictable by their makers (Nastasi and Ponzini 2018). Therefore, it is important to conceive the spectacular image of architecture as a powerful element at the core of the transformations of the contemporary city, showing that the different types of images—from the design phase to the receiving of the buildings by the public-work together constructing the real and virtual imagery of architectural icons and star architects.

References Belting H (2005) Image, medium, body: a new approach to iconology. Crit Enq 31:302–319 Bredekamp H (2017) Image acts. A systematic approach to visual agency. De Gruyter, Berlin and Boston Elkins J (2003) Visual studies: a skeptical introduction. Routledge, New York Elkins J (ed) (2009) Visual literacy. Routledge, New York and London Gell A (1998) Art and agency: an anthropological theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford and New York Heyman S (2015) Photos, photos everywhere. N Y Times 29(07) http://mylio.com/true-stories/tech-today/how-many-digital-photos-will-be-taken2017-repost. Accessed 28 Dec 2018 http://www.archdaily.com/content/about. Accessed 28 Dec 2018 http://www.skylinecampaign.org. Accessed 28 Dec 2018 https://divisare.com. Accessed 3 Nov 2018 https://followmeto.travel/about. Accessed 3 Nov 2018 https://vu.city. Accessed 3 Jan 2019 https://www.dezeen.com. Accessed 28 Dec 2018 Mersom D (2016) Story of cities #28: how postwar Warsaw was rebuilt using 18th century paintings. The Guardian, 22 April. https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/ apr/22/story-cities-warsaw-rebuilt-18th-century-paintings Mirzoeff N (2016) How to see the world. An introduction to images, from self-portraits to Selfies, maps to movies, and more. Basic Books, New York Mitchell WJT (2005) What do pictures want? The lives and loves of images. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago/London Nastasi M (2018) Image cities. skylines, renderings, and icons, transforming urban landscapes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation (Italian), Ca’Foscari University of Venice 130

8  Architecture of the Image: Photography Acting in Urban Landscapes Nastasi M, Ponzini D (2018) Toward a photographic urbanism? Images iconizing cities and swaying urban transformation. In: Lindner C, Meissner M (eds) The Routledge companion to urban imaginaries. Routledge, London, pp 217–231 Nicolin P (2012) La verità in architettura. Il pensiero di un’altra modernità. Quodlibet, Macerata Riva G (2016) Selfie. Narcisismo e identità. Il Mulino, Milan and Bologna Ruby I, Ruby A (eds) (2015) MVRDV buildings. Nai010 Publishers, Rotterdam Schianchi P (2014) Architecture on the web. A critical approach to communication. Libreriauniversitaria. Italian Edition, Padua Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) (2014a) Part 1: #WelcomeOneWTC photo contest finalist showcase. http://www.som.com/news/part_1_welcomeonewtc_ photo_contest_finalist_showcase. Accessed 28 Dec 2018 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) (2014b) SOM announces one world trade centre photo contest. http://www.som.com/news/som_announces_one_world_ trade_centre_photo_contest. Accessed 28 Dec 2018 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) (2014c) SOM announces winner of one world trade centre photo contest. http://www.som.com/news/som_announces_winner_of_one_world_trade_centre_photo_contest. Accessed 28 Dec 2018 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) (2016a) Announcing the #SOM80 instagram contest: a celebration of 80 years of design. http://www.som.com/news/announcing_the_som80_instagram_contest_a_celebration_of_80_years_of_design. Accessed 28 Dec 2018 Skidmore, Owings & Merrill LLP (SOM) (2016b) Announcing the winner of the #SOM80 instagram contest. http://www.som.com/news/announcing_the_winner_ of_the_som80_instagram_contest. Accessed 28 Dec 2018 Wilkinson T (2015) The polemical snapshot: architectural photography in the age of social media. Architect Rev 1415:91–97. http://www.architectural-review.com/ archive/viewpoints/thepolemical-snapshot-architecturalphotography-in-the-age-ofsocialmedia/8674662.fullarticle World Tourism Organization (2016) UNWTO tourism highlights. http://www.e-unwto. org/doi/pdf/10.18111/9789284418145. Accessed 28 Dec 2018 Zöllner C (2012) The Elbpilharmonie renderings. Clog 4:100–101

131

9

Star Architecture from Below: Narratives and Images from Social Networks Sébastien Jacquot and Gaël Chareyron

Abstract

This chapter studies star architecture through the analysis of tags and comments on social networks (TripAdvisor and Instagram). The objective is the analysis of star architectural projects from below, that is, the way visitors depict and frame star architecture and express aesthetical judgement, to characterise “star architecture” and “iconicity” from the point of view of its reception. The analysis of the comments on a selection of sites shows the importance of the architectural component in the tourist experience, not reducible to the mention of the star architect, but presenting multiple types of discourse, pluralising the reception of star architecture. The purely “star” architectural dimension, based on the notoriety of the architect, can then be distinguished from the elements referring to the visual effects of buildings or to a perception of the building in its environment, closer to the notion of iconic building. Keywords

Big data · Social networks · Tourism · Star architecture · Digital footprint

1 Introduction S. Jacquot (*) Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne – EA EIREST, Paris, France e-mail: sebastien. [email protected] G. Chareyron Léonard de Vinci Pôle Universitaire – Research Center, La Défense Cédex, France e-mail: gael. [email protected]

Beyond tourism promotion, territorial marketing and dissemination by specialised magazines, the achievements of star architects are also mediated by pictures taken by the visitors themselves, passionate about architecture or tourists going to the iconic places, or by comments written on specialised forums but also on TripAdvisor to evaluate tourist sites. These pictures and comments produced by non-specialists, from a non-­ commercial viewpoint, circulate widely, increasing the visibility of these buildings, contributing to their fame. These photos and comments also indicate a specific way of looking at them and qualifying them, which may correspond to institutional and official promotions of these iconic and star architectural buildings or which may depart from it (see Chap. 8 by Nastasi in this volume). This user-generated content can also produce prescriptive

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_9

133

S. Jacquot and G. Chareyron

effects, corresponding to the “hermeneutic circle” (Jenkins 2003), that catalyse the circulations of images, in the context of touristification, or on the contrary reveal some gaps that pluralise the idea of star architecture. Thus, this chapter is aimed at studying the receipt of star architecture through the analysis of big data, such as photographs, tags and comments of users on social networks (TripAdvisor, Flickr, Panoramio and Instagram). The main objective is the analysis of star architectural projects from below, that is, from the point of view of visitors (tourists and inhabitants) and the way they picture and frame star architecture – the way they express aesthetical judgement. This will enable the empirical definition of “star architecture” and “iconicity” from the point of view of its reception by the visitors. The chapter focuses on two social media networks: TripAdvisor and Instagram. Through Instagram, the approach questions the way “star architecture” is conceived, through the pictures and tags associated with that word. Concerning TripAdvisor, some projects delivered in Europe were selected, realised by star architecture firms that have been subject to tourism valorisation, generating a high level of visibility. Projects were chosen from the database created by Davide Ponzini and Fabio Manfredini (2017) that gathers architectural projects designed in Europe by transnational firms from 1990. From this list, the buildings selected are those that are highly pictured and commented on social networks (for instance, the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is associated with 12,817 comments on TripAdvisor), and collected by web scraping (or web data extracting) online comments associated with those websites, in order to conduct automated lexical analysis, to identify the dominant narratives associated with the visit and the importance of the architecture in these narratives, in order to understand the way the design and features of the building, the iconicity, are (or are not) elements of discussion and judgement.

2 The Study of the Touristic Reception of Star Architecture The notion of star architecture is not quite equivalent to that of flagship or iconic architecture, even if the issues can bring these expressions closer. Star architecture consists of the production of iconic buildings by architects or firms of high notoriety (Gravari-Barbas and Renard-Delautre 2015; Ponzini and Nastasi 2016), both of which also contribute to the media coverage and fame of these achievements, often in the context of urban regeneration (Miles 2005), while flagship architecture refers to large-scale and significant achievements (Bianchini et  al. 1992), often accompanying the transformation of waterfronts, which become symbolic of urban change (refer to Chap. 6 by Ponzini and Akhavan in this volume). These initiatives are aimed at image changes, triggering competitiveness strategies, and therefore also have tourist development objectives, in line with the objectives of urban attractiveness. They are also symptomatic of 134

9  Star Architecture from Below: Narratives and Images from Social Networks

large changes related to museums, in terms of strategy and image (Moukarzel 2011). These objectives demonstrate that these architectural projects are justified by their effects beyond the inhabitants on the public in general: professional critics, effective and potential visitors, etc., which explains the name “iconic”. According to Sklair, architectural iconicity is not reducible to the aesthetic or symbolic qualities of the buildings, and he proposes a definition of iconicity that also incorporates fame (Sklair 2006). He also interprets the development of an iconic architecture, mobilising mainly star architects, as part of a “culture-ideology of consumerism”, favouring spaces of consumption, including tourist spaces (Sklair 2010). The wide dissemination of images and narratives of these iconic buildings would then strengthen both the iconic nature of buildings and an incitement to visit those sites, leading to tourism development. So, Leslie Sklair (2006) raises important questions: “Iconic for whom? Iconic for where? Iconic for when?” The first question refers to audiences, and image dissemination strategies which are at the service of iconicity, when iconicity is “a resource in struggles for meaning” and disseminated upstream, as part of the promotion of these buildings. The notion of “reception” is explicitly used in cultural studies but scarcely applied to analyse the links between architecture and the public (Stead and Freeman 2013). Nevertheless, some studies raise the question of the reception of the effects of this architecture (Monteyne 2011). How this architecture has been received has been studied in several works, with different types of recipients, for example, the inhabitants from different social backgrounds in the neighbourhoods close to Kop van Zuid in Rotterdam (Doucet et al. 2010), the urban and heritage experts referring to tall buildings in central London (Charney 2007) and potential visitors to Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao about the general image of the city (Sainz 2012). The study of how this has been received may reveal several gaps in what is received, for example, between professionals and the general public, without reducing them to binary opposites, as they can express different conceptions of architecture (Monteyne 2011). The research aims to bring up the “actual opinions of people” (Ibid) and the interpretations of architecture that are made in situ. They also thematise the reception in different ways, beyond an aesthetic evaluation: to identify the degree of adhesion or even of appropriation of the inhabitants (Doucet et al. 2010), the way in which iconic architecture reconfigures identities local or a form of local pride (Miles 2005) or the appreciations of this architecture in situ, sometimes in sharp contrast with the debates of the experts (Monteyne 2011). The goal was to study how tourists receive such interventions, not in terms of acceptance or effect, but in terms of the specific gaze they develop upon star architecture. Through the study of the footprints left on the social networks, a wish to study the aesthetic of the star and iconic architecture, as it is expressed and formulated from below, was achieved. Of course, it would be naïve to oppose a hegemonic vision of star architecture conveyed by the images produced by consulting firms, sponsors, the tourist p­ romotion 135

S. Jacquot and G. Chareyron

and those resulting from anonymous visitors. In his critique of architectural iconicity, Brott (2012) identifies the logic of iconicity in the preeminence of digital abstraction elaborated by the firm, widely diffused, constituting the injunction to a way of experiencing and appreciating the building. More fundamentally, the imaginary structures the perception of reality (Gravari-Barbas and Graburn 2012), which reveals the impact of ideologies (Ricoeur 1988; Vento 2015). In short, these images on social networks can repeat the prescribed images of iconicity, as the ways of gazing architecture and expressing sentences towards it can appear to be aligned with the advice of the tourist guides or the images diffused by the communication, or with the images and opinions already in circulation, may they be expert or profane (Nastasi and Ponzini 2018). Moreover, the reception is not abstract and pure, but also interacts with the interactions and uses of the buildings (visits, sightseeing, etc.). This brings us to several questions. Does iconicity impose a certain relationship to the building, a predefined subjective experience, beyond the diversity of visitors and broadcast media? On the other hand, can the dissemination of images and texts on social networks be out of step with the prescribed ways of experimenting and gazing on these buildings? Then, attention is focused on the modalities of expression related to the star architectural buildings, to identify the main registers of statements used to describe and evaluate it that may go beyond aesthetic judgements to describe the relationships with the building. Is this architecture experienced and described primarily through its architect, its aesthetics, its functions, its volumes and its materials? In other words, is it approached primarily as a star architectural building, an iconic one or a must-see tourist attraction?

3 The Use of Social Networks to Identify the Tourist Gaze upon Star Architecture Tourism has largely been transformed by the development of digital technologies, in distribution, marketing and communication, resulting in the development of new intermediaries, professions and practices (Buhalis and Law 2008). Following the development of Web 2.0, websites and applications allow tourists to share content related to their touristic experiences (Cousin et al. 2017), pictures (Panoramio, Flickr, Instagram) and comments on the experience (TripAdvisor). These software applications (apps) were born in the 2000s (TripAdvisor in 2000, Flickr in 2004, Panoramio in 2007, Instagram in 2010) and now include hundreds of millions of contributors: more than 650 million reviews on TripAdvisor in 2018 and billions of photos uploaded via Instagram. The use of the smartphone accelerated this trend, facilitating the sharing in situ, directly on the moment. These social networks can be considered from two perspectives, that is, to distinguish the use of these social networks to choose a destination or an attraction from the practices of sharing. The presentation of tourist ­experiences by narratives and pictures, by a minority of contributors, tends 136

9  Star Architecture from Below: Narratives and Images from Social Networks

to become performative for a majority of readers. In short, these pictures and narratives constitute a digital testimony of tourist experiences, but also a tourist prescription, in concurrence or complementarity with guides and the tourist institutional promotion. Web 2.0 and the tourist social networks are thus transforming the tourist prescription, from institutionalised commu­ nication, managed by the tourist offices or Destination Management Organisations (DMO) and the circulation of images produced and relayed by the main tourist guides, to a prescription developed by the tourists themselves. In other words, the prescription evolves from experts to peers, as TripAdvisor, Flickr and Instagram also become sources of information on destinations and are used by visitors to choose a destination or activities within a destination. The tourists perceived these networks as more horizontal and trustworthy (Jeacle and Carter 2011). These processes of “digitisation and internetisation” (Urry and Larsen 2011) consolidate the importance of the tourist gaze and integrate tourist practices to its construction. However, this chapter does not consider the uses and influences of user-­generated content, but rather what the contents reveal on star architecture. The pictures are taken as testimonies and indications of tourist experiences and in peculiar the reception of star architecture. It is part of a research that considers these pictures and comments as tourist footprints (Cousin et al. 2015), implying a new conceptualisation of enquiries (Latour et al. 2012).

4 Methods In terms of methodology, data mining and text mining techniques were developed, in line with the study of big data in tourism research (Li et al. 2018). This implies online data recovery operations, via the implementation of web scraping. Then the stored data is structured and is available for requests allowing visualisations (by GIS, R or Gephi) or extractions of data for subsequent analyses (such as lexical analysis). These new methodologies have been applied to the study of tourism, applied to Instagram (Paül i Agustí 2018), Flickr or TripAdvisor (Cousin et al. 2017; Wong and Qi 2017), relying on geographical mapping using the spatial metadata associated with a picture or a comment (Cvelbar et al. 2018) or on text mining. For this specific research, a general study of tags on Instagram was conducted, and an analysis of comments on TripAdvisor, on a sample of tourist sites built by star architects. Concerning Instagram, a program allowing the automated counting of the number of tags associated with specific keywords was set up, in order to isolate the tags “starchitecture” or “star architect” and identify all the tags associated with the firms and architects defined as star architects (Ponzini and Manfredini 2017).1 Metadata was collected associated with This identification was made from the period available on Instagram, that is to say since February 19, 2012 (while Instagram has been in existence since 2010), and considering only tags in Latin alphabet. 1 

137

S. Jacquot and G. Chareyron

pictures tagged as “starchitect”: the location of the picture (refer to Fig. 9.1) and the related tags. To analyse this set of tags, Gephi was used, open-source software that enables network analysis, by the visualisation and exploration of graphs and networks (refer to Fig.  9.2), and used an algorithm of community detection (Blondel et al. 2008). To understand the specific relation that visitors constructed with star architecture, the comments on TripAdvisor from a selection of projects were analysed. For this purpose, the comments associated with a selection of TripAdvisor attractions were automatically extracted, and then an automated sorting by language was executed, for the purpose of lexical analysis. The lexical analysis is then carried out using the Iramuteq software,2 which supports several languages (English, French, Italian, Spanish, German, etc.). The corpus is made up of all the TripAdvisor comments on a given site, sorted by language. The analysis was conducted on the comments in English in all cases. French, Italian and Spanish comments were integrated when the number of these comments was relevant for one site. The lexical analysis focuses on the relations of lemmas with each other or on a classification of segments of text according to the lemmas present (and therefore their lexical universe of references). The corpus of comments in each language is itself divided into segments of 20 words to better grasp the potential variety of meanings present in each comment.3 For each corpus the same operations are carried out: quantification of the most used lemmas, correlations between words (to create word networks) and classification of text segments to identify the universes of lexical ­references. The software operates on a grammatical classification and a lemmatisation It is a free software developed under R, based on Reinert’s classification methods. It can be downloaded at the following address: http://iramuteq.org/ 3  Each comment may tell the experience of architecture but also buying a ticket and visiting the restaurant, so it would be a methodological mistake to take each comment as a unit of meaning. 2 

138

Fig. 9.1 Global distribution of the tag “starchitect” on Instagram, 2018. This map is based on the geolocation of the pictures on Instagram associated with the tag “starchitect”. The poles of concentration of this tag are in Western Europe and on the northeastern and southwestern coast of the United States, but the tag is also used in other localisations, showing a globalisation of the perception of star architecture. This map almost matches with the location of star architectural projects, as identified by Ponzini and Manfredini (2017). (Source: Gaël Chareyron)

9  Star Architecture from Below: Narratives and Images from Social Networks

Fig. 9.2 Network of the tags associated to the tag #starchitect on Instagram, 2018. This figure represents the network of tags on Instagram, from the tag “starchitect”. The nodes of this graph are the other tags connected to it, and the width of the links defines the intensity of connection between tags. The colors are produced by an algorithm of community detection. A large set of tags refers to the world of architecture (in violet) but are also related to the practice of sightseeing and mobility (in blue). (Source: Gaël Chareyron)

and then ranks the most used lemmas, the correlations between words and classes of discourses. In short, the lexicometric analysis reveals the organisation of lexical references. However, this extensive use of social networks in tourism research calls for a few precautions. First, there is a sociology of social networks (Boulier 2016; Lo et al. 2011), as its use differs according to the level of income, age or the country of origin of users. Moreover, active sharing on platforms or digital applications of pictures or comments on tourist sites concerns only a minority of visitors. For example, the Louvre is one of the most commented tourism sites in the world on TripAdvisor, representing more than 89,000 comments in 2018 (since the beginning of TripAdvisor), but the attendance of the museum is about 8 million visitors in 2017 (according to the Office du Tourisme et des Congrès de Paris). So, the results inform us on online sharing practices and give us trends about tourist practices and experiences, without a claim to representativity. On the one hand, a comprehensive corpus (ALL the comments, ALL the tags) was used; on the other hand, it is not possible to conclude from the results that it is representative of the visitors in general. A second precaution concerns the temporal dimension of the inquiry. All data needed was collected from the creation of the social networks (Instagram and TripAdvisor); nevertheless further inquiries should integrate the temporal dimension in two ways: the temporal variation inside the corpus and the way an architect’s fame increases or decreases over time.

5 Circulations of the Expression “Star Architecture” on Instagram Sklair integrates the ideas of singularity, uniqueness and fame to the definition of iconicity (200), while the notion of star architecture refers to the fame of the architect itself. This notoriety of the building or the architect can be revealed by a strong presence on social networks relying on voluntary contributions. Identifying fame through social networks implies

139

S. Jacquot and G. Chareyron

to consider the ranking of the star architectural buildings according to the number of comments on TripAdvisor, the number of pictures on Flickr or Instagram or the number of tags on Instagram. Following this idea, the first circulation of the term “star architecture” in Instagram was investigated. The tags “starchitect” or “star architecture” are not massively distributed within Instagram, counting only 12,196 and 3987 occurrences. This is significantly less than tags naming star architects directly, such as “frankgehry” (214,389) or “zahahadid” (330,475), or tags referring to the buildings they designed, for instance, the DC Tower in Vienna has more than 15,000 pictures. However, these tags can be analysed in their relationships (to which other tags are they associated?) and their geography (as the tagged photos are also geolocalised). Figure 9.1 represents a map of the global distribution of the tag “starchitect”, with concentration poles in western Europe, on the northeastern and southwestern coast of the United States, and more ad hoc positions, particularly in Latin America (Brazil), the Middle East, Japan and Southeast Asia. This map can be superimposed with the one produced by Ponzini and Manfredini (2017), based on projects carried out between 1990 and 2014 by more than 40 firms identified as belonging to the star architecture fraternity, which tends to show that the projects described as star architecture are well identified such by a range of Instagramers. Some minor discrepancies are identifiable however between the two maps. Some absences on the Instagram map can be explained by geopolitical reasons (the blocking of Instagram in China) or a lack of acknowledgement of a building as star architecture (a few cases in Australia, India, etc.). The presence of extra dot on the Instagram map may be due to a time lag (new projects made after 2014) or a broader perception of what appears as star architecture. The network of tags associated with “#starchitect” enables us to specify its meanings and associated lexical references. A large set of tags refers to the world of architecture (#architecture, #architect and its variations in Spanish) but is also related to the practice of sightseeing and mobility that these practices imply: #travel, #architectureporn, #architecturephotography and #photography. The identification of star architecture on Instagram is thus the crossroads of two practices: #archilovers and #travelgram. Another lexical universe connected to #starchitect concerns the world of design: #design and #interiordesign, and #starchitectdesign or #interiordesigner, referring to interior photos, that was not considered for the research. Last, a whole set of tags refer to the names of the star architects themselves, #zahahadid and #frankgehry, or the will to identify the next star architects (#nexttoparchitect) or refer to the names of the main cities in which these photos are inscribed (#nyc, #vancouver). On the other hand, the pictures tagged with the names of buildings or architects are much more numerous. Using the list of star architecture firms integrated in the database produced by Ponzini and Manfredini, star architects were ranked

140

9  Star Architecture from Below: Narratives and Images from Social Networks

according to their fame on Instagram.4 Globally among the firms or architects of this database, a few have a large following on social networks (#zahahadid, 330,475 tags; #calatrava, 269,965 tags; #renzopiano, 140,795 tags), while others appear more marginal (#Aedas, 2063 tags; #willalsop, 1520 tags5) (refer to Fig. 9.2). To conclude, the geography of the tags produces a geography similar to that of the projects actually carried out by the star architects, and the associated tags indicate the codification of a practice of sightseeing dedicated to the passion for star architecture. However, the low number of tags referring directly to “starchitecture” does not constitute a category of structuring photographs on Instagram, the building being perceived more singularly, by the name of their architect, the city or the building itself. In other words, this is closer to an iconicity – based on the singularity and fame of buildings or architects – than the construction of a common category of star architecture. These categorisations were studied through the analysis of the comments on TripAdvisor to identify the way star architecture is dealt with.

6 The Importance of Architecture in the Narratives on TripAdvisor From the narratives of visits to museums or monuments that are also marked as iconic architecture, TripAdvisor enables visitors to identify the importance of the experience of architecture and the way they account for it. For this analysis, museums, monuments and hotels marked by iconic architecture and designed by firms regarded as star architects were selected. The criteria of selection were the presence on the star architecture database presented in the introduction and a significant presence on TripAdvisor, which means a touristic dimension. Projects for which the star architectural dimension was key (including the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, for its position in urban and cultural studies on these aspects) were deliberately mixed with less famous projects, to identify the reception of star architecture in a variety of situations. Among the museums and exhibition sites that were selected include the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (F. Gehry), the MAXXI in Rome (Z. Hadid), the Fondation Louis Vuitton in Paris (F. Gehry), the Zentrum Paul Klee in Zurich (Renzo Piano), the Musée d’Art Moderne Grand-Duc Jean (MUDAM) in Luxembourg (Ieoh Ming Pei) and the Kunsthaus Graz (Peter Cook and Colin Fournier), to have a range of museums of variable fame, in various countries, with a number of comments on TripAdvisor from 30,120 for the Bundestag or 14,824 for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao to 616 comments for the Nevertheless, attention was paid to the fact that some tags are equivocal, for example, “Foster”, which may also refer to a brand of beer or the act of fostering a dog. In this case only the tag “normanfoster” was considered. 5  The data was collected on September 2017. 4 

141

S. Jacquot and G. Chareyron

Zentrum Paul Klee, 448 comments for the MUDAM in Luxembourg or 393 comments for the Kunsthaus Graz. Among the emblematic monuments that were selected include the Bundestag in Berlin (N. Foster), the Sony Center in Berlin (Helmut Jahn), the Viaduct of Millau in France (N. Foster) and Torre Agbar or Torre Glòries in Barcelona (Jean Nouvel). The three hotels selected were the Renaissance Hotel in Barcelona (Ateliers Jean Nouvel), the Renaissance Hotel in Paris (Christian de Portzamparc) and the Radisson Hotel in Antwerp (Michael Graves). Table 9.1 indicates for each building and in each language the number of comments and words of the corpus considered, and the five most used lemmas (by retaining only the verbs, nouns and adjectives), allowing to perceive the presence of the architectural dimension. This first analysis reveals for the three hotels considered a very small representation of the architecture in the commentaries. Likewise, the classification of lexical fields on the three hotels brought forth the themes of the service, the reception, the room, the environment and the location of the hotel, but not its architecture. Out of 1203 reviews for the Renaissance Hotel in Paris, the words “architecture/architect/architectural” appear 4 times; for Barcelona 33 occurrences out of 945 comments (for the Bundestag, in English, more than 2500 words for 13,320 comments; 1935 for 4476 comments for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao). Although pictures of the architecture of these hotels are present on social networks and the Internet communication puts them forward, the architecture doesn’t appear as part of the tourist narrative of the accommodation experience, even in a hotel designed by a star architecture firm. This does not mean that the guests of these hotels are not sensitive to this dimension, but it is not integrated in the TripAdvisor experience assessment, nor is the name of the architect. Nevertheless, the lexical analysis on TripAdvisor of the selected monuments and museums shows a significant presence given to this architectural dimension in the comments and assessments, in varying proportions according to the buildings and languages of the commentators. For star architectural museums, the most used words concern both the museum (“art”, “exhibition”) and its architecture (“building”, “architecture”, “building”, “edificio”). For example, in English the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao is described primarily for its architectural rather than museum dimension (“building” is used 4333 times, against 3510 for “museum” in the total corpus of comments), while the most widely used word in French or Spanish is “museum” or “museo”. However, beyond this importance, how does this appreciation manifest itself? What dimension is put forward, from the name of the architect to the appearance of the building? (Table 9.2) The name of the architect is not systematically put forward: it varies from 50% of comments (Vuitton in Paris) to a virtual absence (hotels but also the Viaduct of Millau in the French comments, the Sony Center in Berlin, etc.). With 747 mentions, the name “Foster” only appears in 5.6% of the comments in English about the Bundestag, and the name Gehry only in 2.1% of the comments in Spanish related to the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. The differentiated fame of the architect is not necessarily the 142

(Source: Sébastien Jacquot)

M. Luxembourg FR M. Graz ENG Viaduc Millau ENG Viaduc Millau FR Bundestag ENG Bundestag FR SonyCenter ENG SonyCenter FR TorreAgbar ENG TorreAgbar FR TorreAgbar ESP Hotel ParisRenaissance ENG 24 Hotel BarceRenaissance 25 Hotel AnversRadisson

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Name of project 1 Guggenheim M Bilbao ENG 2 Guggenheim M Bilbao FR 3 Guggenheim M Bilbao SP 4 MAXXI ENG 5 MAXXI FR 6 MAXXI IT 7 Vuitton ENG 8 Vuitton FR 9 Musée Klee ENG 10 Musée Klee FR 11 M. Luxembourg

945 720

Nouvel

Graves

258 67 437 784 982 189 58 190

Hadid Hadid Hadid Gehry Gehry Piano Piano Pei Cobb Freed Pei

Foster Foster Foster Foster Jahn Jahn Nouvel Nouvel Nouvel Portzamparc

4610

Gehry

97 123 543 914 13,320 1311 510 70 174 82 224 1203

1143

Gehry

89,881

127,325

5954 8120 43,099 44,081 916,106 69,385 27,241 3091 8983 3743 10,832 198,606

22,041 5355 38,269 79,384 80,093 2077 3571 14,611

234,674

83,041

Number Number comments words 4476 324,899

Architect firm Gehry

Hotel

Hotel

Musée Build(ing) Bridge Voir Visit Visite Place Architecture Night Nuit Noche Hotel

Museum Musée Museo Build(ing) Voir Klee Klee Museum

Museo

Musée

Word 1 Build(ing)

Room

Room

Exposition Art View Viaduc Dome Voir Sony Voir Build(ing) Voir Barcelona Room

Build(ing) Architecture Mostra Art Bâtiment Museum Paul Art

Visitar

Architecture

Word 2 Art

Good

Stay

Art Exhibition Viaduct Millau Book Coupole Restaurant Moderne Light Tour Ver Stay

Art Art Struttura Visit Architecture Work Exposition Build(ing)

Edificio

Oeuvre

Word 3 Museum

Station

Great

Architecture Museum Drive Ouvrage Build Berlin Center Sony Barcelona Jour Edificio Paris

Architecture Bâtiment Arte Museum Exposition Art Oeuvre Modern

Exposicion

Exposition

Word 4 Visit

Stay

Location

Beau Graz Millau Beau View Réserver Visit Place Tower Beau Torre Great

Visit Exposition Maxxi Paris Oeuvre Build(ing) Architecture Visit

Bilbao

Art

Word 5 Bilbao

14

1

48 50 28 85 1999 229 161 37 26 14 28 13

155 49 164 376 552 63 30 52

1045

834

1,94

0,11

49,48 40,65 5,16 9,30 15,01 17,47 31,57 52,86 14,94 17,07 12,50 1,08

60,08 73,13 37,53 47,96 56,21 33,33 51,72 27,37

22,67

72,97

Number % architecture architecture 1490 33,29

Table 9.1  The five most present words (lemmas) on the comments on TripAdvisor, for various star architectural sites (Iramuteq, 2018). From a selection of the TripAdvisor comments on a selection of star architectural projects, considering various languages, this table presents the five most present words (among verbs, nouns and adjectives). It illustrates the importance of architecture (words in grey) in the content of comments, even in museums, but in varying proportions according to the buildings and languages of the commentators

9  Star Architecture from Below: Narratives and Images from Social Networks

143

144

Name of project Guggenheim M Bilbao ENG Guggenheim M Bilbao FR Guggenheim M Bilbao SP MAXXI ENG MAXXI FR MAXXI IT Vuitton ENG Vuitton FR Musée Klee ENG Musée Klee FR M. Luxembourg M. Luxembourg FR M. Graz ENG Viaduc Millau ENG Viaduc Millau FR Bundestag ENG Bundestag FR SonyCenter ENG SonyCenter FR TorreAgbar ENG TorreAgbar FR TorreAgbar ESP Hotel ParisRenaissance ENG Hotel BarceRenaissance Hotel AnversRadisson

(Source: Sébastien Jacquot)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Foster Foster Foster Foster Jahn Jahn Nouvel Nouvel Nouvel Portzamparc Nouvel Graves

Architect firm Gehry Gehry Gehry Hadid Hadid Hadid Gehry Gehry Piano Piano Pei cobb Freed Pei

Number comments 4476 1143 4610 258 67 437 784 982 189 58 190 97 123 543 914 13,320 1311 510 70 174 82 224 1203 945 720

Number name architects 402 59 99 96 20 82 394 108 43 5 23 11 1 38 5 747 44 1 0 5 13 13 3 0 3

%/number comments 9,0 5,2 2,1 37,2 29,9 18,8 50,3 11,0 22,8 8,6 12,1 11,3 0,8 7,0 0,5 5,6 3,4 0,2 0,0 2,9 15,9 5,8 0,2 0,0 0,4

Number architecture % architecture 1490 33,29 834 72,97 1045 22,67 155 60,08 49 73,13 164 37,53 376 47,96 552 56,21 63 33,33 30 51,72 52 27,37 48 49,48 50 40,65 28 5,16 85 9,30 1999 15,01 229 17,47 161 31,57 37 52,86 26 14,94 14 17,07 28 12,50 13 1,08 1 0,11 14 1,94

Table 9.2  Importance of the mention of the name of the architect and the word “architecture” in the comments of various sites relative to star architects on TripAdvisor (2018). This table illustrates the percentage of the comments on TripAdvisor containing the name of the architect and the word “architecture” (or its translation), for each site. The name of the architect is not systematically put forward: it varies from 50% of comments (Vuitton in Paris) to a virtual absence, illustrating that the discourse on the architecture of these museums and monuments cannot be reduced to the star architectural dimensions

S. Jacquot and G. Chareyron

9  Star Architecture from Below: Narratives and Images from Social Networks

explanation: in the comments in English, Gehry occupies 50% of the comments, equivalent to the Fondation Louis Vuitton, and 9% for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. However, the comparison with the presence of the word “architecture” (and its translations in Italian or Spanish) shows that the architectural dimension is not reducible to the name of the architect or the firm (refer to Table  9.1). Indeed, with a few exceptions, the percentage of comments containing the word “architecture” and its translations is much higher than that of the comments mentioning the name of the architect: 60% against 37% for the MAXXI in English, 73% against 29% for MAXXI in French or 49% against 11% for the MUDAM in Luxembourg in French. In these cases, the discourse on the architecture of these museums and monuments cannot be reduced to the star architectural dimensions. In order to understand the diversity of discourses on these works, it is necessary to go beyond the counting of words and study the vocabulary used, as well as the associated discourses. For this, a hierarchical cluster analysis of the text segments is carried out that make up the comments based on a more in-depth study of some case studies.

7 A Grammar of Statements on the Star Architectural Buildings: The Cases of Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao and Fondation Louis Vuitton The hierarchical cluster analysis (HCA) of the text segments (of 20 words) enables the grouping together of statements referring to the same semantic fields and thus to isolate statements referring more specifically to architecture. The HCA operated on the TripAdvisor comments in English on Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao resulted in seven classes (clusters) of speech (refer to Fig. 9.3). Classes 2 and 3 refer to the context of the visit, in Bilbao (class 3) and in relation to the services (audio guide, cafeteria, payment methods, etc. – class 2) inside the museum, while classes 4 and 5 contain statements describing the content of the museum (class 5) or specific exhibitions or artworks (class 4). Class 7 (4.1%) describes the installations present outside the building (puppy, flower, spider, tulip), mentioning their authors (such as J. Koons or A. Kapoor). In turn, classes 1 and 6 refer to the statements made about the architecture of the place and together account for 36.3% of the classified segments. Class 6 (10.6%) contains descriptive statements relating to the description of the building, its context and the relation to the architect. Class 1 (25.8%) contains more subjective statements, referring to commentators’ reactions to the architecture, which is illustrated by the overrepresentation in this class of many adjectives, corresponding to evaluative and laudatory judgements: “amazing”, “stunning”, “beautiful”, “fantastic”, “fabulous”, “impressive”, “spectacular” and “iconic”. The subjective and relational dimension is therefore more 145

S. Jacquot and G. Chareyron

classe 3

classe 2

classe 7

11,5%

14,9%

4,1%

bilbao day trip spain san bus stay town sebastian visit hour guggenheim hotel spend drive cruise stop tram city plan basque barcelona return car airport back park

guide audio ticket cafe price restaurant book queue free fee lunch food bistro shop online staff tour entry include bar entrance eat excellent admission good coffee buy

puppy flower spider dog giant jeff tulip front koon maman floral koons cover kapoor tall outside statue anish plant sculpture cat miss fire ball tree fog mist

classe 6 10,6%

frank gehry titanium river architectural design curve light bridge architect masterpiece shape glass angle structure sun beauty genius reflect bank view marvel nervion side shine engineer

classe 1 25,7% build amaze architecture inside stun outside beautiful fantastic worth spectacular impressive exterior iconic fabulous absolutely great attraction incredible interior wonderful outstanding experience content unique shame breathtaking landmark sorround

p­ resent than the architectural description. These two classes can be isolated in turn, constituting two sub-corpus, which can give rise to new analyses (lexicometry, new HCA, networks of words) to clarify the registers or grammar of speech related to architecture. 38.7% of the statements from class 6 indicate the name of the architect and his or her nationality. From this perspective, the magnitude of the artwork is articulated to star architecture. Then, 12.6% of the statements are more centred on the building, described as “architectural gem” or “architectural masterpiece”. Another set (42.7%) is more concrete, describing the view from the river, and the multiple viewpoints, referring to the spectacular and photogenic dimension of the building (18.7%), whereas 11.5% of the statements depict the cover, made of curved titanium, compared to fish scales, or producing plays of light. Furthermore, 12.5% of the statements point out the light effects produced by the building at different times of the day. The statements from class 1, centred on the relationship to the artwork, can also be divided into subclasses. About a quarter of the statements evoke an oppositional stance: inside, outside, or rather architecture, art, mentioning the disappointment at the visit of the museum, in comparison to the architecture. About 20% of the statements describe the building as “landmark” or “iconic” and as the main reason of the visit to Bilbao. The other statements mention the “wonderful” and “amazing” tourist experience,

146

classe 5

classe 4

18,5%

14,6%

art modern

fan like think contemporary new lover expect york clothe display emperor bore know world taste work war century understand find something 20th artist type

floor serra richard exhibition permanent ono yoko exhibit temporary warhol hockney matter steel grind andy installation david collection bacon video knoons francis large braque artist basquiat

Fig. 9.3  Hierarchical cluster analysis of the segments of the English comments on TripAdvisor relative to the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, 2018 (Iramuteq). This illustration is a screenshot from the software Iramuteq, presenting the results of the hierarchical cluster analysis of the statements relative to the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, with the most representative words for each class. The classes of statements refer to the context of the visit (class 3), the related services (2), the description of the content of the museum (4 and 5) or the description of the architecture and its effects (1 and 6). (Source: Sébastien Jacquot)

9  Star Architecture from Below: Narratives and Images from Social Networks

sometimes including to this judgement the visit of the collections and artworks. To conclude, different registers of evocation of the architecture can be identified from the comments on TripAdvisor and can be synthetised into five types: • Statements referring to the star architectural dimension and articulating the value of the building with the fame and value of the architect • Statements describing the building itself and its objectified effects (plays of light, forms, materials, etc.) • Statements centred on the iconic dimension of the building • Statements describing the effect on the visitor, using often superlatives • Statements opposing the building to its function (here the inside and the outside), to better underline its exceptional character In the case of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, the statements highlighting the iconicity and the relation of the visitor to the artwork dominate compared to those evoking the star architectural dimension and objectifying the magnitude of the building. So does the study of other star architectural realisations (such as the Fondation Louis Vuitton or the MAXXI) show the same results, or does it induce new registers of statements related to architecture? Regarding the Fondation Louis Vuitton, 8% of statements are a general evocation of the foundation itself (as a new attraction or cultural venue in Paris, possibly as landmark), 16% concern the access to the site (because of its difficulty), 15% the amenities (cafeteria, restaurant in situ and the Jardin d’Acclimatation), and 30% relate to the visit and the exhibitions. So about 30% of the statements relate directly to the architecture (a little less than for Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao), referring to several types of judgements and discourses: a description of the work, compared to a boat; the subjective appreciation of the building (“awesome”, “outstanding”, etc.); and the mention of the architect Frank Gehry. The architect is abundantly mentioned, recalling his earlier achievements, describing this work as a “masterpiece” or “cathedral from the twenty-first century”. However, the architecture is also mentioned in sentences describing the visits, commenting on the interior or on-site mediation devices explaining the architectural concept. The analysis of the sub-corpus of specifically architectural statements also enables to specify the registers and to find those identified for the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao. The description also occupies an important place, mentioning the effects produced by the materials used, the shapes (curves and angles), comparing the building to a ship and describing the relation to the environment (in the Jardin d’Acclimatation, Bois de Boulogne). The diversity of views is also mentioned (from the interior and exterior). Concerning the MAXXI in Rome, the architectural dimension is even more present in the comments. Twelve percent of the statements evoke the contrast between this museum and Rome, in terms of location, contrast with Roman cultural places, while 30% specifically concern architecture, 147

S. Jacquot and G. Chareyron

evoking the role of Zaha Hadid and calling the MAXXI “masterpiece” or “iconic”, also defining the appreciation of visitors in a more subjective (“amazing”) way. The “worth a visit” recommendation concerns mainly architecture (e.g. “fantastic building worth the visit alone if you like modern architecture”), while the interior/exterior articulation takes variable forms (opposition, complementarity). These registers can be crossed with other ways of analysing these comments, including the degree of expertise or knowledge claimed or exhibited by the visitor (e.g. who makes comparisons with other architectural buildings in the world) or the declaration of interest for the architecture or the architect, some declaring themselves “fan” (“breathtaking I am a huge fan of the work of Frank Gehry” – Vuitton), to identify a variety of engagements with star architecture.

8 Conclusion: Star Architecture from Below From tourism-related social networks (Instagram and TripAdvisor), narratives focused on star architectural dimensions are identified, mixed with comments relative to other aspects. The study of the star architecture from below then enables the study of how it is received, and to discuss the categories used to analyse star architecture, by comparing with these narratives. First, on Instagram, the tag “star architecture” does not appear as much as the tags dedicated to architects or their achievements: this is not an overall category. However, despite this restricted use, the study of the distribution of these tags and associations with other tags shows a precise geography of buildings tagged as star architectural by Instagramers. By studying the socio-geography of contributors mobilising this category on Instagram, results could be continued. The analysis of a set of comments on TripAdvisor, from a selection of star architectural sites, shows the importance of the architectural component of the tourist experience, not reducible to the mention of the star architect. The classification of these segments of texts on architecture reveals different types of discourse, descriptive or more subjective, pluralising the reception of star architecture. The purely star architectural dimension, based on the notoriety of the architect, can then be distinguished from the elements referring to the visual effects of buildings or to a perception of the building in its environment, closer to the notion of iconic building. Visitors (mainly tourists as foreign languages were selected) are also critical, for instance, about the relations between content and containing, but without criticising iconicity in itself, contrary to what researchers tend to assume (Lussault 2013). These results can be deepened by generalising the comparisons between sites, in order to identify the dominant discourses from the point of view of the reception, and by linking them to sociological surveys. This approach explored (in parallel to the work presented in Chaps. 8 and 14) can generate further questions and research in this direc148

9  Star Architecture from Below: Narratives and Images from Social Networks

tion, so as to understand what the landing of star architecture looks like and means when seen from below.

References Bianchini F, Dawson J, Evans R (1992) Flagship projects in urban regeneration. In: Healey P, Davoudi S, Tavsanoglu S (eds) Rebuilding the city; property-led urban regeneration. E & FN Spon, London Blondel V, Guillaume JL, Lambiotte R, Levebvre E (2008) Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp:10 Boulier D (2016) Sociologie du numérique. Armand Colin, Paris Brott S (2012) Modernity’s opiate, or, the crisis of iconic architecture. Log 26(Fall):49–59 Buhalis D, Law R (2008) Progress in information technology and tourism management: 20 years on and 10 years after the internet - the state of eTourism research. Tour Manag 29(4):609–623 Charney I (2007) The politics of design: architecture, tall buildings and the skyline of Central London. Area 29(2):195–205 Cousin S, Chareyron G, Da-Rugna J, Jacquot S (2015) Studying TripAdvisor or how to trip-patrol holidays maps. EspacesTemps.net. https://www.espacestemps.net/ articles/etudier-tripadvisor/ Cousin S, Chareyron G, Jacquot S (2017) Big data and tourism. In: Lowry L (ed) The SAGE international encyclopedia of travel & tourism. Sage, Thousand Oaks Cvelbar L, Mayr M, Vavpotic D (2018) Geographical mapping of visitor flow in tourism: a user-generated content approach. Tour Econ 24(6):701–719 Doucet B, Van Kempen R, Van Weesep J  (2010) Resident perceptions of flagship waterfront regeneration: the case of the kop Van Zuid in Rotterdam. J  Econ Soc Geography 102(2):125–145 Gravari-Barbas M, Graburn N (2012) Tourist imaginaries. Via Tourism Rev (1) Gravari-Barbas M, Renard-Delautre C (2015) Starchitecture(s) : figures d’architectes et espace urbain. L’Harmattan, Paris Jeacle I, Carter CH (2011) In TripAdvisor we trust: rankings, calculative regimes and abstract systems. Acc Organ Soc 36:293–309 Jenkins O (2003) Photography and travel brochures: the circle of representation. Tour Geogr 5(3):305. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616680309715 Latour B, Jensen P, Venturini T, Grauwin S, Boullier D (2012) The whole is always smaller than its parts  – a digital test of Gabriel Tardes’ monads. Br J  Sociol 63(4):590–615 Li J, Xu L, Tang L, Wang S, Li L (2018) Big data in tourism research: a literature review. Tour Manag 68:301–323 Lo IS, McKercher B, Lo A, Cheung C, Law R (2011) Tourism and online photography. Tour Manag 32(4):425–431 Lussault M (2013) La dérive iconique de l’urbain. Tous Urbains 1:20–21 Miles S (2005) Our Tyne: iconic regeneration and the revitalisation of identity in Newcastle Gateshead. Urban Stud 42(5/6):913–926 Monteyne D (2011) Boston City hall and the history of reception. J  Archit Educ 65(1):45–62 Moukarzel JR (2011) Du musée-écrin au musée-objet. Les musées, outils de communication et gages de contemporanéité. Hermès, La Revue 3(61):90–95 Nastasi M, Ponzini D (2018) Towards a photographic urbanism? Images iconizing cities and swaying urban transformation. In: Lindner C, Meissner M (eds) The Routledge companion to urban imaginaries. Routledge, London, pp 217–231 Paül i Agustí D (2018) Characterizing the location of tourist images in cities. Differences in user-generated images (Instagram), official tourist brochures and travel guides. Ann Tour Res 73:103–115 Ponzini D, Manfredini F (2017) New methods for studying transnational urbanism and architecture: a primer. Territorio (80):97–110 Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture: scenes, actors, and spectacles in contemporary cities. The Monacelli Press, New York 149

S. Jacquot and G. Chareyron Ricoeur P (1988) Lectures on ideology and utopia. Columbia University Press, New York Sainz MA (2012) (Re)Building an image for a city: is a landmark enough? Bilbao and the Guggenheim Museum, 10 years after. J Appl Soc Psychol 42(1):100–132 Sklair L (2006) Iconic architecture and capitalist globalization. City 10(1):21–47 Sklair L (2010) Architecture and the culture-ideology of consumerism. Theory Cult Soc 27:135–159 Stead N, Freeman CG (2013) Architecture and “the act of receiving, or the fact of being received”: introduction to a special issue on reception. Architect Theory Rev 18(3):267–271 Urry J, Larsen J (2011) The tourist gaze 3.0. Sage, Los Angeles Vento AT (2015) Santiago Calatrava and the power of faith: global imaginaries in Valencia. Int J Urban Reg Res 39(3):550–567 Wong C, Qi S (2017) Tracking the evolution of a destination's image by text-mining online reviews - the case of Macau. Tour Manag Perspect 23:19–29

150

III URBAN PERFORMANCES OF STAR ARCHITECTURE

The Multifarious Effects of Star Architecture: The Case of the Kunsthaus Graz

10

Johannes Dreher, Nadia Alaily-Mattar, and Alain Thierstein

Abstract

Many studies on star architecture projects examine only some of their isolated aspects, thus highlighting certain effects and downplaying others. Drawing on the case study of the Kunsthaus Graz, this chapter gives a comprehensive account of the wide range of effects of a star architecture project. After the overview of the Kunsthaus Graz development process is presented, the effects which were intended by the project’s proponents are stated. These intended effects include attracting tourists, inducing identification and citizen pride, diversifying the economy and urban regeneration. On the basis of the formulated objectives, an investigation is carried out to determine the extent to which the Kunsthaus Graz fulfils these objectives. In addition, unintended, but incipient, effects are examined. The chapter cautions that a star architecture project must not be analysed as a single or homogenous entity. Rather such projects must be understood as a project development process, in which a physical building with star architecture attributes is developed on a specific location in a city to house a function which is operated by an institution. Unpacking star architecture projects assists in analysing more accurately how effects are generated. J. Dreher (*) HCU HafenCity Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany e-mail: johannes.dreher@ hcu-hamburg.de N. Alaily-Mattar · A. Thierstein Urban Development, Technische Universität München, Munich, Bayern, Germany e-mail: N.Alaily-Mattar@tum. de; [email protected]

Keywords

Star architecture · Bilbao effect · Urban regeneration · ECOC · Graz · Impact analysis

1 Introduction The Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao (GMB), designed by the star architect Frank Gehry, opened in 1997, fostered the discussion about a potential role of star architecture for urban regeneration and competitiveness. This discussion has received broad coverage in both the academic and mainstream media. The supposedly transformative role that the GMB has

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_10

153

J. Dreher et al.

played in Bilbao was captured with the catchphrase “Bilbao effect” which has become a widely circulated, popular term to describe the supposed impacts of star architecture projects for urban transformation processes. However, the expected economic, tourist, symbolic, social, cognitive and regenerative success of star architecture projects have not always occurred (Heidenreich and Plaza 2015; Ponzini and Nastasi 2011); the impact of these projects as regenerative catalysts is increasingly questioned (Evans 2005). A number of economic impacts are being controversially discussed, especially with regard to a long-term perspective. While some authors recognise significant economic and touristic impacts, which are seen as an important contribution to the development of economic restructuring (Plaza and Haarich 2015; Plaza 2000, 2006, 2008, 2013; Smith and von Krogh Strand 2011), others point out that these impacts are only shortterm or do not lead to the desired goals on the labour market (Gomez 1998; Jasmand and Maennig 2008; Ponzini and Nastasi 2011). This chapter presents findings of several longitudinal analyses of the effects of the Kunsthaus Graz to contribute to that question. In the past two decades, research about star architecture in the field of architecture, urban planning, urban cultural sociology, economic geography and tourism has focused on describing positive or negative socio-­ economic and cultural changes that cities have experienced through the developing of star architecture projects. However, although these disciplines have provided key findings, the different research questions and impact analyses are mostly limited to a specific disciplinary aspect. The investigation of the motives or the questions of the legitimation, the media attention, the social impact, the economic impact or the physical urban changes are often considered in isolation with the help of different case studies (Ponzini and Nastasi 2011; Evans 2005). Thus, there is a lack of research studies that focus on the wide range of impacts a single star architecture project can have. This chapter’s aim is to shed light on the multifarious effects of a star architecture project without focusing on one specific field of investigation. This investigation is guided by the intended effects envisaged by the city of Graz that the construction of the Kunsthaus would fulfil. On the basis of the formulated objectives, an investigation is carried out to determine the extent to which the Kunsthaus Graz fulfils these objectives. In addition, unintended, but incipient, effects are examined in order to have a comprehensive account of the effects of the Kunsthaus Graz. And while the majority of academic literature treats star architecture projects as an entity, this chapter understands a star architecture project as a project development process, in which a physical building with star architecture attributes is developed on a specific location in a city to house a function which is operated by an institution. Such differentiation assists in linking observed effects to causes. We understand effects as linear processes, which can be connected to causes – in this case to the elements of star architecture projects – and impacts as multidimensional and multi-scalar processes. The workings of various effects could result in multidimensional and multi-scalar impacts. For instance, an array of effects like increased media 154

10  The Multifarious Effects of Star Architecture: The Case of the Kunsthaus Graz

Fig. 10.1  The Kunsthaus Graz within a wider neighbourhood. The Kunsthaus Graz is located on the west riverbank of the Mur alongside a bridge which is a main connection to the historic centre on the east riverbank. The site for the Kunsthaus Graz was strategically chosen to boost urban development in the less privileged west-half of the city, to strengthen the connection and to reduce inequalities between these two city halves. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt)

attention due to the exceptional architecture of a star architecture project or like the circulation of an image of an iconic star architecture project contribute amongst others to accentuation of tourism in a city. We call these identified effects “touristic effects” or “effects on tourism” (refer to Sect. 4.2 “Interplays of Effects and Impacts” of Chap. 4 in this volume). The impact model by Thierstein, Alaily-Mattar and Dreher described in Chap. 4 of this volume was used in this investigation to structure the findings (an earlier version of the impact model in Alaily-Mattar, Dreher and Thierstein 2018 also informed this investigation). The impact analysis is carried out by the use of different methods and triangulations. A media analysis provides information on whether the city of Graz is receiving more attention after the construction of the Kunsthaus Graz and whether a cultural image of the city was generated or fostered. The effect on tourism and the creative economy in Graz is examined by the analysis of socio-­ economic indicators (overnight stays, development of firms in the creative industry). The effect on the pride and self-confidence of the inhabitants of Graz is described by interviews. The analysis of start-up businesses, a morphological analysis and interviews provide information on the role of the Kunsthaus Graz in the urban regeneration process of the city quarter in which the Kunsthaus is located (Fig. 10.1).

155

J. Dreher et al.

2 Genesis of the Kunsthaus Graz: A City with Rich Cultural Heritage and Poor Exposure Seeks to Capture Attention The Kunsthaus Graz was designed by Peter Cook and Colin Fournier; it is located in the city of Graz, Austria. In 2015, the city counted for approximately 270,000 inhabitants and is the capital of the state of Styria in the southeast of Austria. The realisation of the Kunsthaus Graz was preceded by “a hundred-year discussion” (Grabensberger in Leitner 2012, p. 439), a discussion which almost bore fruit in the 1980s and two consecutive architecture competitions, namely, the Trigonhaus in 1988 and the Kunsthaus am Schlossberg in 1994. Due to political challenges, these two projects were not realised. It was only with the pledge in 1998 that Graz would become the European Capital of Culture (ECOC) in 2003, that the decision to build an art house was taken. The architecture competition was launched in 1999, and the Kunsthaus Graz was built and inaugurated in 2003 as part of the programme of ECOC 2003. The whole ECOC programme covered a total of 99 projects in Graz, of which 12 were construction and infrastructure projects. In addition to the Kunsthaus Graz, the other projects were Mur Island of Aconi, Helmut List Hall, Literaturhaus, Children’s Museum, Central Station, Graz Airport, Stadthalle Graz, Main Square Graz, main square Andritz, buildings on and in Schlossberg and the city lighting (Leitner 2012). The Kunsthaus Graz understands itself to be “an exhibition centre of international contemporary art that shows international trends in regular, changing exhibitions, placing these in both a national and regional context” (Universalmuseum Joanneum 2015a). In addition to housing space for temporary exhibitions of contemporary art, the Kunsthaus Graz houses an exhibition space for photography (Camera Austria), a café, a museum shop and rooms for events (Fig. 10.2). Each city is “a place that develops its own logic about socially constructed phenomena based on the patterns of the inhabitants” (Löw 2008, p. 285). In Graz, the experience patterns and perceptions of the city in the late 1990s were characterised by the following discrepancy that played a role in the development of the Kunsthaus Graz. This discrepancy is related to the city’s historical importance, its cultural richness, versus a perceived lack of acknowledgement of this importance. Indeed, Graz has a long history as a royal residence and has a significant education and culture traditions. Graz University was founded in the sixteenth century (1585). The Universalmuseum Joanneum was the first public museum in Austria, with 13 locations in and around Graz; it is still one of the largest museums of its kind in Europe (Ratzenböck et al. 2007). Graz draws also on a progressive art scene, which arose in the 1960s. Various festivals such as the Forum Stadtpark (art festival since 1959), the Biennale Trigon (literature festival since 1967) and Steirischer Herbst (a festival for contemporary art since 1968) have become major regional events (Universalmuseum Joanneum 2015a). However, despite of this rich heritage, Graz saw its image reduced 156

10  The Multifarious Effects of Star Architecture: The Case of the Kunsthaus Graz

Fig. 10.2  Kunsthaus Graz exterior view. The significant shape and the blue outer surface of the Kunsthaus Graz led to its nickname “blue bubble”. The photo shows how the placement of the Kunsthaus Graz as a modern, organic architecture surrounded by traditional, historic buildings creates a contrast. (Source: Universalmuseum Joanneum, Christian Plach)

in the 1990s to that of a “pensionopolis” (Lorenz 2016; Schrempf 2016; Pakesch 2016; Rückert 2016; Klute 2003) and an “Alps-­Detroit” owing to its strong contribution to the automobile industry (Zakarias et al. 2002, p. 48). According to Lorenz (2016), the director of ECOC 2003 programme, Graz “felt offended in the 1990s, because its perceived importance is not recognised”. Indeed, an analysis of the profile of Graz in the The New York Times newspaper confirms that smaller Austrian cities such as Linz, Salzburg or Innsbruck had continuously more media attention than Graz since 1970 (refer to Fig.  10.3). Salzburg and Innsbruck have also much higher tourist numbers than Graz (refer to Fig. 10.4). Even Linz, which recorded fewer tourists than Graz until 1994, surpassed Graz from 1995 to 1998. This ambivalence between rich cultural heritage and perceived lack of exposure and acknowledgement fuelled Graz’s insecurity as to its cultural position, its city profile in general and its standing as second largest city in Austria. Graz city officials saw the event of the ECOC year as an opportunity to expand Graz’s international reputation as an important European art and cultural city and to “reinvent itself” (Lorenz 2003). It was not about seeking a new image nor was it guided by economic concerns in the first instance. The Kunsthaus Graz was perceived as a symbol for ECOC 2003 and as an instrument to attract international attention (Universalmuseum Joanneum 2015b; Schrempf 2016; Strobl 2016). For Lorenz, the director of ECOC 2003, building the Kunsthaus Graz within the context of ECOC 2003 activities was a “Conditio sine qua non” (Lorenz 1999). “The ­administration of Graz had to prove to its own population that it was capable at that point in time to get its act together and build a project that it was not capable of building for the past twenty years” (Lorenz 2016). For Lorenz then, building this project was of symbolic value to Graz in a dou157

J. Dreher et al.

Number of articles in The New York Times 100 80 60 40

Graz

Innsbruck

Linz

2015

2010

2005

2000

1995

1990

1985

1980

1975

0

1970

20

Salzburg

Fig. 10.3  The development of article hits in The New York Times. It shows that Salzburg, Innsbruck and partly Linz, which are smaller cities than Graz attract more international media attention. (Source: The New York Times Archive, data analysed by Nadia Alaily-Mattar and Nicolas Büren)

Overnight stays (absolute) 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000

Innsbruck

Linz

Graz

2014

2010

2006

2002

1998

1994

1990

1986

1982

1978

0

1974

500000

Salzburg

Fig. 10.4  Overnight stays in Salzburg and Innsbruck are distinctly higher than in Graz. Even Linz which had fewer overnight stay as Graz, outdid Graz in terms of overnight stays form 1995 till 1998. (Source: Statistik Austria, analysed by Johannes Dreher)

158

10  The Multifarious Effects of Star Architecture: The Case of the Kunsthaus Graz

ble sense. On the one hand, it was about injecting self-confidence to the population and administration of Graz. On the other hand, it was also about creating a new forward-looking and daring symbol and icon for Graz whose development and inauguration was to be staged as a spectacular event in the context of ECOC 2003 activities. Schrempf (2016), managing director of ECOC, summarises this as follows: “like Bilbao, we wanted to be a city, which receives an extended radius of perception through a new, special architecture, that was surely quite essential ... and also … that one needs something, that would confirm this feeling ‘we are so great’ and would carry it outwards ... and this Bilbao effect is very important, as far as the architecture is concerned, the tourist marketing of the city and the cityscape”. The site of the Kunsthaus Graz was strategically chosen in a rather blighted area of Graz, namely, the Lend district of Murvorstadt. In the 1990s Graz experienced a strong physical separation exerted by the Mur River, which flows through the city along a north-south axis. This cut has led to both functional and social spatial separation. While industry and supply functions for the city settled on the west bank, in Murvorstadt, cultural and educational institutions were located on the east side of the Mur, in the historical centre of the city. Workers and low-earning income groups lived in Murvorstadt, and the better-earning bourgeoisie lived to the east of the Mur. The old town, which has been part of the UNESCO World Cultural Heritage since 1999 (UNESCO 2016), the university and the bourgeois lifestyle on the east side are a strong contrast to Murvorstadt with its deteriorated work districts, industrial enterprises and the red-light district of Graz. The distinctions were so clear that Graz was perceived as a divided city or even as two cities in the 1990s (Universalmuseum Joanneum 2015b; Barnert et  al. 2006; Schrempf 2016; Strobl 2016; Arandjelovic 2015). The expectations were that the Kunsthaus Graz located on the west riverbank, next to a bridge, which is a main connection to the historic centre should improve the connection of the eastern and western riverbank, “to overcome the barrier” (Ablasser 2016, former city planning director of Graz). It was also intended to boost urban regeneration in the less privileged Murvorstadt with the Kunsthaus Graz as a catalyst (Bogner 2004; Skerget 2016, head of City of Design Coordination Office in Graz; Strobl 2016, former councillor of Graz).

3 The Kunsthaus as a Medium for Accentuating International Media Attention and for Attracting Tourists Quantitative analyses of selected international and European newspapers examine the extent to which the objective of increasing international exposure of Graz as city of art and culture has been met and whether the Kunsthaus Graz has been instrumental in this regard. The search for Graz in the The New York Times archives (1970–2015) shows that there has not 159

J. Dreher et al. Fig. 10.5 The development of articles with the keyword “Graz” and “culture” in Le Monde, El Pais and The Guardian. The analysis does not indicate, that Graz attracted more international media attention for cultural topics after the ECOC event. (Source: Archive of, Le Monde, El Pais and The Guardian. Data analysed by Nadia Alaily-Mattar and Nicolas Büren)

Number of articles of "Graz" and "culture" in selected European newspapers 100 80 60 40 20

Le Monde

El Pais

2014

2009

2004

1999

1994

1989

0

The Guardian

been any added exposure of the city of Graz nor has there been any significant reporting about the Kunsthaus Graz or ECOC 2003. A more detailed search in selected European newspapers specifically for articles related to culture and Graz (by taking keywords Graz and culture as a basis for the search) shows a peak of cultural themes in Graz between 2000 and 2003 in El Pais and Le Monde but no elevated level or increasing trend of reporting on Graz and culture after 2003. The Guardian does not show a peak at all (refer to Fig. 10.5). By taking these newspapers as a proxy for international media exposure, we can argue that in quantitative terms there has not been a sustained media attention at an international scale to cultural topics in Graz following ECOC 2003 or related to the Kunsthaus Graz. Instead a change of the discourse could be detected over time, which describes the changing image of the city with the help of the projects built for ECOC 2003. The newspaper Süddeutsche Zeitung (Klute 2003) titled an article “Escape from ‘Pensionopolis’ … the Styria capital creates a new image with unusual projects”, and the The New York Times (Pfanner 2003) stated “while Graz has some of the most beautiful gothic, renaissance and baroque architecture…the sites built for Graz 2003 are innovative and forward-looking, even eccentric”. The change in the city’s image is confirmed by The Guardian’s article in the travel section which states “Why avant-garde Graz is Vienna’s cool little sister” in 2016 (Sayej 2016). A comparison of the overnight stays in Graz with the visitor numbers of the Kunsthaus Graz does not indicate that the Kunsthaus Graz has indeed contributed to attracting overnight tourists to Graz. Although the number of overnight stays in Graz increased from 832,400 in 2003 to 1,080,400 overnight stays in 2015, the number of visitors of the Kunsthaus Graz

160

10  The Multifarious Effects of Star Architecture: The Case of the Kunsthaus Graz

declined by 36% from 101,300 in 2003 to 65,000 in 2015. Hence, a link between the visitors of the Kunsthaus Graz and increased numbers of overnight stays cannot be derived (refer to Fig. 10.6). However, even if we cannot demonstrate a positive correlation between visitors of the Kunsthaus Graz and overnight stays, we cannot exclude the possibility that there could be a contribution to tourism due to the Kunsthaus Graz. The distinction between flagship and iconic buildings may clarify this argument. According to Weidenfeld (2010), flagship architecture are buildings and institutions that are a must-see attraction, attracting many visitors and attracting them to enter an exhibition, an institution, with corresponding economic implications for the institution and the city. In contrast to that, iconic architecture is characterised through buildings that are authentic, representative symbols of a place that affect both tourists and locals. They can give place an image and identity and are often the results of a long marketing process. In iconic buildings, it is more a question of attracting visitors to the city and not necessarily into the building itself. Our findings suggest that in case of the Kunsthaus Graz, the latter one is the case. Several interviewed experts confirm the special effect of the architecture in contrast to the programme. Schrempf (2016) states, “The architecture works well, but the program of the Kunsthaus is rather difficult”. According to Ablasser (2016), even those local citizens, who never visited the Kunsthaus Graz, show it to their guests, but just from the outside. Schrempf notes, “The Kunsthaus is an icon ... (and) ... has a great significance for the external representation”, and according to Pakesch (former director and curator of the Kunsthaus Graz), it has become the “landmark and symbol of Graz”. A contribution of the Kunsthaus Graz to tourism – based on the iconicity of the architecture – seems also probable because it plays an important role in city marketing geared at refurbishing the image of the city. Since 2003, photos of

Number of overnight stays in Graz and visitors of the Kunsthaus, Index 2003 = 100 140 120 100 80 60 40 20

Overnight stays

2015

2010

2005

0 2000

Fig. 10.6 The development of overnight stays in Graz and visitor numbers of the Kunsthaus Graz. The analysis does not show a positive correlation or a quantitative indication that the Kunsthaus Graz promotes overnight stays in Graz. Data source visitor numbers: Universalmuseum Joanneum 2016. (Source: overnight stays: Statistik Austria. Data analysed by Johannes Dreher)

Visitors Kunsthaus

161

J. Dreher et al.

the Kunsthaus Graz feature dominantly in all tourist brochures of the city. The iconic architecture of the Kunsthaus Graz, as an authentic, representative symbol which can give a place an image and identity (Weidenfeld 2010), is also underlined by the perception of the citizens of Graz (HLW 2014). The analysis reveals that the change in the perception of Graz in the media is strongly connected to the physical building and the star architecture. In addition, the effect on tourism, even if it cannot be quantitatively measured, is linked to the star architecture, rather than the function of the Kunsthaus Graz.

4 The Role of the Kunsthaus Graz in Inducing Identification and Citizen Pride A survey conducted in 2014 confirms that the Kunsthaus Graz is predominantly perceived positively by the citizens (HLW 2014). In this survey, 58% of 283 respondents said that they liked the Kunsthaus Graz, relating the positive image to its external appearance, the architecture and not to the programme. This is even more accentuated, in the group of the “17–30-year-old” respondents, where 79% of them would recommend the Kunsthaus Graz, but more than one third of which would recommend the Kunsthaus Graz solely from the outside (HLW 2014). In another survey by Passegger (2006), the respondents answered the question “what you like most at the Kunsthaus?” with a majority of 35% “the house itself (architecture)”, whereas the “exhibition” and the “guided tours” counted only for 8.7% and 5.3%, respectively. Rückert (2016, former councillor of Graz) emphasises that the identification of Graz’s population is connected with the architecture, “from the outside there is a high acceptance to the Kunsthaus, ... also a high identification with it, inside there is only a partial acceptance ...”. Skerget (2016) states “it belongs to the identity of the city”. According to Pakesch, there is a “tremendous pride” and high identification of the citizens with the Kunsthaus Graz, which is also shown by the fact that residents of Graz show the Kunsthaus Graz to their guests. Realising a project that has not been realisable for decades was a boost of the morale and courage of the city. According to Ablasser (2016), it was an “important finding ... and a learning process ... that one can play along at the European level”. With its self-confident iconic architecture, the Kunsthaus Graz petrified the core brand of the ECOC event in 2003. Through transferring the message of the temporary event onto the building, the Kunsthaus Graz is a symbol for this (past) event (Strobl 2016) and contributes as “a permanent event” sustained to pride and courage. The Kunsthaus Graz became a symbol for a courageous city (Rückert 2016). The strengthened citizen pride and courage is fostered through the architecture of the building and the project development process. 162

10  The Multifarious Effects of Star Architecture: The Case of the Kunsthaus Graz

5 The Contribution of the Kunsthaus Graz to Diversify the Economy and to Build New Global Linkages Based on the strengthened courage and its renewed and strengthened cultural profile, Graz launched several initiatives in the creative sector in order to tap onto “the global discourse of the creative city” (Jensen 2007, p. 213) after the ECOC event in 2003. With the membership in UNESCO’s network of creative cities and the successful application to become UNESCO City of Design, Graz built global linkages mainly for its creative industry. The founding of the Creative Industries Styria, the Design Month Graz or the urban festival Lendwirbel are additional activities to support this branch and to diversify the economy. Various actors understand the Kunsthaus Graz as an impetus for these initiatives (Schnitzler 2016; Schrempf 2016; Leitner 2012; Creative Industries Styria 2015; Creative Industries Styria 2013; Stadt Graz 2009). A picture of the Kunsthaus Graz was the cover of the application for the UNESCO City of Design, and additional pictures of it were repeatedly used in the document. With the help of the modern, iconic star architecture of the Kunsthaus Graz, Graz was able to demonstrate its claim to design and creativity and to show that it deserves the award. An analysis of the creative industry in Graz supports the observation of the interviewed experts and shows that with a growth of 83% between 2001 and 2014, the number of firms and branches in this sector grew more strongly than the total number of firms and branches in Graz (+ 59%). A more detailed analysis (refer to Fig. 10.7) of the development of firms and subsectors within the creative industry in Graz reveals that those with a strong relationship to the Kunsthaus Graz, namely, the art, culture and

Development of firms within the creative industry in Graz 2000

1600

Fig. 10.7 The develop- 1200 ment of firms within the creative industry in Graz from 2001 to 2014. The 800 strongest growth of firms is in the subsector art/culture/design, which has a 400 strong connection to the Kunsthaus Graz. (Source: 0 Statistik Austria 2017. Data analysed by Johannes Dreher)

art/culture/design

broadcast/IT/Software 2001

2011

others

2014

163

J. Dreher et al.

design sectors, grew more strongly from 2001 to 2014 (+ 66%, highest absolute growth of 677 firms) than the sectors that have no direct relationship to the Kunsthaus Graz (−22%). Thus the effect on the diversification of the economy is linked to three elements of the Kunsthaus Graz project, namely, the positive experience of the project development process, the function which correlates with the emergence of creative firms and the star architecture of the Kunsthaus Graz which played an important role in the application for the UNESCO City of Design title.

6 The Kunsthaus Graz as a Trigger for Upgrading the Lend District and Connecting the Divided City All interviewees confirm the positive change and upgrade of the Lend city quarter. The development of a creative scene, a design scene and the opening of restaurants and shops is understood as an upgrade. Lisa Rückert (2016) emphasises the fact that it is precisely this “funny and healthy mixture” of “creative, alternative and traditional shops” as an extension to pure shopping in the Old Town (Herrengasse) and the quality enhancement of the public space which changed it into an attractive location for tourists as well as for the local citizens. The role of the Kunsthaus Graz is perceived differently within this process. Bogner (2016), a local architect and consultant for the city of Graz, says that the Kunsthaus Graz has “contributed” to the development of the neighbourhood; Schnitzler (2016) described it as “significant”. Regarding the development of an art and creative cluster, the role of the Kunsthaus Graz is described as “essential” (Schnitzler 2016), “impetus” (Reis in Leitner 2012: 168), “initial ignition” (Bogner 2016), “starting point” (Ablasser 2016) or a “magnet” (Barnert et al. 2006, p. 28). Leitner (2012), Arandjelovic (2015) and Pakesch (2016) draw attention that the fact that also other measures like the redesign of public spaces for the regeneration of the district were realised before the decision for building the Kunsthaus Graz was taken. Leitner (2012, p. 167–168) argues that even if many evaluation studies on the Kunsthaus Graz link the upgrade of the Lend district directly to the Kunsthaus Graz, the interpretation of the Kunsthaus Graz as the sole impetus is also “relative”, i.e. post-­rationalised by other local actors in the Lend district. Nevertheless, the special role of the Kunsthaus Graz for the upgrading process of the district is underlined by the fact that at the time it was the only contemporary building in its environment and “that it visually transformed the whole area” (Arandjelovic 2015, p. 87). An investigation by Sedlmaier (2016), which focused on the development of businesses, in an area within a radius of 5-minute walking distance around the Kunsthaus Graz, confirms the perception of the interviewees of the development of a creative sector around the Kunsthaus

164

10  The Multifarious Effects of Star Architecture: The Case of the Kunsthaus Graz

Graz. Sedlmaier divides her study area into the formerly blighted west side of the Mur and the east side of the Mur. Her comparison of the two areas shows that on the west side of the Mur, 27% of businesses (35 out of 129 businesses surveyed) had a creative character, which interviewees described as ­“alternative”, different to mainstream or ordinary shops or bars, as opposed to only 7% of businesses (11 out of 155 businesses surveyed) classified as creative on the east side of the Mur. The analysis of businesses, whose founding date could be determined (a total of 90), has shown a higher dynamic of businesses founding on the west side of the Mur. Compared to the east site of the Mur, the share of businesses that settled after 2004 was 15% points higher. Altogether 57 companies have settled on the west side of the Mur after the opening of the Kunsthaus Graz. Most of these new businesses were in the gastronomy sector (26%). In the art sector, there were just a few newly founded openings, but the difference between the west (four openings) and the east bank (one opening) is distinct. The morphological investigation reveals that the Kunsthaus Graz connects Murvorstadt and the historical centre. The Kunsthaus Graz thereby attracts attention to Murvorstadt and is easily visible from the historical centre; built on a corner land parcel next to the connecting bridge between the two areas, it forms a passage and gateway to Murvorstadt (refer to Fig. 10.1). The connection to the historical centre is also reinforced by the fact that the building is oriented towards the old city centre and communicates with it due to the orientation of the entrance, the windows and the media facade. The Kunsthaus Graz at this strategic location has helped to reduce the previously perceived separation and that Murvorstadt can be regarded as a centre extension – it is now part of the city centre. This is confirmed by Ablasser (2016) and Barnert, Bernard and Obernosterer et al. (2006). Ablasser emphasised the importance “to overcome the barrier” by the river. In addition to the abolition of the strong spatial separation, numerous interviewees (Pakesch 2016; Rosmann 2016; Schrempf 2016; Strobl 2016; Schnitzler 2016) also perceived the abolition of the previously perceived functional and social separation. But even if the district became a hip, young and attractive place to live (Pakesch 2016), a gentrification process was not observed by local interviewees; even in the media, there are no indications of this. The change to a trendier district is described as a friendly coexistence and togetherness. The displacement of certain social groups or uses cannot be observed. For example, in the quarter there are still brothels, and the proportion of foreign residents has not decreased but even increased by 10% from 2006 to 2015 (Stadt Graz 2018). The effect of the Kunsthaus Graz on the upgrading process of the Lend district can be linked with three elements of the star architecture project: the building as a trigger, the strategically chosen site that helps to bridge the two divided parts of the city and, finally, the function as an art house which contributed to the emergence of a creative district.

165

J. Dreher et al.

7 Multifarious Effects of Star Architecture Projects and Their Origins This chapter demonstrates the multifarious effects of the Kunsthaus Graz. While quantitative positive and sustained effects on media attention cannot be demonstrated and the quantitative effect of the Kunsthaus Graz on tourism remains unclear, there are detectable effects on citizen pride, diversification of the economy and urban regeneration. The effects of the project are monitored by analysing socio-economic indicators. However, the Kunsthaus Graz was not the only change in Graz, and thus we cannot attribute the impacts solely to the Kunsthaus Graz. Especially the wider ECOC programme with the different projects which were launched at the same time has to be taken into account, in particular regarding impacts on the whole city scale. Even though the Kunsthaus Graz was the main attraction within the ECOC programme and acts as a permanent representation of this temporal event and is therefore associated with the changes triggered by the whole ECOC programme, this does not mean that the Kunsthaus Graz solely caused these urban changes. In this sense, we can evaluate the role that the Kunsthaus Graz played for the different observed effects and how these contribute to impact, but we do not know exactly what else and to which extent effects by other projects contributed to these impacts. Nevertheless, through interviews with local experts, the role of the Kunsthaus Graz for the different impacts could be interpreted and explained plausibly. Furthermore, the observed effects could be linked to the different elements of the star architecture project, namely, (1) the project development process, (2) the star architecture as a physical building, (3) the location of the property, (4) the institution and (5) the function. By doing so the effects of the single elements of the project could be detected, which contributes to a more differentiated understanding of the mechanism of effects of these projects. The case study shows that star architecture projects can have a diverse range of effects and impacts. A touristic effect cannot be demonstrated statistically, but there are plausible explanations that the Kunsthaus Graz nevertheless has a touristic effect. As such, the previously defined effect of iconic architecture is more significant than the programme of the building itself. The regeneration of the city quarter and the connection with the historic city centre is linked to the physical building, the strategic choice of the location and the function as an art house as well as with external accompanying programmes and initiatives. The sense of pride won, and the strengthened self-confidence of the citizens is connected with the physical building, its iconic architecture and the experience of the project development process – that of being able to carry out an international event on a European level. Economic diversification and new global connections are fostered due to the experience gained through project management and the star architecture, and they are also based on the function of the Kunsthaus Graz. The new pride, courage and experience combined with the emergence of the Lend district as a creative quarter are c­ ornerstones for Graz’s development, 166

10  The Multifarious Effects of Star Architecture: The Case of the Kunsthaus Graz

in which the Kunsthaus Graz played a key role. The institution itself seems to be the element of the star architecture project with the least effect. Even if it is not possible to clearly trace back impacts to the single elements of the project because of overlapping effects and external influences, plausible linkages between these elements and the impacts can be detected. In other words, the effects of the different elements of the star architecture project can be and were analysed and thus contribute to a more differentiated understanding how star architecture projects work.

References Ablasser G (2016) Interview with Bartmanski D. 1 March 2016, Graz Alaily-Mattar N, Dreher J, Thierstein A (2018) Repositioning cities through star architecture: how does it work? J Urban Design 23(2):169–192 Arandjelovic B (2015) Graz, UNESCO City of design and historical heritage. Cities 43:78–91 Barnert M, Bernard R, Obernosterer U, Rapp C, Rosegger R (2006) Integriertes Kulturstättenkonzept für Graz. Kulturamt Graz. Available via DIALOG. http:// static.kulturserver-graz.at/kultur/pdfs/IKK_17.01.2006.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2018 Bogner D (2004) A friendly alien. Ein Kunsthaus für Graz. Hatje Cantz Verlag, Ostfildern-Ruit Bogner D (2016) Interview with Pape T. 6 February 2016, Graz Creative Industries Styria (2013) Graz UNESCO city of design report 2011–13. Creative Industries Graz. DIALOG. http://www.designcities.net/wp-content/ uploads/2015/02/Graz_COD_Monitoring-Report_2011-2016_DE_Einzel.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2018 Creative Industries Styria (2015) Designmonat Graz. Making ideas visible. Creative Industries Styria. Available via DIALOG. https://issuu.com/ciscommunity/docs/ web_dmg15_issuu. Accessed 10 Aug 2018 Evans G (2005) Measure for measure: evaluating the evidence of culture’s contribution to regeneration. Urban Stud 42(5/6):959–983 Gomez MV (1998) Reflective images: the case of urban regeneration in Glasgow and Bilbao. Int J Urban Reg Res 22(1):106–121 Heidenreich M, Plaza B (2015) Renewal through culture? The role of museums in the renewal of industrial regions in Europe. Eur Plan Stud 23(8):1441–1455 Jasmand S, Maennig W (2008) Regional income and employment effects of the 1972 Munich Summer Olympic Games. Reg Stud 42(7):991–1002 Jensen Ole B (2007) Culture stories: understanding cultural urban branding. Plan Theory 6(3):213. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473095207082032 Klute H (2003) Graz feiert sich als Europäische Kulturhauptstadt 2003. Flucht aus Pensionopolis. In: Süddeutsche Zeitung 08 April 2003 Leitner E (2012) Stadtbaukultur durch Kulturhauptstadt. Zur Rolle stadträumlicher und baukultureller Aspekte im Rahmen der Initiative Kulturhauptstadt Europas. Dissertation Technische Universität, Wien Lorenz W (1999) Wolfgang Lorenz schildert in FORMAT sein Konzept zur “Kulturhauptstadt Graz 2003”. http://www.ots.at/presseaussendung/ OTS_19990306_OTS0023/. Accessed 24.02.2016 Lorenz W (2003) Graz Zweitausenddrei. Kulturhauptstadt Europas. http://www.graz03. at/ Lorenz W (2016) Interview with Alaily-Mattar N, Bartmanski D, March 03, 2016, Vienna Löw M (2008) A City’s own logic: the perspective of spatial sociology on urban theory. In: Bielanska Y, Birne T, Eckhardt F et  al (eds) Urban potentials: ideas and practices. Rotterdam, Salzburg, Wroclaw, Budapest, Dresden. Jovis Verlag, Berlin, pp 280–286 Pakesch P (2016) Telephone interview with Dreher J, Alaily-Mattar N. 15 February, 2016, Munich/Vienna 167

J. Dreher et al. Passegger N (2006) Imageanalyse und kommunikationspolitische Auswirkungen Kunsthaus Graz. Survey, Graz Pfanner E (2003) Whats doing in; Graz. In: New York Times, 16 March 2003. DIALOG. https://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/16/travel/what-s-doing-in-graz.html. Accessed 20 Apr 2018 Plaza B (2000) Evaluating the influence of a large cultural artefact in the attraction of tourism. The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao Case. Urban Aff Rev 36(2):264–274 Plaza B (2006) The return on investment of the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao. Int J Urban Reg Res 30(2):452–467 Plaza B (2008) On some challenges and conditions for the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao to be an effective economic re-activator. Int J Urban Reg Res 32(2):506–517 Plaza B (2013) Der “Bilbao-Effekt”. In: Wang W (ed) Kultur: Stadt. Akademie der Künste, Berlin, pp 62–65 Plaza B, Haarich SN (2015) The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao: between regional embeddedness and global networking. Eur Plan Stud 23(8):1456–1475 Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2011) Starchitecture. Scenes, actors and spectacles in contemporary cities. Allemandi, Turin Ratzenböck V, Kohl M, Lehner A (2007) Das kulturelle Profil der Stadt Graz. Östereichische Kulturdokumentation, Internationales Archiv für Kulturanalysen. DIALOG. http://www.kulturdokumentation.org/download/Kulturelles_Profil_Graz. pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2018 Rosmann H (2016) Interview with T Pape. 6 February 2016, Graz Rückert L (2016) Interview with Barmnaski D. 1 March 2016, Graz Sayej N (2016) Why avantgarde Graz is Vienna’s cooler little sisiter. In: The Guardian, 04 October 2016. DIALOG. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2016/oct/04/grazaustria-avant-garde-art-festivals-bars. Accessed 20 Apr 2017 Schnitzler A (2016) Interview with Dreher J, Alaily-Mattar N. 2 February 2016, Graz Schrempf E (2016) Interview with Dreher J, Alaily-Mattar N. 2 February 2016, Graz Schrödinger HLW (2014) Steig ein – red‘ mit! Zum Beispiel Kunsthaus. In: Schrödinger HLW. Höhere Bundeslehranstalt für wirtschaftliche Berufe. Survey. Graz Sedlmaier F (2016) Kunsthaus Graz. Unpublished student work. Technical University Munich, Chair of Urban Development Skerget W (2016) Interview with Bartmanski D. 1 March 2016, Graz Smith A, von Krogh Strand I (2011) Oslo’s new Opera House: Cultural flagship, regeneration tool or destination icon? Eur Urban Reg Stud 18(1):93–110. https://doi. org/10.1177/0969776410382595 Stadt Graz (2009) Wir bewerben uns. Die Bewerbung der Stadt Graz als Unesco “City of design”. Creative Industries Styria. DIALOG https://issuu.com/ciscommunity/ docs/graz_cityofdesign_application_pictu. Accessed 10 Aug 2018 Stadt Graz (2018) Open Government Data. Die Grazer Bevölkerung nach Bezirk und Staatsangehörigkeit. DIALOG. http://data.graz.at/daten/package/4d519b42-72fe4059-837a-560c6083542e. Accessed 20 Apr 2018 Statistik Austria (2017) Statistical data creative economy Graz. Bundesanstalt Statistik Österreich, Statistik Austria. Received per Email 17 Jan 2017 Strobl H (2016) Interview with Dreher J, Alaily-Mattar N. 2 February 2016, Spielfeld UNESCO (2016) City of Graz  – Historic Centre and Schloss Eggenberg. UNESCO. Dialog. http://whc.unesco.org/en/list/931/. Accessed 16 Jun 2017 Universalmuseum Joanneum (2015a) Kunsthaus Graz. Leitbild. DIALOG. https:// www.Museum-joanneum.at/kunsthaus-graz/leitbild. Accessed 02 Sep 2015 Universalmuseum Joanneum (2015b) Kunsthaus Graz. Über das Kunsthaus. DIALOG. https://www.Museum-joanneum.at/kunsthaus-graz/ueber-uns. Accessed 02 Sep 2015 Universalmuseum Joanneum (2016) Visitor numbers of the Kunsthaus. Email from Schauer R. Received 13 Jan 2016 Weidenfeld A (2010) Iconicity and ‘flagshipness’ of tourist attractions. Ann Tour Res 37(3):851–854 Zakarias G, Gertzmacher N, Gruber M, Kurzmann R, Steiner M, Streiche G (2002) Kunst und Wirtschaft Graz 2003. Kulturhauptstadt Europas. Joanneum Research. DIALOG. https://www.joanneum.at/fileadmin/user_upload/imported/uploads/tx_ publicationlibrary/img979.pdf. Accessed 10 Aug 2018 168

Situating Star Architecture: The Case of Phaeno in Wolfsburg

11

Walter Nägeli

Abstract

Star architecture can provide much more than just displaying an exquisite architectural object. Despite its global network of influences and its self-declared role as ideas givers and catalysts for the development of its trade and despite its self-declared placelessness, star architecture can develop a complex set of productive relationships to its context and be a factor in the development of a specific urban condition. The phaeno in Wolfsburg is such a case. The building by Zaha Hadid Architects provides an architectural answer for an urban area of contradiction and conflict reflecting historic and economic conditions and an ongoing challenge for urban designers. It also provides a link in the chain of tourist events in Wolfsburg, it has some signature effect for the city in concert with other famous buildings, and it has strengthened the city’s position on the map of architectural tourism. Keywords

Wolfsburg · Zaha Hadid · Science centre · Urban context · Public space

1 Introduction: Situating a Star Architecture Project in Wolfsburg

W. Nägeli (*) Karlsruhe Institut für Technologie (KIT), Karlsruhe, Germany e-mail: walter. [email protected]

One of the qualities of current star architecture is its predictability: the client often gets what he wants – a landmark building, worldwide recognition, a measureable flow of tourists, etc. Explicit placelessness is part of the deal and the focus lies on a global framework of references. In contrast, the occurrence of star architecture is quite unpredictable. It can be found in quite unlikely places and it appears regardless of its physical context. Decisive is the position within the global production of its own kind and not what effect it has primarily on a local condition. Its fame is based on a carefully developed marketing strategy and not on contextual qualities. However, its placelessness effects places directly and therefore star architecture has a local dimension. This article attempts to look at this field of potential conflicts and tensions.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_11

169

W. Nägeli

Star architecture can relate to the context of a certain city area with a transformative attitude (the MAXXI in Rome; refer to Chap. 13 in this volume), trigger relevant effects for one city centre (refer to the Kunsthaus Graz, in Chap. 10 in this volume) or event become a symbol for the renaissance of a whole region (the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao). In the case of the phaeno in Wolfsburg, a building by Zaha Hadid Architects, its placelessness is counterbalanced by a conceptional rigor that can be understood in the light of the history of the city. It can be directly linked to the continuous discourse of planners with the founding ideas of the city and the original economic assumptions that proved to be changing drastically during time. Although the phaeno fulfills all one would expect from star architecture with its global references, it represents a precise local urban intervention with the effect of becoming more, a part of the constituting city fabric.

2 The History of Wolfsburg as Context for the Phaeno The town of Wolfsburg is one of a handful of city foundations in the twentieth century in Germany starting from scratch. It was founded in 1938 to house the workers for the production of the Kdf-Wagen (“Kraft durch Freunde”) – the car for everyone at a price under RM (Reichsmark) 1000 – one of Hitler’s favourite projects (der Spiegel 19/1950). The location was central to the Reich with excellent train, motorway (the new network of Autobahns) and waterway connections, although with some distance to the Ruhrgebiet with its steel production (Grieger 2017; Schneider 1979). The founding city plan for the “Stadt des KfW Wagens bei Fallersleben” (named “Wolfsburg” in 1945) was simple, traditional and effective: North of the Mittelland canal – an important waterway running East-West – the factory was situated with almost endless space to expand; on the Southern side was planned the workers town on the foot of gentle hills with a complete urban infrastructure of shops, schools, no churches, meeting places and administration, all linked in a traditional fashion by a street pattern of two main half circular streets interlocked by a third circle. The author of the plan, architect Peter Koller, incorporated also an ensemble of party buildings on the highest peak of the city, the Klieversberg, as a kind of “City Crown” (Bruno Taut’s Expressionist concept of 1919 for city centres like medieval cathedrals). The plan of Koller (“Koller-plan”) appears to be a combination of elements of Ebenezer Howard’s Garden City with circular roads and widespread low-density housing embedded in green areas and the monumentality of expressionist and National Socialist city visions. The only visual connection between the two sides was a view towards Wolfsburg castle north of the canal at one end of the “Aufmarschstraße” (Deployment street), the central axis for public buildings. After World War II, city planners modified the urban plan by cutting out the traditional monumental aspects. However, they left some of the 170

11  Situating Star Architecture: The Case of Phaeno in Wolfsburg

main features unaffected. The view to the castle became the focal point of Porsche street, now the main shopping street of a more modern town plan. The “Koller-Axis”, as it now was called, leads from the hills in the South, passing east of the station, crossing the canal and the factory site ending at the castle and the open landscape. This axis, once a constituting morphological element of the original plan, became the backbone of the new city and a prime location for public buildings like the town hall, a cultural centre and the theatre (Fig. 11.1). The “Koller-Axis” was also intended as a link between the new suburbs of the city North of the canal (Beier 1997). The building exhibition of 1957 in West Berlin, named “Interbau”, was an introduction of international star architecture to postwar Germany leav-

Fig. 11.1  The Koller-plan of Wolfsburg. Koller-plan is monumental in line with expressionist and National Socialist city visions and at the same time a comment on the informality of a Garden City. The Volkswagen factory site grew to the north much beyond the originally envisaged limits of the plan. (Source: Institut für Zeitgeschichte und Stadtpräsentation, Stadt Wolfsburg)

171

W. Nägeli

ing its mark also in Wolfsburg. Alvar Aalto, one of the leading architects in Europe at the time for urban design and architecture and one of the participants of Interbau, was commissioned to design the cultural centre next to the city hall after the political leadership of Wolfsburg visited the exhibition. Another star architect in Wolfsburg was Hans Scharoun who designed the main theatre (Stadttheater) on Klieversberg (1973). The development of the city was fast and widespread, incorporating surrounding villages and relying heavily on individual traffic. A picture of Porsche street (1963) (refer to Fig.  11.2) by the photographer Heinrich Heidersberger shows Wolfsburg as a German “Wirtschaftswunder (Economic Wonder)” town: self-confident with large open spaces, multilane streets with numerous cars and moderate but modern buildings that did not bother to form an architectural ensemble. From the slightly higher viewpoint of the photograph, the castle was still visible at the end of Porsche street confirming an element of history incorporated in the original plan. Soon Wolfsburg became Germany’s city with the highest ratio of cars per inhabitant. All empty spaces were seen as potential parking lots. The area next to the railway station was transformed into parking like most of the southern banks of the canal. The strip of parking along the canal ­separated the city centre decisively from the factory, although it was ­convenient for the commuting workforce. Most of these carparks still exist

Fig. 11.2 A photograph of Porsche street (1963) depicts Wolfsburg as a German “Wirtschafts­ wunder (Economic Wonder)” town. The castle is still visible at the end of Porsche street making historical references, but this reference was lost in the 1980s by the Autostadt’s large entrance building. (Source: Photograph by Heinrich Heidersberger, Institut Heidersberger) 172

11  Situating Star Architecture: The Case of Phaeno in Wolfsburg

Fig. 11.3 Reichow plan of postwar Wolfsburg showing the “KollerAxis”, as it now was called. This axis (Porsche street) became the backbone of the new city and was pedestrianised in 1979 but was also intended as a link between the new suburbs of the city north of the Mittelland canal. (Source: Institut für Zeitgeschichte und Stadtpräsentation, Stadt Wolfsburg)

and are connected to the factory via tunnels. This strip of carparks is still one of the main obstacles for planners today and provides a rather unfavourable image to the city viewed from the train. German modern town planning of the 1960s to 1980s accepted the historic axes only as an organisational tool in plan but avoided them as visual elements (refer to Fig. 11.3). Porsche street was converted into a pedestrian street in 1979 to improve its value as a shopping venue, and the “Koller-Axis”, although generating the urban pattern in the core area of the city, was gradually built over by food and shop pavilions. They still mark the principal streetscape today. By the 1980s the long-distance visual connection to the castle was lost. Furthermore, the area around the railway station was not regarded as a question of relevance for urban problem considerations. Rather it was a place allocated for parking cars and was therefore left mainly untouched (Kautt 1989). Of course, all that development would not have been possible without the enormous growth of Volkswagen. The company had survived the war astonishingly well and has already started production of the Volkswagen “Beetle” at the end of 1945. Ten years later it had produced 1,000,000 Beetles. The factory site grew to the north much beyond the originally envisaged limits of the “Koller-plan”. By the late 1950s, new production sites outside Wolfsburg had been established, but Wolfsburg always remained the principal location including the facilities for the top management. The relationship between the city and the company was always one of intense mutual dependence. This was not a problem as long as Volkswagen’s economic development was limited mainly to the national car market. With growing worldwide significance, the company’s strategic decisions were unavoidably made in view of global relevance. Consequently, the tight bonds between the city and the manufacturer loosened (Stölzl 2008). 173

W. Nägeli

The crisis of the European car manufacturing industry of the mid-1990s made this dependence clear: with every car Volkswagen produced in Wolfsburg, the company lost money, and it was forced to reduce its local workforce significantly leaving the city with up to 17.9% unemployment (source: statistics by the Bundesagentur für Arbeit) and few prospects for alternative workplaces. There was also the  – unspoken  – threat that Volkswagen would have to pull out of Wolfsburg completely. In the 1990s it also became clear that Volkswagen, although owned partly by the province of Lower Saxony, was no longer the local manufacturer with a direct social responsibility for its local workforce, but a global player operating within global economic logic (listed on the stock market since 1968). One of the mayors of Wolfsburg is quoted of calling Wolfsburg “the only city in Germany that is listed on the stock market”. Over 60% of all the jobs were at Volkswagen or related manufacturers; the trade and service sectors were heavily underrepresented. In this situation, there was little prospect for a significant reduction of unemployment. In 1998, as a gift to Wolfsburg on its sixtieth birthday, Volkswagen commissioned McKinsey & Company to deliver a far-reaching and confidential paper on the economic prospects of the city and Volkswagen – it was called AutoVision. The main findings of this report have influenced the political decision-making process since. The idea of a regional economic cluster around the concept of mobility was seen as a way to decrease mutual dependence and create a brighter future for the region. The concept of “Erlebniswelt Wolfsburg” (“Eventworld Wolfsburg”) was one of the accompanying measures to create new jobs for the region in the trade and service sectors. The “Erlebniswelt Wolfsburg” was to include the Autostadt, a large park related mainly to outdoor activities (Allerpark), a soccer stadium (VfB Wolfsburg) and a science centre (Beckmann 2005). As the first element of the “Erlebniswelt Wolfsburg”, the Autostadt opened in 2000, the same year as the World Exhibition in Hannover. The Autostadt (refer to Fig. 11.4) is a theme park which celebrates all aspects of the motorcar, its history and production. Car buyers can stay in a nice hotel overnight and pick up their car directly from the production site making the purchase a ritual, a bit like the christening of a child (amounting to over 140,000 car buyers per annum). The Autostadt now draws more than 2 million visitors per year and is the biggest tourist attractor in the region. Urbanistically, the Autostadt made a very big step: it opened the northern banks of the Mittelland canal and the factory site to the public for the first time, bridging the barrier that separated the exclusive areas of the factory only accessible to members of the workforce from the generally accessible ones, that is, public spaces of the city. A pedestrian bridge close to the “Koller-Axis” was the first link for the general public between the factory and the city centre. As a symbol of the new connection and confirming the old order, the planners of the Autostadt faced their large entrance building right onto the “Koller-Axis”, thus hiding the castle (refer to Fig. 11.4). This highly symbolic move could be seen as the starting point of a complete re-evaluation of the border zone between the city and the factory. 174

11  Situating Star Architecture: The Case of Phaeno in Wolfsburg

Fig. 11.4 The phaeno is situated next to the main railway station of Wolfsburg on the banks of the Mittelland canal. On the north side of the canal lies the Volkswagen factory and the Autostadt. A pedestrian bridge connects the central axis of the city with the entrance building of the Autostadt. (Source: Hans Bertram)

What once was a negative zone became a positive area of transition and a new urbanistic challenge. The position of the pedestrian bridge was the result of an urban design competition that dealt with the impact of all these changes that were to happen or had already taken place. The competition was won by the Berlin-based architects Leon/Wohlhage and provided the basis for further development. Figure 11.5 shows the current state of development of this urban plan (by architects Schneider+Schumacher). The rethinking of the former edge of the city gave new importance to the area between the main station – now connected to the German fast train system (ICE) and putting Wolfsburg within commuters reach of Berlin – and the former “Koller-Axis”. The idea of the “Nordkopf” – an urban focal point of high density around the main station – was introduced as an end to Porsche street, forming an attractive urban entrance to the city for those arriving by train and a point of transition from the city centre to the Autostadt. Also, the “Nordkopf” was to provide a silhouette for Wolfsburg for the first time, giving it a clear face to the factory – physically and of course symbolically. It marked the growing emancipation from the traditional bonds. The triangular area between the station and the bridge to Autostadt was left open for a public building. This would occupy the most prominent place in the new order and would have the potential to become a signature building. The idea of a science centre – an experimental hall to understand natural and technological phenomena, first realised in San Francisco – provided the potential for a unique focal point and a strong programmatic input to the area. 175

W. Nägeli

3 The Urban Morphological Effects of the Architecture of the Phaeno The city government, as client for the new science centre, understood the importance and potential of the site near the station very well. It was the future point of transfer from the city to the factory and a crucial element in the strengthening of the “Koller-Axis”. So it had an importance for the whole city not just for the immediate surroundings. The city carefully prepared an architecture competition with a functional brief and a generous framework of regulations that could foster as many built solutions as possible. This was preparing the ground for an unusual building. The architecture competition focused on the one hand on the unusual set of functional requirements and its desired visual impact and on the other hand on the complexities of the site being at the crossing of important pedestrian connections and furthermore, as we have seen, on a crucial point within the urban fabric. The city invited a number of well-known architectural practices – star architects – as well as a few lesser known participants that were hand-selected by a jury in a prequalification process. Why invite star architects? The brief of the competition was elaborate and left no doubt that the city expected excellence in every way. The brief called for a “charismatic building” (Wolfsburg 1999, p.10) at the end of a “Via Triumphalis” (Ibid) of important buildings – along the “Koller-Axis”. 176

Fig. 11.5 The idea of the “Nordkopf” as an urban focal point as an end to Porsche street. It forms an attractive urban entrance and point of transition in the city. The triangular area between the station and the bridge to Autostadt was left open for a public (and signature) building to occupy the most prominent place in the new urban order. (Source: Stadt Wolfsburg, Schneider+Schumacher Architects)

11  Situating Star Architecture: The Case of Phaeno in Wolfsburg

Fig. 11.6  (next pages) The phaeno’s main floor is raised leaving a public space underneath. Thus, giving back to the city the space that it covers forming a new urban quality. This space would also form a spatial gesture as a threshold to the Autostadt connected closely to the “Koller-Axis” and the pedestrian bridge. (Source: Photograph by Andreas Nowack)

The city expected a building of great “cognitive and tactile” presence (Ibid, p.12–13). It also was to have the potential to deliver a “great picture”, like a postcard motif. This clearly indicates the ambition to make a step towards a building of international recognition. Its urban function was to provide an attractive link between the railway station, the city and the Autostadt; clarify and confirm the status of the “Koller-Axis”; be a freestanding object with a large visual impact; bring life to a derelict area; attract or divert visitors of the Autostadt to the city; and signify the new relationship between the city and Volkswagen. It was intended to attract around 250,000 visitors per year, mostly families with children and school classes, but the ambitions were also to raise the interest of adults in technology and science. Its interior was to reflect a new programme of surprising experiments in all areas of physical reality, its openness, its ever-changing spatial appearance and its theatrical character. Programmatically, the brief contained a certain difficulty or contradiction: on the one hand, the interior of the science centre was completely independent of the surroundings, the ideal being a “black box” with complete control over the artificial environment; on the other hand, it was to be placed in a prominent urban position that needed to be activated with complex visual and functional relationships between inside and outside and a clear positioning with regard to the city fabric and the factory. The concept given first prize by the jury promised to be a good choice – not only for the requirements of the programme with its symbolic and dramatic outward appearance, but, more importantly, for its local urban positioning at a crossing of visual and physical connections (Wolfsburg 2000). The idea proposed raised the building’s main floor by a couple of metres leaving a public space underneath (Fig. 11.6). This space would give back to the city the space that it covers, allowing manifold paths and views across the canal, and would boost new functional programmings for the area. It would form a new urban quality out of seemingly contradicting requirements. This space would also be the first step to Autostadt, like a roofed entrance hall, a spatial gesture of the city to Volkswagen. This covered area was connected closely to the Koller-Axis and the pedestrian bridge, thus emphasising the point of transition. The raised hall was supported by “cones” (Hadid)  – large structural elements  – that contained the entrances and various smaller functions such as restaurants and shops that were to activate the space. The positioning of these “cones” allowed old and new visual corridors between the city and the factory, it visualised the geometrical complexities of crossing axis and it provided a spatially precise and visually strong entrance situation for the Autostadt. The design promised to be a signature building because of its unique concept and its futuristic appearance. It had a scale of its own challenging the most prominent built feature of Wolfsburg, the colossal power station of the factory (Fig. 11.7) The interior was designed as a soft landscape, one large space with a prominent steel structure as its roof (Fig. 11.8). Despite all its uniqueness, the design suggested an understanding and appreciation of the urban site 177

W. Nägeli

and its history as a border zone between the two worlds of industry and urban life. The concept was designed by Zaha Hadid Architects, a London-based practice with a high reputation in design circles but with – at the time – limited experience with the execution of large buildings. During the time of execution of the building, Hadid Architects grew to become a global enterprise with many substantial projects on the drawing board. The jury strongly backed the project by Zaha Hadid Architects knowing it would face some hard questions in the city parliament. There was the likely increase of costs because of the raised hall but also the unusual outward appearance. Both would certainly increase resistance to the project. Surprisingly the political decision-making process proved to be relatively smooth. This may be due to the taming effect of a famous practice that could demand spatial, material qualities and resources that a “normal” architect would have difficulties arguing for. Star architecture is to some extent immune to petty local criticism. This may also have been part of a strategy by the city leaders to counter the weight of Volkswagen. Nevertheless in the following months, the building underwent some changes, for example, it was lowered slightly (for cost reasons) and the underground carpark was expanded. The connection to the bridge was simplified cutting out the “glass tunnel” (Hadid) that would have connected the entrance hall directly to the bridge to the Autostadt. Representatives of the Autostadt had some difficulties in accepting this building as a stepping stone to their realm. This resulted in modifications of the way the public could walk from the railway station to the bridge. 180

Fig. 11.7 A view of the Volkswagen power station and the phaeno. The signature building with its unique concept and its futuristic appearance challenges the scale, by framing the colossal power station of the Volkswagen factory. The large structural “cones” (Hadid) that contain entrances and other functions such as restaurants and shops attempt to activate the space. The positioning of these “cones” allowed old and new visual corridors between the city and the factory. (Source: Photograph by Janina Snatzke)

11  Situating Star Architecture: The Case of Phaeno in Wolfsburg

Fig. 11.8 The interior of the phaeno was designed as a soft landscape, one large space with a prominent steel structure as its roof. Visitors disappear in the cones to get up into the building and then are virtually not seen until they come out again. With the exception of two large windows, there is no visual or functional interaction between the inside and the square below. (Source: Photograph by Matthias Leitzke)

The design intended that people coming by train should walk under the building experiencing its open space as a kind of grand entrance hall before reaching the bridge. The Autostadt insisted that they should pass in front of the building, thus bypassing the spatial experience it offered, so that their own scenic arrangements would not be weakened. These discussions took place in the years 2000 and 2001. Construction started in 2001. The building was opened to the public in November 2005. All in all a fast and productive process.

4 Generating Identity and Attracting Tourists After over 10  years in operation, the science centre of Wolfsburg, now called phaeno, is considered a success by the city and provides another link in the chain of architectonic and functional attractions of Wolfsburg. It completes the “Via Triumphalis” of the competition brief (Wolfsburg 1999). The phaeno also clearly marks the transition between the city and the factory by offering a covered square and framing and artistically elevating the views to the Volkswagen power station. However, the phaeno can only frame it but not beat it. The power station with its four monumental chimneys still remains the most dominant and widely known feature of the city (refer to Fig. 11.9). The unique open space in front and underneath the building leads diagonally to Porsche street. It is firmly established as a pedestrian connection. The landscape under the building follows natural shapes but is made of 181

W. Nägeli

concrete and connects the massive cones to the ground. This provides a contrast to the greenery arrangements that often “beautify” public buildings. The absence of the “natural” is an indication of the radical conceptuality and abstract character of the design. This question of the “natural” seems to be the one aspect of the project that is least appreciated by the community. The phaeno functions also as a potent link to the Autostadt from the railway station. The rough and heavy concrete appearance mark a sharp contrast to the buildings of the Autostadt with their glass and metal facades poking out of a soft landscape. This contrast has a fundamental dimension: the phaeno shows marks of its production process. For example, there are traces of the timber shuttering on the surface resulting in changes of colour and smoothness of the concrete surfaces. This seems to distance the building from the high-tech world of car production where every surface is perfect and there are absolutely no visible marks of fabrication on the product. In that sense the building is more traditional and architectonic and makes it part of the city. It belongs – despite its futuristic shapes – more to the world of the craftsman than the world of high-tech production. One could also argue that its ever-changing and sometimes ephemeral technical content is not reflected in the outward appearance sending unclear messages. From outside it displays traditional tectonic values. This results in 182

Fig. 11.9 The scale of the Volkswagen factory dwarfs the urban fabric even from the figure ground. The location of the phaeno as the threshold of a strategic crossing of the Mittelland canal in the Nordkof precinct in Wolfsburg. (Source: Adapted from Openstreet Maps by Alexander Arndt)

11  Situating Star Architecture: The Case of Phaeno in Wolfsburg

complex and contradictory visual messages that are rare for star architecture where clarity is elementary to its success. The signature effect towards the high-speed train system is limited because the building lies adjacent to the tracks. It is also not taller than the surrounding buildings which means that it has a far lesser effect on the silhouette of Wolfsburg than the towers of the Volkswagen power station. There is a contextual impact to the “Nordkopf” but little effect beyond. Its position near the pedestrian bridge to the Autostadt with over 2 million visitors per year most likely creates some synergetic effects. The number of annual visitors to the phaeno is currently at a 10–15% higher level than predicted, i.e. around 280,000 people per year. Whether that is also due to the effects of star architecture cannot be judged. In the first years after completion, the building certainly attracted a significant number of architectural tourists in addition to its “normal” clients. The Architekturforum Wolfsburg had organised a couple of thousand guided tours to the building in the first few years, but currently guided tours are asked for mostly to visit the Kulturzentrum by Alvar Aalto. If one looks at the official website of Wolfsburg, the phaeno appears in a prominent position, at first place, in the selection of what the city sees as typical photographs. If one searches the name “Wolfsburg” in the Internet, the phaeno appears only as one of many attractions in the city but with no particular prominent position. This discrepancy might hint towards the efforts by the city administration to support the phaeno as a signature building. Alaily-Mattar traces, in Chap. 7 of this volume, the development of international and national media exposure of the phaeno, as well as the circulation of its images (see Chap. 8 by Michele Nastasi). The study comes to a similar conclusion, namely, that the phaeno has not shifted the image of the city of Wolfsburg. Until now the phaeno’s relationship to the Autostadt has remained a delicate one. They lie close together and could be perceived as one single urban condition. However it is almost impossible to find a photograph on an official website that shows both together, although one functions like the entrance hall to the other. Public relation agencies seemed to carefully avoid this neighbourhood. On the level of an architecture parlante (expression attributed to Claude Nicolas Ledoux (1808)) – as one of the requirements of the competition brief (Wolfsburg 2000) – the question remains whether the earlier mentioned contradiction between a decontextual content and the claims of the surroundings has not left its mark. The phaeno needs written messages or special lighting effects on the building to draw attention to the content. Visitors disappear in the cones to get up into the building and then are virtually not seen until they come out again. With the exception of two large windows, there is no visual or functional interaction between the inside and the square below. In this context one might recall the urbanistic importance of the steps in front of the Centre Pompidou in Paris as an essential stimulator for public life and now a very popular gathering place. The phaeno has no mediating element to offer except the large covered space. This cathedral-like urban 183

W. Nägeli

space is relatively dark and barren and to some extent still awaits being fully integrated into public life. It requires not only a certain density (i.e. number of people involved) but also active and creative programming. And it possibly requires “haptic” elements like steps, benches or “interactive furniture”. As another example, one might recall the Museumsquartier in Vienna with its public furniture making the surrounding space a public living room. One of the cones at the phaeno housed a few different restaurant concepts which have had difficulties surviving economically. Another of the cones has provisions for workshops, a lecture theatre, a kiosk and secondary entrances to the upper hall. All these have not really been able to emerge or stimulate life to the covered public space. It seems that the “Nordkopf” area has not yet developed the critical mass that sets urban life in motion. Or, one could add, the tendency of star architecture for decontextualisation and conceptual rigour might have been stronger thus far. One exception to underline this point was the public viewing of the World Soccer Championship 2014 when the space under the phaeno provided the perfect location for hundreds of fans to view the events on temporary screens. Most of the two million visitors to Autostadt have an explicit aim and seem to pass the phaeno and the city centre without much interaction. Only the designer outlet centre (mainly brand clothing) that lies close to the “Nordkopf” on the canal which turns its back to the city seems to profit from these numbers. The surrounding buildings that were erected afterward the phaeno did not rise to the challenge to react architectonically. So the phaeno has remained unique. Its architecture has not infiltrated local vernacular, like that of Alvar Aalto’s cultural centre, where you can find bits and pieces spread all over town. In Aalto’s case the locals “worked” with star architecture by acquisition. In case of the phaeno, they remained unmoved. The buildings of the “Nordkopf” were almost completed at the time of writing (2018). However, programmatically, they do not contribute much to increase activities there. Their ground floors provide little for functions supporting the phaeno. It seems that the high density of attractions at the Autostadt and the steadily growing designer outlet centre leave little else for the “Nordkopf” area, which remains rather empty and unattractive compared to those two. One could argue that these are processes of different speed and intensity: one is the quick commercialisation of an area that may disappear as fast as it appeared when economic conditions change; the other is the continuation of an urban morphological system that will prove its validity in the long term.

5 Conclusion The urbanistic qualities of the phaeno can be traced back to the unusual history of the city of Wolfsburg and the development of the urban plan from its beginnings. It also reflects the changing relationship between the city and its main employer, the Volkswagen Corporation. 184

11  Situating Star Architecture: The Case of Phaeno in Wolfsburg

The phaeno can also be seen as an example of a delicate balance between the diverting aspects of the demands of global architecture for decontextualisation and the contextual necessities of an urban condition in development. In that sense it is a success. However, there seem to be some shortcomings with regard to its current functionality at local scale. The main intention of the architects was to offer to the citizens a new kind of public space under the building and make it a factor in Wolfsburg’s public life and to present it in the most exquisite architectural diction hoping that this would help to trigger a multitude of events and functions. This did not really happen. The space still awaits such activation. The luminous stardom of Zaha Hadid’s architecture is in that sense tamed by the concrete effects of its practical contribution. The phaeno’s effects on tourism and commerce come mainly out of its functional content and less, it seems, from the fact that its hull is subsumed under star architecture. The signature effect of the building is significant but seems less reflected in a measurable economic effect.

References Beckmann S (2005) Wolfsburg. Eine Stadt fällt aus dem Rahmen. Hrsg.: Stadt Wolfsburg, Kommunikation und Marketing. Braun Verlag, Berlin. ISBN 3-935455-43-7 Beier R (ed) (1997) Aufbau West, Aufbau Ost, die Planstädte Wolfsburg und Eisenhüttenstadt in der Nachkriegszeit. In: Publication for an exhibition in Deutsches Historisches Museum, Berlin. ISBN 3-7757-0661-5 Der Spiegel (1950) Porsche von Fallersleben. 11.5.1950(19) Grieger M (2017) Die Stadt des KdF-Wagens bei Fallersleben: Ein Musterraum der nationalsozialistischen Volksgemeinschaft? In: Winfried S, Malte T (eds) Städte im Nationalsozialismus. Urbane Räume und soziale Ordnungen (Beiträge zur Geschichte des Nationalsozialimus, BGNS, Bd. 33), Göttingen, pp 127–150 Kautt D (1989) Wolfsburg im Wandel städtebaulicher Leibilder. Steinweg Verlag, Berlin. ISBN-13 978-3925151293 Ledoux CN (1808) L’Architecture considerée sous le rapport de l’art, des moeurs et de la législation Schneider C (1979) Stadtgründung im Dritten Reich, Wolfsburg und Salzgitter. Heinz Moos Verlag, München. ISBN 3-7879-0136-1 Stölzl C (ed) (2008) Die Wolfsburg Saga. Theiss in Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Stuttgart. ISBN-13 978-3806222166 Wolfsburg (2000) Realisierungswettbewerb Science Centre Wolfsburg: Bericht der Vorprüfung. (Unpublished report of competition outcome) Wolfsburg, Stadt Wolfsburg vertreten durch Neuland GmbH (1999) Realisierungswettbewerb Science Center Wolfsburg: Auslobungsbedingungen. (Unpublished competition brief)

185

The Political Context of Star Architecture Projects: The Case of the Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern (KKL)

12

Thomas Held

Abstract

Discussions of urban transformation through flagship architectural projects frequently focus on the material and design aspects of architecture and neglect the factors that contributed to the making of this materiality. However, it is these factors which subsequently enable such projects to become transformative forces within their respective cities. This chapter identifies such key factors and elaborates on the role of the political process that has accompanied the development of the Kulturund Kongresszentrum Luzern (KKL) (Culture and Congress Center Lucerne). Keywords

Flagship architecture · Public-private partnership · Direct democracy · Urban transformation · Multiplication factors

1 Introduction

T. Held (*) Independent Researcher, Consultant, Analysen & Strategien, Zurich, Switzerland e-mail: [email protected]

Discussions of flagship architectural projects in architecture, urban design and planning literature frequently focus on the material and design aspects as success factors (Plaza et al. 2009; Plaza and Haarich 2015). Substantial mono-disciplinary research (in architecture, urbanism, planning, media and tourism studies) has been undertaken to describe, discuss and evaluate the development and performance (Gonzales 2011) of flagship projects. Since such studies focus narrowly on a flagship architecture project as the object of analysis (Evans 2005), much of this research fails in understanding how these projects deliver intended impacts. Thus, widening the scope to include perspectives of the political and the cultural political economy assists in this discussion (Jones 2009). In general, the literature attributes the impacts of those projects to architectural and urban design qualities and in doing so often neglects the political, institutional and organisational factors that contribute to the making and shaping of this materiality. This chapter focuses specifically

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_12

187

T. Held

on the latter factors that are key to delivering effective impacts. The case of the Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern KKL (Culture and Congress Center Lucerne) is used to demonstrate what enables such projects to become transformative forces within their respective cities. This chapter first recounts the actors and the flow of events that accompanied the process of the development of the KKL, as an unlikely project in a small and economically rather weak town in Switzerland. In order to sustain political and public acceptance, the KKL had to pass both political and market tests, through ballots and thorough business case reviews, respectively. Second, this chapter argues that four key factors shaped the KKL project. They include a historical need to preserve the International Music Festival (IMF, today known as lucernefestival) in Lucerne as a strong motivation for a new concert infrastructure. An innovative form of public-private partnership (PPP) ensured an intricate decision-making process where public partners, the city and the canton of Lucerne had a majority, but veto power was granted to a major private partner, namely, the Concert Hall Foundation. The multifunctional and inclusive programme ensured acceptance across a wide range of interest groups. Lastly, the “star” authors legitimised an exceptional design and highest-quality standards. The conclusion fleshes out some of the main lessons that can be learned from the KKL project.1

2 The Realisation of an Unlikely Project The KKL is a concert and congress venue located at the shore of Lake Lucerne in Lucerne, Switzerland (refer to Fig. 12.1). The KKL comprises a 1800-seat “world-class” concert hall2, an 800–1200-seat multipurpose hall and a 300-seat auditorium, congress facilities, three restaurants as well as a 2500 square metre (27,000 square feet) Museum of Fine Arts. It was designed by French architect and 2008 Pritzker Prize laureate Jean Nouvel with the assistance of the acoustician Russel Johnson from Artec New York. Construction for the KKL started in 1994. The concert hall was inaugurated in summer 1998, with the rest of the facility, including the museum, opening to the public in 2000. The KKL replaced the former Kunst- und Kongresshaus (Art and Convention House) built in 1933 by Swiss architect Armin Meili (1892–1981). This centre was home to the internationally and nationally prominent events, namely, the Internationale Musik Festwochen Luzern (IMF) founded by Arturo Toscanini in 1938. In the early 1980s, concerns over the poor condition and suitability of Lucerne’s old Culture and Convention Centre as well as demands for other types of cultural venues were surfacing. In response, in 1988, the City For an overview of the project history, see Bühlmann (1988). A cultural and political interpretation of the KKL project can be found in the volume “Stronger Opponents Wanted!” Steiner et al. (2001). 2  Reference projects included Hans Scharoun’s Philharmony in Berlin, the City of Birmingham Concert Hall and I.M.  Pei’s Morton H.  Meyerson Symphony Center in Dallas. 1 

188

12  The Political Context of Star Architecture Projects: The Case of the KKL

Fig. 12.1  The Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern (KKL) is located on the shore of Lake Lucerne, Switzerland. It is connected to the central train and bus station, to the piers for the steamboats and to a large underground parking. (Source: Adapted from Openstreet Maps by Alexander Arndt)

Council of Lucerne commissioned Hayek Engineering AG to undertake a study for the optimisation of the infrastructure for cultural activities in the city of Lucerne. The main recommendations of the Hayek study pertinent to the KKL were, first, to replace the old building with a new centre and to create a public-private partnership to finance such an ambitious project. Two years later, in reacting to a political deadlock over project priorities, the City Council appointed the author of this paper, a past team member of the Hayek study, as an independent moderator for the overall coordination of cultural infrastructure projects in Lucerne. After extensive discussions within a new setup of conferences and sub-conferences with several dozen representatives of private and public associations and institutions, his report and a masterplan were acknowledged by the Lucerne City Parliament. To start the project, the five most important actors, that is, the city and the canton of Lucerne, the Concert Hall Foundation, a hotel and convention interest group as well as the Lucerne Association of Fine Arts, established a simple partnership (“Einfache Gesellschaft”) under Swiss law. When the first part of the KKL opened in 1998, it was greeted by both the international and national press with awe and admiration but also with disbelief. How could a small town in an economically rather weak canton master the political will and the resources to create a world-class concert 189

T. Held

hall with an iconic and audacious architectural gesture? Quite a few commentators took pains to portray the realisation of the KKL as the “miracle of Lucerne” or talked about the “lucky streak” which had accompanied the project (Affentranger and Schenk 2001). This “unlikely project” was realised because of a public perception of a historical need and because it passed a series of political tests3.

 uilding Momentum by Mastering the Hurdles of Direct B Democracy As for the prospects of realising a 200 million Swiss Franc (CHF) cultural and congress building by an internationally acclaimed architect, one must consider that in the early 1990s, Lucerne was a small provincial town of approximately 60,000 inhabitants, with tax revenue of roughly CHF 200 million. The canton of Lucerne could be considered an economically sluggish region with a GDP per capita of approximately CHF 40,000 (or about two thirds of the GDP per capita of Zurich). In addition to these economic constraints, the Swiss political system is based not only on direct democracy but also on high fiscal autonomy of its cantons and its 2300 communes (including 140 towns). With very few exceptions, the federal government has neither the fiscal authority nor the political mandate for investments in cultural institutions. Contrary to the situation in centralist states and/or former aristocracies, there is no need and no tradition for representative architecture like former French president Francois Mitterrand’s “Grands Travaux” (Collard 2008; Ponzini and Nastasi 2011). Decentralisation and the lack of a culture of representation limit the political appetite for big projects. In addition, decision-making via direct democracy imposes lengthy processes for passing such proposals. Normally, the expected cost-benefit ratio of a given project and its consequences for the municipal budget and future taxes make up the core arguments of the democratic process. But voters often also make judgements about the architecture and urban quality. In the case of prestigious buildings and/or prominent sites, specific design details may become hotly contested issues. From 1989 until 2003, the KKL was the subject of five ballots in the city of Lucerne (refer to Table 12.1). The first ballot was held on 3 March 1989. Technically, the referendum asked whether the city should accept a private donation to finance an architectural competition for the new concert hall. Politically and psychologically, it was a first test as to whether the voters would generally support a major public investment in cultural infrastructure and, more specifically, whether the location near the lake was A comprehensive database documents, amongst others, the files of the Lucerne Culture and Congress Centre Foundation and its predecessor organisations Projektierungsgesellschaft Kultur- und Kongresszentrum am See – refer to the history of the KKL 1991-20000 database http://dbeg-kkl.ch 3 

190

12  The Political Context of Star Architecture Projects: The Case of the KKL Table 12.1  City of Lucerne KKL Ballots 1989–2003. The share of positive votes in the 5 city of Lucerne ballots leading up and covering the construction costs of the KKL as indicative of the thorough, rigorous and democratic decision making process carried out in the development of the project. Date 5 March 1989 20 October 1991 5 May 1992 6 June 1994 30 November 2003 a

Proposal Acceptance of donation for architectural competition “Green” proposition for un-zoning of site Budget for pre-project design Contribution to construction costs Settlement of debt (mortgage)

Amount 0,7 Mio. CHF

% Positive 61,4 65,0a

3,5 Mio. CHF 98,0 Mio. CHF 18,0 Mio. CHF

61,3 65,7 55,8

Nay votes

acceptable. Neither the architecture nor specific design questions had any role in these early debates. In the second ballot on 20 October 1991, Lucerne voters rebutted a proposition by opponents of a new concert hall. The proposition sought the creation of a public park at the site of the planned concert hall and an amendment to the city’s zoning plan which would have prohibited any construction there. The ballot became a critical test, since at this time the supporters of the project were required to express a double negation, i.e. to vote “no” twice to preserve the option for new concert hall. The third ballot was a mandatory referendum regarding the allocation of public funds amounting to CHF three million, to finance the preliminary design study. In comparison to public projects for schools, hospitals, etc. and given the extraordinary complexity of the KKL programme, this sum was not extraordinarily high. The request for the funds was adopted by the City Parliament in January 1992 and by 60 percent of Lucerne voters on 17 May 1992. In the fourth (and decisive) ballot of 12 June 1994, the Lucerne electorate approved, by a two-third majority, the expenditure of CHF 94 million of public funds for the construction of the KKL  – the highest amount brought before voters in the history of the city. The corresponding account was based on a “refined preliminary project” by architect Jean Nouvel which had been intensively communicated.4 The package for the ballot referring to the KKL also included a set of usage rights for local associations and concert organisers. In addition, a conditional agreement with one of the large general contractors in Switzerland guaranteeing a fixed price for the construction had assuaged political fears of cost overruns. The 65.7 percent margin of the vote turned out to be quantitatively crucial for the architectural success of the KKL mitigating a certain Swiss tendency to “normalise”, i.e. to downsize and simplify but also to banalise original designs. A key element of the communication process was a drawing of the planned building by artist Vincent Lafont, Paris. For the symbolism and the communicative power of this rendering, see Stadelmann (1998). In a later blog, he connects the title of Jean Nouvel’s entry in the competition (L’inclusion) with the communication strategy of the KKL project: http://www.stadtfragen.ch/2014/03/architektur-als-zeichensystem/ 191 4 

T. Held

The fifth vote was held on 30 November 2003, again as a mandatory referendum. The name of the bill referred to the “structural relief and the financial stabilisation” of the KKL. Technically, Lucerne voters approved a CHF 18 million contribution of public money to fully repay the mortgage of the KKL and an annual subsidy of CHF one million to cover unforeseen maintenance costs.

 arket Acceptance and Local Economic Impact M Momentum In the first 10 years of full operation, the KKL doubled its net revenue. While crude projections foresaw revenue of approximately CHF 10–15 million, the KKL business experienced an almost uninterrupted growth to approximately CHF 30 million with an occupancy rate of well over 90 percent in all three halls (refer to Table 12.2). The revenues from culture events grew at a much higher rate than sales falling into the MICE category (meetings, incentives, conventions and events) (refer to Table 12.2). Combining all relevant sectors and economic actors, Scherer et al. (2012) conclude that the commercial activities of the KKL in 2011 induced an additional turnover of approximately CHF 110 million  – or 60 percent more than in 2001 – in the Lucerne region. The increase results essentially from higher attendance and purchases by cultural productions and MICE organisers. The decision to build the KKL also spurred a wave of hotel renovations and new hotel projects. A survey by the local newspaper estimated these investments at approximately CHF 250 million (Drews 1998). In addition to these stimuli for the regional economy, the KKL has transformed the image of Lucerne. In 2011, the KKL was mentioned in Swiss print media alone on average 3 times a day. Scherer et al. (2012) ascribe an advertising value of this media presence to approximately CHF 6.6 million.

Table 12.2  KKL Selected business and economic indicators in 2011 and 2001. From the beginning, the KKL was operating nearly at capacity, but was able to almost double revenue over time by upgrading the customer base and services and by rising prices. Indicator Revenue Employees # Days booked by culture and MICE events # Visitors/Participants Total local spending by culture events Total local spending by MICE events Total regional spending Purchase power incidence

2011 34.5 Mio. CHF 487 542

2001 19.2 Mio. CHF 350 560

Change +80% +39% −4%

446,000 75.5 Mio. CHF 24.5 Mio. CHF 110 Mio. CHF 51 Mio. CHF

397,000 45.6 Mio. CHF 17.6 Mio. CHF 67.7 Mio. CHF 39 Mio. CHF

+12% +65% +39% +62% +30%

Source: Scherer, Strauf and Riser et al. (2012)

192

12  The Political Context of Star Architecture Projects: The Case of the KKL

3 The Key Factors Shaping the KKL Project Public Perception of a Historical Need The widespread assessment of a “historical need” for new concert infrastructure was strongly motivated by the desire to preserve the International Music Festival or IMF (as today’s “Lucerne Festival” was called at the time) as a necessity for the future of the city as a major tourist destination. The festival produces a substantial share of tourism revenue and provides immeasurable international exposure for Lucerne. The visiting artists, foremost the leading maestros of the music world, increasingly judged the existing acoustics, stage or backrooms of the concert hall as insufficient in comparison with new built or retrofitted concert venues in the 1980s and 1990s. In the public discussions leading up to the ballots, several observers pointed to the fact that the infrastructure for Lucerne’s tourism – the Grand Hotels, the steamboats on Lake Lucerne and the cog railway leading up to Mount Pilatus – was based on innovative investments in the late nineteenth century. This observation leads to a widespread interpretation of the KKL project as long-term investment for future generations of Lucerne. To appreciate the power of this perception, one must recall the stagnation period of the Swiss economy in the wake of the decision in 1992 not to join the European Economic Space. Growth rates thereafter were lagging not only behind the USA and Japan but also the European Union (EU 15) average. Thus, support for the KKL project was frequently framed in macro-economic terms with all kinds of “multiplication factors” being offered in the debate. Although the status of the architect played a decisive role in marketing the project to donors and to the maestros later, the design of the KKL was not a central argument in the political decision-making process. Rather, the majorities in subsequent referendums demonstrated a realistic consensus that the city of Lucerne needed the recommended infrastructure if it wanted to avoid the risk of being downgraded to a minor league tourism destination.

A Special Form of Public-Private Partnership The early plans for a collaboration between the city and private sector were based on a division of responsibility and ownership. The Lucerne Music Festival with its sponsors would essentially pay for the concert hall, while the city would provide the site and renovate the existing building (which then could be used as ancillary space). But, by pushing this proprietary concept too hard, the concert hall promoters unintentionally set the stage for a clash between cultural interest groups and the subsequent negotiation of a multifunctional architectural programme which required a much more inclusive PPP. Thus, on 31 193

T. Held

January 1991, a “simple partnership” under Swiss law was established as the owner of the planned building. It incorporated the city and the canton of Lucerne as the public partners, and the Concert Hall Foundation, the Tourist and Congress Association and the Association for Fine Arts as private partners and contributors. After the decisive ballot in 1994, the simple partnership as a legal entity was succeeded by a foundation (Trägerstiftung Kultur- und Kongresszentrum). Bolz (2011) suggests that the first modern discussion of PPP in Switzerland dated back to the end of the 1980s coinciding with the calls for a new concert hall. Retrospectively, the KKL may have assisted in defining the nature of PPPs in Switzerland (Lienhard 2006). Table 12.3 shows the intended contributions of the partners at the time before the decisive vote in 1994 as well as the effective contributions by the time of the opening of the KKL and the final distributions of construction costs after the city had repaid the KKL mortgage. Since the public contributions had been set by the bills underlying the ballots, the increase in construction costs was essentially covered by private donors. The inevitable change orders could only be approved if additional contributions were secured. This principle helped to keep the overall cost overrun down but led to temporary imbalances in the budget and also fueled a more or less permanent state of conflict between the owner and the general contractor. The final fundraising by the Concert Hall Foundation exceeded its initial commitment by more than 60 percent. The diversity of the KKL PPP and the uneven contributions by the partners called for an intricate set of decision-making rules. The two Table 12.3  Distribution of KKL construction costs in 1991 to 2004. The table shows the intended contributions of the partners at the time before the decisive vote in 1994 as well as the effective contributions by the time of the opening and the final distributions of costs after the City had repaid the KKL mortgage.

Source City of Lucerne Canton Lucerne Federal contribution Concert Hall Foundation Hotel and congress ass. Fine Art Society Debt (mortgage) Cost overrun Total

1991 Mio. CHF 94 25

35

52.2

1999 Mio. CHF 98

47.3

2001 Mio. CHF 111

13.9

23

11.6

3 19.4 5.6

%

49.1

2004 Mio. CHF 127

28

12.4

28

12.4

1.4

3

1.3

3

1.3

50

24.2

58

25.7

58

25.7

7

3.4

7

3.1

7

3.1

2

1.0

3

1.3

3

1.3

226

100.0

%

%

16

8.9

17

8.2

16

7.1

180

100.0

6 207

100.0

226

100.0

% 56.2

Sources: For year 1991: Gesamtkonzept (Held 1991); for year 1999: own calculation; for year 2001: Scherer, Strauf and Behrendt (2002); for year 2004: own calculation, based on Scherer, Strauf and Behrendt (2002) 194

12  The Political Context of Star Architecture Projects: The Case of the KKL

public entities, the city and canton, held 5 and two seats, respectively, guaranteeing a public majority in the 13-seat board. In addition, the city and the concert hall were given veto powers. This formula forced the partners to come up with consensus solutions and to avoid public disagreements amongst themselves. As a secondary effect of the well-balanced partnership, the KKL owner organisation was able to structure itself and to operate like a private company. This substantial operational independence from the city administration became later a prerequisite for an above-average freedom for architectural expression and aesthetic decisions by Jean Nouvel. Thus, the successful development of the KKL depended on an utmost inclusion of the functional requirements of the relevant actors, while, at the same time, the creative process was shielded from personal tastes and conventional preferences of the very same actors. Whenever a public discussion of design elements surfaced, the Mayor of Lucerne reminded everyone that the owner organisation had not commissioned Jean Nouvel only to have some city staff discuss the shades of colours or the opaqueness of surfaces.

A Multifunctional and Inclusive Programme The inclusiveness of the founding partnership is reflected in the exceptional complexity of the programme. While this programme of the KKL was efficiently and functionally laid out, refined and concretised (with the necessary adaptions and cost compromises), Jean Nouvel focused on the symbolic reflection of the social and political inclusiveness at the heart of the KKL project.5 In his presentations, the wide cantilevered roof of the KKL not only reflected the calm of Lake Lucerne and created a cinemascope frame for a fresh perspective on the history of the Grand Hotels on the right bank of town (refer to Fig. 12.2). More importantly, the big roof symbolised that the needs and interests of “tout Lucerne” had been acknowledged and incorporated into the programme. Thus, the expression “Alles unter einem Dach” (everything under one roof) became the defining slogan for the consensus process and the series of votes. By lining up the three very distinct parts of the building on par, each facing the lake and the old town the same way, the equality of the functions (music, MICE and fine arts) was further emphasised. Finally, by placing the multifunctional “Lucerne hall” in the middle of the complex with movable walls and street level access from all sides, Jean Nouvel paid respect to the public participation in the project and the process of direct democracy (Fig. 12.3).

The multifunctional, inclusive approach for the KKL project dates back to an analysis by Hayek Consulting in 1988 which recommended not only a new comprehensive cultural and congress centre but also the conversions of an empty factory hall and an unused jail facility into spaces for rock music and experimental theatre groups. 5 

195

T. Held

Legitimation Through “Star” Authors The references to the architectural transposition of the programme lead to the fourth factor for the KKL success, i.e. its association with a “star architect”  – and a star acoustician. Although in retrospect, the mastery, charisma and communication skills of Jean Nouvel were essential to pull the KKL project off, choosing an international star architect was not part of the strategy of the KKL promoters. It could not have been, since both Switzerland’s tradition of high-quality architecture and procurement provisions and Swiss Society of Engineers and Architects (SIA) norms require broad architectural competitions even for minor public buildings like primary schools. In fact, these competitions are so highly valued that they can become overburdened with decisions which the owner or the political process should have dealt with beforehand. This was certainly the case in 1989 when the City Council prematurely launched a competition for a new concert hall without defining whether the existing building should be replaced or not. Thus, the competition yielded an ambiguous result: The office of Jean Nouvel/Emmanuel Cattani was placed in the “first rank”, while Swiss architect Rodolphe Luscher was awarded the “first prize”. This result led to a split in public opinion and to a maze of infights between various 196

Fig. 12.2 The cantilevered roof of the KKL. It reflects the surface of the lake and frames the view towards the hotels on the far bank of the lake. It is also symbolic of the participatory and democratic process which balanced the interests of different stakeholders under one roof. (Source: Photograph by Philippe Ruault, Paris)

12  The Political Context of Star Architecture Projects: The Case of the KKL

Fig. 12.3  (next pages) Jean Nouvel speaking to craftsmen, city administrators and donors. The roofing ceremony for the concert hall on 28 February 1997 was just one of many occasions where he interacted with the public and stakeholders. (Source: Photograph by Eggermann & Eichenberger, Lucerne)

i­nterest groups. To calm the situation, the city administration invited both “winners” as well as the second and third placed teams for a round of rework. But impatient members of the Concert Hall Foundation pushed the City Council to declare the entry by Rodolphe Luscher as the most feasible project – a decision which implied the preservation of the old building and left the museum group out in the cold.6 The ensuing political uproar nullified most of the previous planning. But at the same time, it provided a legitimate opportunity to restart the planning process with the goal of a common strategy, a path to financing the building and the operations and  – above all  – a broad consensus about the programme. During this phase of multilateral negotiations, questions of design and even urban development issues took a back seat. The new project organisation went from the working assumption that Luscher Architects had been selected by the city to design the new KKL. The new programme resulting from the masterplan contained almost double the volume of the earlier architectural competition. It implied the substitution of the existing building and integrated the Museum of Fine Arts with the series of halls for culture and congress purposes. In addition, the new programme was linked to a set of conditions regarding the design contract, quality assurance and cost controls. But when these new rules were presented to Rodolphe Luscher, he declined to restart working on the project. Thus, despite an almost unanimous political consensus on what to build and how to proceed, the project was again thrown into turmoil. As only Jean Nouvel could claim legitimacy from the 1989 competition, the newly formed owner organisation turned towards him for confidential negotiations. Since the vote about the public credit for the pre-project contract was already scheduled, the Bureau Jean Nouvel Emmanuel Cattani had to accept the same conditions of the masterplan that had been submitted to Rodolphe Luscher. The start of the main fundraising drive by the Concert Hall Foundation coincided with the return of Jean Nouvel to the project (Fig. 12.4). The immediate and sustained success of this effort would not have been possible without the brand name of Jean Nouvel. Anecdotal evidence from meetings with donors shows that his status not only dispelled some still lingering doubts about the foregone planning process but also led the public to expect a unique and exceptional enhancement to Lucerne. And by not shying away from the political and communication drama leading up to the first serious democratic test for the project, Jean Nouvel also assumed a role as a public figure: a famous author – or rather old-style “master” – who would again and again explain his work and his thoughts to the voters of Lucerne (Bischof 2001).

How Jean Nouvel ended up as the admired author of the KKL is a complex and intricate story in itself; refer to Malfroy (1999). 6 

197

T. Held Fig. 12.4 Jean Nouvel (right) in discussion with the old and new Mayors of Lucerne. Franz Kurzmeyer (center) and Urs Studer (left) were at the Opening ceremony for the complete building in Spring 2000. The two Mayors of Lucerne were crucial in steering the KKL project through all political obstacles. (Source: Photograph by author)

4 Lessons Learned From the very beginning of master planning, all actions, measures and decisions concerning the development of the KKL were guided by two constraints. For one, the rules of direct democracy required serious cost-­ benefit analysis as well as very high-quality and functional standards and specifications. The requirements for high standards were guaranteed, in the eyes of the public, by the star status of the architect and, in the ears of the music community, by an almost equivalent position of the acoustic planner. The public prestige of these two “authors” enabled the owner organisation to maintain a certain distance vis-à-vis the building regulators. Second, the PPP facilitated active participation by donors and implied a market test, that is, an effective management structure where risks and gains were shared, and totally transparent tender procedures. Notwithstanding the majority ownership by the city and canton of Lucerne, the owner organisation could operate like a private company in many ways. Hence, the following lessons can be learned from the development of the KKL and could be considered for other flagship architectural projects in Europe. First, a very well-defined programme – where interests of all partners are expressed based on local consensus and backed by a broad political majority  – should precede the architectural planning process. Second, for cultural (and probably also sports) infrastructure projects like museums, concert halls, opera houses, theatres, etc., a form of PPP has become the norm in Switzerland since a precedent was set by KKL. Examples like the recently inaugurated Art Museum in Chur or the new wing for the Zurich Art Museum demonstrate that the private sector is expected to contribute at least half of the investment, while the cities and/ or other public entities will come up with the operating costs. Finally, in a democratic society like Switzerland, large construction projects at sensitive 200

12  The Political Context of Star Architecture Projects: The Case of the KKL

and strategic sites are public endeavours regardless of property ownership, financing or type of planning authority. This implies an intense dialogue with the public, since in today’s media environment, any small group or even individual is perfectly able to halt a construction project without too much effort and practically at no risk. The case of the KKL demonstrates that the design of the institutional and organisational aspects of projects has a great impact on their architectural quality. It is these aspects that can constrain or liberate architects and decide whether a building is appreciated by the local community and can become an agent for urban transformation. The KKL case study also shows that excellence associated with the architectural design, acoustics, programme and its architect has enabled the KKL to have an international outreach. In 2001, the project received an International Architecture Award Francesco Borromini, city of Rome, and in 2016 was recognised by Architectural Record as one of the 125 most important works of architecture built since the magazine’s founding in 1891. To generalise, the KKL assisted in defining the nature of PPPs where active partners share risks and gains, and the organisation responsible for project management is represented and active as an independent agency. The equitable decision-making process, with the city and the Concert Hall Foundation representing public and private interests but not intervening in the design autonomy of the “authors” nor in the management role of the PPP organisation, may hold an important lesson for similar projects. The development of a strong business case not only provided the basis for the planning and the quality controlling processes, but it demonstrated the long-term relevance of the project for the city and was the key prerequisite for securing the private donations. It may be considered obvious, but successful projects are not only technically sound, but are led by persons with a status as competent expert. Such “masters” or even “stars” in their field are critical to build confidence and thus public support from the planning to the operational management phases of the project.

References Affentranger B, Schenk C (2001) Arbeitsgruppe Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern: KKL – Das Wunder von Luzern. In: Mey H and Pollheimer DL (eds) Absturz im freien Fall - Anlauf zu neuen Höhenflügen. Gutes Entscheiden in Wirtschaft, Politik und Gesellschaft vdf Hochschulverlag AG, ETH Zürich, pp 45–50 Bischof P (2001) Kurzer Weg zum grossen Ziel: Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern. In: Hansjürg Mey H, Pollheimer DL (eds) Absturz im freien Fall - Anlauf zu neuen Höhenflügen. Gutes Entscheiden in Wirtschaft, Politik und Gesellschaft. vdf Hochschulverlag AG, ETH Zürich, pp 45–50 Bolz U (2011) Praxisleitfaden PPP Hochbau Schweiz. Verein PPP Schweiz, Herausgeber; Schulthess Juristische Medien AG, Zürich. ISBN 978-3-7255-6333-3 Bühlmann K (1988) KKL Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern. Die Geschichte seines Werdens, die Zukunft seiner Idee. Zürcher Druck und Verlag AG, Rotkreuz Collard S (2008) The architecture of power: Francois Mitterrand’s Grands Travaux revisited. Int J Cult Policy 14(2):195–208 Drews I (1998) Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern Von der Vision zur Realisierung. Die Region, Emmenbrücke 201

T. Held Evans G (2005) Measure for measure: evaluating the evidence of culture’s contribution to regeneration. Urban Stud 42(5/6):959–983 Gonzales S (2011) Bilbao and Baecelona “in motion”. How urban regeneration “models” travel and mutate in the global flows of policy tourism. Urban Stud 48(7):1397– 1418. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098010374510 Held T (1991) Bericht des Beauftragten für die Gesamtkoordination: Gesamtkonzept Kultur- und Kongresszentrum am See. Kulturraumplanung Luzern, Lucerne Jones P (2009) Putting architecture in its social place: a cultural political economy of architecture. Urban Stud 46(12):2519–2536. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098009344230 Lienhard A (2006) Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) in Switzerland: experiences  – risks  – potentials. Int Rev Adm Sci 72(4):547–563. https://doi. org/10.1177/0020852306070083 Malfroy S (1999) Imagepflege nach aussen, Konfliktbewältigung nach innen: Architekturwettbewerbe und Stadtmarketing: der Fall des Kultur- und Kongresszentrums (KKL) in Luzern. Schweizer Ingenieur und Architekt 117(23):513–516. https://doi.org/10.5169/seals-79748 Plaza B, Haarich SN (2015) The Guggenheim museum Bilbao: between regional embeddedness and global networking. Eur Plan Stud 23(8):1456–1475. https://doi. org/10.1080/09654313.2013.817543 Plaza B, Tironi M, Haarich SN (2009) Bilbao’s art scene and the “Guggenheim effect” revisited. Eur Plan Stud 17(11):1711–1729 Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2011) Starchitecture: scenes, actors and spectacles in contemporary cities. Allemandi&C. ISBN 9788842219897 Scherer R, Strauf S, Riser A, Bieger T (2002) Die wirtschaftlichen Effekte des Kulturund Kongresszentrums Luzern (KKL) Schlussbericht. Institut für Öffentliche Dienstleistungen und Tourismus, Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen Scherer R, Strauf S, Riser A, Gutjahr M (2012) Regionalwirtschaftliche Bedeutung des Kultur- und Kongresszentrums Luzern. Universität St. Gallen, St. Gallen Stadelmann T (1998) Bilderstrategie: zur politisch-ästhetischen Vermittlung des Projektes. Werk, Bauen + Wohnen 85:30–33 Steiner DM, Pirker S, Ritter K (2001) Grössere Gegner gesucht / Stronger Opponents Wanted: Kulturbauten im Spannungsfeld von Politik, Medien, Architektur / Cultural Buildings caught between Politics, Media, Architecture. Birkhäuser, Basel

202

Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris

13

Maria Gravari-Barbas

Abstract

In recent years, contemporary spectacular architecture has been identified by tourism and urban stakeholders as a means to diversify the Parisian tourism offer. New star architectural projects are developed at the outskirts of Paris where constraints are less important than in more central historical areas. This chapter discusses to what extent emblematic architecture can be considered a “spatial event”, able to modify tourism patterns in Paris. Can contemporary architecture and, a fortiori, star architecture encourage visitors to go beyond the usual central tourist boundaries? Can it encourage tourists to head “off-the-beaten paths”? The cases of the Fondation Louis Vuitton designed by Frank Gehry (2014), the Philharmonic designed by Jean Nouvel (2015) and Seine Aval designed by Shigeru Ban and Jean de Gastines may illustrate an important turn in the development of the planning and transformation of tourism via star architecture. Keywords

Star architecture · Paris · Tourism · Tourism in suburbs · Off-the-­ beaten-track tourism · Spatial event

1 Introduction

M. Gravari-Barbas (*) IREST, EIREST, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France e-mail: maria. gravari-barbas@ univ-paris1.fr

In 2016, a consortium of actors1 signed an agreement with the French State entitled “Destination Paris: la ville augmentée” (“Destination Paris: The Augmented City”). The purpose of this agreement is to renew the French capital’s tourism image and offerings. The agreement’s goal is to provide a new basis for relaunching Paris as a tourist destination. Indeed, its promoters are of the opinion that Paris The Paris Tourism Office, the three surrounding inner suburban departments, the public transportation organisation of the Île-de-France region, the Welcome City Lab tourism start-ups incubator and the IREST (Institut de Recherche et d’Etudes Supérieures du Tourisme), University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.

1 

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_13

203

M. Gravari-Barbas

currently faces a quadruple challenge: (1) the renewal of its tourism image, which was deemed as too classic and stereotyped; (2) the capacity to respond to new tourism expectations, mainly on the part of European millennials; (3) the expansion of the tourism areas within Paris, today excessively concentrated in the city centre (Duhamel and Knafou 2007); and (4) the need to host and accommodate larger numbers of tourists. According to them the capacity of Paris to remain an attractive destination depends on the reinvention of the tourist offer of both the city and its surrounding areas. One of the main themes to be developed and marketed identified under the agreement is – and this is new enough to be worth mentioning – contemporary architecture (along with “contemporary art”, “street art”, “green” Paris and “Paris by night”) (Lefebvre 2015). Parisian stakeholders have targeted several actions in order to give new visibility to recently built iconic architectures. These notably include in Paris intra muros Jakob and MacFarlane’s Cité de la Mode et du Design (City of Fashion and Design) (2012), Rudy Ricciotti’s and Mario Bellini’s Islamic Arts Department in the Louvre (2012), the Halle Pajol ecodistrict by Jourda Architectes (2014), the Fondation Louis Vuitton by Frank Gehry (2014), the Philharmonie de Paris cultural institution by Jean Nouvel (2015), the Les Halles Canopy by Berger and Anziutti (2016), the conversion of the La Samaritaine former department store by the Japanese architecture firm Sejima And Nishizawa And Associates (SANAA) (2018) or the New Law Court (Tribunal de Grande Instance) by Renzo Piano (2018). Buildings in other municipalities of the Paris region are also concerned, such as the La Seine Musicale music and performing arts centre by Shigeru Ban and Jean de Gastines (2017). These buildings, many of which are works by global star architects, have considerably modified the nature and distribution of the tourist sites in and around Paris. Architecture-induced tourism development in Paris seems, however, much more difficult than in other contexts, even if “gathering crowds, particularly of well-heeled tourists at key points of the city”, was already one of the goals of the Presidential Grand Projects of the 1980s and 1990s (Sklair 2017: 182). Contrary to London, where the urban landscape has undergone major changes over recent years, the Parisian skyline has remained relatively stable because of the notorious difficulty of introducing modern architecture into the city. Several contemporary projects, such as the “Triangle Tower” (Tour Triangle), for example, have been stopped or delayed, mainly for conservation reasons (Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). Within a context of globalisation, however, cities with a traditional and solid tourist base like Paris are not exempt from competition and the need to renew their offerings. In these strategies of “spatial reconquest”, the launching of urban projects with the signature of renowned architects has recently become one of the fundamental tools for the promotion and attractiveness of areas developing new touristic projects. By their programme but also – and perhaps even more so – by their architectonic development, they are designed as “spatial events” that can constitute new “tourist attractions” (Clark 2003). For the last two decades (if the spectacular media success of 204

13  Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris

the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao inaugurated in 1997 can serve as a milestone), architecture has aggressively asserted itself within a global trend of regional development (Plaza 2000a, b; Vicario 2008; GravariBarbas and Renard-Delautre 2015). Associated with emblematic, iconic or flagship projects, a handful of architects, internationally recognised both professionally and due to their high media coverage, have become actors in this global trend (McNeill 2007; Knox 2012). As early as the beginning of the 2000s, authors (Lo Ricco and Micheli 2003) have denounced these phenomena. According to Gospodini (2002 p. 60), it would indeed seem that in the current context of hypermodernity and late capitalism, the relationship between the urban economy and architectural production is reversed. While for centuries the quality of architecture and the urban environment was the result of the economic development of the cities (the wealth obtained by industry inscribed in bricks and mortar), nowadays they become a prerequisite. Urban architecture and design are thus used as a tool for both the local economic and tourism development of cities. It is notably the intended impact of emblematic architecture in terms of tourism that this chapter examines, making the assumption that the places chosen for the development of star architecture are not neutral. Geography matters when it comes to the locations in which the iconic architectures intended to portray an image of the area are erected, often intentionally. The construction of emblematic architectures, a priori implemented with the intention of endowing the area with a strong symbol that it is in the process of creating another future, can indeed constitute both an interesting analysis of the power relations in place and also the tourism development of the area in question. This analysis is based on the observation that, until recently, the emblematic architectures constituting a “spatial event” (EPEES 2000) in Paris have remained concentrated within a relatively small perimeter and have rarely crossed the Boulevard Périphérique (the Parisian ring road). In a previous article (Renard and Gravari-Barbas and Fagnoni 2013), it was hypothesised that the major disparities in tourist activity in Paris characterised by a central hyperpolarity of tourism could be linked (along with other factors) to the city’s difficulties in producing large a­ rchitectural projects outside of the established tourist reference centres. This chapter thus proposes to explore the construction of emblematic buildings constituting “spatial events” as possible generators of achieving the Parisian metropolisation through tourism. Defining and analysing the location of an emblematic architectural project presupposes the establishment of criteria that allow for taking into account the intentionalities of the stakeholders and not just the effect produced. Firstly, this chapter discusses the terminology used and shows to what extent emblematic architecture can be considered a “spatial event”. This framework allows for the exploration of the link between emblematic architecture and tourism. Secondly, and in order to better situate Parisian strategies and positioning, the examples of Rome and London are briefly discussed. This discussion shows that the location of emblematic architec205

M. Gravari-Barbas

tures is today increasingly complicated in the heart of leading European metropolises, thereby representing new opportunities for peripheral areas. Finally, and in light of the above, the following questions are addressed: Can contemporary architecture and, a fortiori, star architecture, as suggested by the “Destination Paris: la ville augmentée” agreement, encourage visitors to go beyond the usual central tourist boundaries? Can it encourage tourists to head “off-the-beaten path” (Gravari-Barbas and Delaplace 2015; Delaplace and Gravari-Barbas 2016, Condevaux et  al. 2016), so to speak? And what are the conditions that must be met for this to happen? Three case studies are analysed to answer these questions. These include two sites located on the edges of Paris intra muros, namely, the Fondation Louis Vuitton and the Philharmonie de Paris, respectively, located in the 16th and 19th arrondissements (administrative districts), and one site, La Seine Musicale, located in the inner suburbs (Boulogne-­ Billancourt, Hauts-de-Seine). The methodology used is based on an analysis of the press, interviews with local actors and an architectural and geographical analysis of the sites in question.

2 Emblematic Architecture: Some Definitions “ Flagship”, “Iconic” and “Starchitectural”: How Should Emblematic Architectural Works Be Described? Several terms, including “flagship”, suggest how architecture contributes in renovation and regeneration projects in American cities (Bianchini et al. 1992; Swyngedouw et al. 2002). Buildings are expected to act as “large advertising hoarding for the area, the implied message being that this is the place for others to spend or invest” (Smythe 1994, p. 21). The term starchitecture (Edelmann 2008) commonly used today first appeared in the Anglo-Saxon press and literature several decades ago. It is only more recently that it has started to be used in the French press (Le Monde 2005) and geographical literature (Gravari-Barbas 2009; GravariBarbas and Renard-Delautre 2015). For the past 15 years, most international architectural programmes of a symbolic nature have been the subject of competitions, the “Top 10” architects able to take part in them, projecting an endogamous image of the architecture world (refer to Chap. 1 by Ponzini, Alaily-Mattar and Thierstein in this volume). The term emblematic architecture is also relevant in this analysis. As Lussault notes, “by a metonymic effect, an emblem functions as an icon of the area. When seen, as in the case of the Eiffel Tower with regard to Paris, this icon allows not only for saying ‘It is in Paris’, but also ‘It is Paris’” (Lussault 2007, p.  173). Emblematic architecture can maintain relationships with tourism. Indeed, since the beginnings of tourism, certain buildings in some of the leading “tourist” cities have become emblematic and are closely associated with the city or its region. Reproduced on different media (postcards, posters, promotional brochures, etc.), they have become 206

13  Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris

regional emblems, creating an image of the region (Gravari-Barbas 2015) and contributing to the conjuring up of very powerful tourist imagery and associations.

Architecture as a Spatial Event Emblematic architecture can constitute a “spatial event”. Indeed, the construction of large-scale architecture  – spectacular and original in form, built using noble, precious or rare materials, and designed and “signature” by star architects – is likely to induce a significant and lasting change in the spatial organisation in which these achievements take their place. It is only recently that the word “event” has started to be used in geography, and it is even more so that it has become associated with the adjective “spatial”. An event refers more often to time and is above all defined by its brevity, which makes it possible to date the occurrence. Linking the words “event” and “spatial” is unusual. However, to fully explore the dynamics of territories, there is a need to envisage linking time and space to take into account the processes and events that change spatial organisation. By “spatial event”, reference to the work of the group Espaces Post-­ Euclidiens et Événements Spatiaux EPEES,2 (2000) is made, which defines it as the “disruption of a given organisation of places relative to each other”. The authors distinguish two types of spatial events depending on the “disruptions” made. On the one hand, they refer to spatial events that “participate in the momentary imbalances of the spatial system, the consequences of which on spatial organisation are quickly erased or integrated”. The relationships between major events and emblematic architectures (often close, since the former tend to generate the latter) can thus co-produce spatial events that can significantly and sustainably modify the spatial system in which they take their place. On the other hand, they refer to spatial events “that correspond to a systemolysis, the consequences of which on spatial organisation are lasting”. The event increasingly appears as one way of shaping a city, driving an urban or even regional dynamic. This paper refers to this second category. The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao undoubtedly represents a “systemolytic” spatial event, since it contributed to dramatic changes in the political, cultural, economic, social and touristic realities of the Basque city (Plaza 2000b; Braun et al. 2014; Plaza and Haarich 2013). Architecture as a spatial event appears as a strategy undertaken by local actors to promote territories. Cities thus implement differentiation strategies in which culture plays a predominant role  – both as a comparative advantage in terms of service provision and as a tool for urban planning and economic development (Vivant 2009). Within this context, emblematic architecture serves as a means of “marking” the territory.

EPEES (Espaces Post-Euclidiens et Événements Spatiaux), research group on nonlinearity in geography. 2 

207

M. Gravari-Barbas

 mblematic Architecture, Spatial Event and Tourism: E A Few Questions Urban projects and emblematic architecture are increasingly linked. Numerous examples exist of “marginal” cities (such as Bilbao, Barcelona, Glasgow, Metz and so on) that were “relaunched” from the 1980s and1990s, thanks to architectural projects receiving significant media coverage and with the purpose of rendering the cities concerned more attractive and therefore internationally competitive. These projects sometimes succeed in transforming the image (Evans 2003; Lungo 2007). In this age of urban marketing, the challenge is not only to attract by communicating more and better. It also involves initiating processes of value creation through structuring and high-profile projects likely to attract new shops, businesses and investors (Evans 2003). These projects sometimes succeed in transforming the image of a city from negative to positive. Because the attractiveness of regions and urban areas is as much a matter of identity and influence as of economic development, the increased competition that cities enter into also depends on their capacity to innovate, including on the architectural level (Lungo 2007). While architectural projects are often monumental, the impact of these achievements is frequently understood in terms of image, urban ambition and economic restructuring. Urban architecture thus becomes the vector for new urban ambitions and is assigned with taking on a significant role shaping the destiny of the cities. Branding must increasingly stand the test of cities or regions (Klingmann 2007). This multiplication of regional innovations implies a positioning in terms of attractiveness. Regions or urban areas are neither neutral nor purely instrumental objects. They are the result of historical evolution and remain at the heart of major political stakes all over the world. A recent approach comprising multiple strategies, the issue of branding requires upstream thinking to attract residents, tourists or ­investors to the area (Govers and Go 2009). Within this dynamic and this process of the building of regions, cities are inspired by brand strategies. Emblematic architecture has no doubt found its strongest expression in the new museums built over the last two decades (Gravari-Barbas 2009; Gravari-Barbas and Fagnoni 2013; Gravari-Barbas 2015). The importance of the stakes in terms of the impact on the city’s image, its environment and its urban, economic and tourism development is such that the number of emblematic architectural projects tends to increase. But for all that, do these projects contribute  – like purportedly the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao – to consolidate and diversify tourism sites in cities, to change the view of a city and to improve its image?

208

13  Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris

3 Emblematic Architecture and Metropolises: What Possibilities to Expand Tourist Boundaries?  he Heritage of City Centres and Emblematic T Architectural Constructions: A Complex Relationship For most European cities, the long formed and increasingly dense historic centres make it difficult today to produce large architectural projects likely to constitute spatial events. In this sense, the twentieth century appears to have been very conservative in comparison with the nineteenth century, when such great projects were still possible in or near historic city centres. The legacy of major exhibitions, not only a basis for significant tourist activities but also a producer of the major geosymbols of Paris and its imagery, belongs to conceptions of cultural heritage under a new “heritage regime” (Gravari-Barbas 2016). Contrary to what happened in 1977 with the inauguration of the Georges Pompidou National Centre for Art and Culture, it is today very difficult to produce a great work of modern architecture in the heart of Paris. In a period of just over 30 years, the “heritage regimes” have profoundly evolved to no longer allow bold operations of this type or to make them particularly difficult in any case (Gravari-Barbas, idem). The paradigm is different today, and it would seem that the era of such icons as the Eiffel Tower is long gone. Emblematic architectural projects are sometimes outside of city centres, located in the fringes of the city, mostly in formerly industrial or port areas; the latter is discussed in Ponzini and Akhavan’s chapter (6) of this volume. Within a context favourable to the creation or designation of heritage, encouraging the preservation and reuse of traces of the industrial city (warehouses, factories, power plants, port or industrial facilities) as well as, more generally, places devoted to care or repression (hospitals, barracks, prisons or bunkers), star architects are called upon to inject projects with high visibility and added value by proposing their reinterpretation. The controversy caused by certain examples of contemporary architecture built in historic city centres is indicative of a specific mindset, very common among heritage circles (dominant in certain contexts) but also local actors. Event architecture in historic city centres is, in this sense, increasingly difficult and even openly conflictual, as testified by the example of the Tour Triangle mentioned above.

 tar Architecture: A Pioneer of the “Tourist Conquest” S of Urban Fringes? In the wake of Bilbao, it is through star architecture that cities as different as Rome or London have regenerated districts abandoned by industrial activities and have managed to expand their tourist boundaries. The star architectural project, creating a spatial event, helps to attract visitors to 209

M. Gravari-Barbas

districts long dedicated to manufacturing activities, sometimes located far from the traditional and consolidated tourist itineraries of the city centre. The choice of emblematic architecture has been one of the decisive elements in the strategy of their integration within the now wider perimeter of the places visited by local residents, metropolitan populations and tourists alike.

 ome: Towards the Reinvention of Urban Tourism R Through Star Architecture In Rome, several contemporary architectural projects have been launched since the early 2000s with the express aim of changing the image of the Eternal City. However, the political context in Rome has made building contemporary architecture in central areas almost impossible (Kelly 2009). It is therefore mainly in the more peripheral Roman districts that most Roman star architectures have been built. Among the many projects that emerged during this time, it is without doubt the MAXXI museum (Fig. 13.1) of contemporary art designed by Zaha Hadid (laureate of the 2004 Pritzker Architecture Prize), inaugurated in 2009, that is the most emblematic of a trend towards event architecture, a trend desired and claimed as such in an effort to change the image of the city. The outcome of an international competition organised in 1998 that brought together a large number of celebrity architects3 has been built on a plot of some 30,000 m2 previously occupied by military barracks (Artioli 2016) and located in the outlying working-class district of Flaminio – the new museum gives Rome both a new cultural dimension and a new scale of tourism (Baudry 2017). As for Frank Gehry, who chose the rather “improbable” and difficult site of Abandoibarra for his Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Zaha Hadid was attracted by the Flaminio site, which has gradually given corporeality to (her) bold and innovative design (RaiStoria 2011). International critics hailed the opening of the museum as proof of a change in the repositioning of Rome (Renard-Delautre 2016): “The completion of the museum is proof that this city is no longer allergic to the new and a rebuke to those who still see Rome as a catalog of architectural relics for scholars or ­tourists” (Ouroussof 2009). The expansion of the city’s tourism boundary was not a given. The district, currently undergoing rapid transformation, still retains very visible traces of its industrial past. “Set back from the street in the middle of a block and overlooking a gravel plaza, the building offers no big visual fireworks, and at first glance it looks surprisingly sedate. From the south, its smooth, almost silky, concrete forms are largely hidden behind an old factory building that has been transformed into a gallery for temporary exhibitions. From the north it is shielded by the longcurved wall of the main galleries” (Ouroussof 2009). However, the inauguration of this building confirmed and consolidated the cultural centre that has been gradually constituted, consisting of buildings Including Vittorio Gregotti, Jean Nouvel, Steven Holl, Souto de Moura, Rota e Nicolin, Kazuyo Sejima and Rem Koolhaas (Renard-Delautre 2016) 3 

210

Fig. 13.1 The MAXXI museum in Rome, Italy, by Zaha Hadid. It is the most emblematic of a trend toward event architecture – buildings which have the capacity to implement temporary exhibitions - in synergy with the nearby cultural infrastructures, could constitute an element of appeal outside of the historic city centre. (Source: Image by author)

Fig. 13.2 The Tate Modern, London, by Herzog & de Meuron. It is a converted former power station that catalysed the opening up of tourism in South Bank of the River Thames in London. The tourism and economic impact of the project is such that the number of visitors now places it among the top tourist attractions in Great Britain and as it constitutes the major component of the cultural cluster that has developed. (Source: Image by author)

13  Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris

211

M. Gravari-Barbas

designed for the 1960 Olympic Games (in particular the Palazzetto dello Sport by Pier Luigi Nervi) and the Auditorium Parco della Musica by Renzo Piano. This cultural cluster has the potential to attract tourists away from the historic centre of Rome (Celata 2008). The MAXXI thus quickly became a part of the city’s cultural offering, with printed and online tourist guides now encouraging visitors to leave the Palatine Hill and head to Flaminio to admire Zaha Hadid’s architectural achievement. There can be no mistake about what constitutes the element of appeal: it is not yet the collections of the museum (which was actually inaugurated without any collections at first), but the building itself that invites visitors to discover the Flaminio neighbourhood. In other words, attractiveness would seem to be much more about the container than the contents. Star architecture becomes therefore one of the most significant elements of the attractiveness of Flaminio (Maggioli and Bozzato 2011).

 he Tourist Conquest of the South Bank T In London, a significant number of emblematic architectural projects have emerged over recent years or are currently underway (Appert 2009). But it is without doubt the Tate Modern, a converted former power station, that catalysed the opening up of tourism in South Bank (refer to Ponzini and Akhavan’s chapter (6) in this volume). Tate Modern “is an icon, perhaps the seminal modern museum of the 21st Century” (Dean et al. 2010, p. 9) (refer to Fig. 13.2). Its location in a former rundown area near the River Thames, “away from the existing South Bank cultural complex and quite clearly off the tourist trail on a Brownfield site in a poor part of London” (idem, p. 9–10), is significant. Connected to St Paul’s Cathedral by Norman Foster’s footbridge, it has helped create a new urban attraction (Maitland and Newman 2004; Maitland 2007). Tate Modern is now one of London’s most popular London’s tourist attractions (Moore 2005; Travers 2005). At the time (2000), Tate’s decision to install a new art gallery in the South Bank was a brave one, even though the feasibility studies predicted a change in  local economic development following the arrival of the museum (Travers 2005). As in Rome, the success of the project rests largely on the Tate Modern’s architecture: that of the former Bankside Power Station associated with the project by architects Herzog and de Meuron (recipients of the 2001 Pritzker Architecture Prize). Its number of visitors now places it among the top tourist attractions in Great Britain. The tourism and economic impact is considerable. Tate Modern constitutes the major component of the cultural cluster4 that has gradually developed in South Bank London, thereby enabling the expansion of the city’s Tate Modern does indeed constitute a key element in the regeneration of the “South Central” district of London (Travers 2005), the most central element of an area regrouping several other tourist attractions (Elephant and Castle, the Imperial War Museum, the Southbank Centre, the Royal Festival Hall, the Old Vic, Battersea Power Station and Southwark Cathedral). 4 

212

13  Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris

tourist boundaries (Tyler 1998). Inaugurated in 2016, the extension of the art gallery caused tourist figures to explode, with some 54,000 visitors in a single day over 1 weekend in June 2016 (The Independent 2016). Bankside, a former “off-the-beaten-tracks” area became, to a great extent thanks to the Tate’s emblematic architecture, one of the most visited areas in London (Maitland 2016).

Location Logics: Between Event Opportunity and Market The majority of flagship architectures are, almost by definition, place bound and site specific. Indeed, “Flagships are based on making a profit. As a result, the spatial locations of these projects will invariably seek the area of highest potential return. These are generally city centre, waterfront or other prominent locations. Areas that may have greater need, but a less desirable location often do not see this type of regeneration [...]” (Doucet 2007, p. 18). Analysis of the examples presented tends to show that emblematic architectures are concentrated in areas presenting market opportunities. Difficult to build in urban centres, they are located in places at their fringes or, more rarely, in more distant suburbs. It is therefore in the fringes of the historic centres of European cities that contemporary architectures with “high event potential” can be more easily integrated. It is in these interstices of the city, between the centre and the suburbs, in industrial, military or port areas, that international star architectures have been constructed over the last two decades. Their purpose is not only to house a programme (a museum, congress hall, exhibition hall or auditorium) but also to create the event and stimulates the economic dynamics in which tourism plays a leading role. The expansion of touristic boundaries through emblematic architecture is certainly taking on new forms in the early twenty-first century. These iconic architectures (and event architectures, since they generate by their forms, their signatures and the mobilisation of unprecedented communication tools a media hype that is increasingly skilfully orchestrated) play a dual role on the tourism level. Not only do they constitute platforms for the tourist attractions of the district in question, but they also serve as a symbolic entrance to the district where they are located. Indeed, the latter most often is followed by a process of regeneration. Besides glittering star architectures, the old industrial areas are not always redeveloped from scratch. On the contrary, the perceived “authenticity” of the vestiges of an industrial or artisanal past, still relatively recent but already reminiscent of another time, attracts tourists (after having previously attracted artists and designers  – themselves elements of the attraction of the tourism that moves towards these neighbourhoods) (Richards and Wilson 2006, 2007).

213

M. Gravari-Barbas

4 Paris: Geography of Emblematic Architecture and Its Tourism-Related Impact  aris, a Hypercentral Location for Emblematic P Architecture? The Parisian hypercentrism is also confirmed by the distribution of emblematic architectural projects. By comparing several criteria, the location of these architectures in Paris in 2014 has been mapped, at the end of Bertrand Delanoë’s mandate as Mayor. The first criterion for inclusion concerns the professional recognition of the architects behind the projects. Indeed, given the current radical transformation in the profession of architect (Champy 2008) due mainly to the globalisation of the economy, plus the creation over the last 10 years of a “star system” and the emergence of a “global architect” (McNeill 2007), the only connection made is with the recognition and fame of the architect and the capacity of the designed building to become an emblem. Figure 13.3 clearly shows the concentration of cultural venues designed by internationally and professionally recognised architects in the Paris intra muros area, these locations being largely along the Seine. Three major projects however emerge outside the Boulevard Paris (the Philharmonie de Paris in the north and the Fondation Louis Vuitton in the west). It is these projects that are relevant to this discussion.

The Fondation Louis Vuitton, Bois de Boulogne As an article from 2006 in Le Monde stated, “we were expecting Tadao Ando in Boulogne-Billancourt, instead we will have Frank Gehry in the Jardin d’Acclimatation in Paris” (Le Monde 2006). Indeed, the project to create the Fondation Louis Vuitton (FLV) (Bernard Arnault Foundation) appeared as a good “consolation prize” for the west of Paris following the abandonment of the “Fondation Pinault” project on Séguin Island. The building, described as a “cloud”, is located in the heart of the Bois de Boulogne park facing the Jardin d’Acclimatation, “a familiar place in Parisian life” (Fondation Louis Vuitton 2010a, b) as stated in the press kit. The emblematic purpose of the building thus does not need to be demonstrated since it was asserted in the very promotion of the project. In addition, the direct appointment of architect Frank Gehry, designer of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, could only be in line with a desire to endow Paris with a new work of star architecture. The choice of the site was decided by the free space left in the park, on a plot of land belonging to Paris City Hall. Thus, although the building crosses the limits of the Boulevard Périphérique, its administrative address remains in the 16th arrondissement. Ponzini and Nastasi (2016, p.  125) discussed the controversial authorisation of the building on the protected Bois de Boulogne area. It is worth noting that several alternative sites had been suggested to Bernard Arnault for the location of his foundation (Aillagon 2010): the site of the old general storehouses of the Quai 214

13  Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris

Fig. 13.3  Geography of emblematic architecture in the city of Paris, 2014. The two criterion for including architectures include firstly, international professional recognition of at least two prizes (Pritzker Architecture Prize (United States), the Premium Imperiale (Japan), the Équerre d’Argent (France), Royal Gold Medal (United Kingdom), and or the Grand Prix national de l’architecture (France), and secondly, the touristic typology of the building with a particular emphasis on museum or major cultural venue. (Source: Data by Renard-Delautre and Gravari-Barbas)

215

M. Gravari-Barbas

d’Austerlitz, today rehabilitated by Dominique Jakob and Brendan MacFarlane,5 the Imprimerie Nationale (Rue de la Convention), the buildings of the National Geographic Institute (Rue de Grenelle) or the Laennec Hospital (Rue de Sèvres). However, the FVL Group having inherited the concession of the Jardin d’Acclimatation, Arnault chose the Bois de Boulogne a currently ex-centred site of the established Parisian geography of tourism (Gravari-Barbas and Fagnoni 2013). Inaugurated in October 2014, the Fondation Louis Vuitton quickly asserted itself as not only a major cultural destination but also a tourist attraction (Table 13.1). According to the Foundation, 35,000 people visited the exhibition during the last weekend of its opening (the exhibition ran for an extra 2  weeks at extended hours to meet the demand) (Le Monde, 6/3/2017). Beyond the building itself, the Fondation Louis Vuitton seems to have boosted the tourist and leisure activities of the surrounding area and in particular the Jardin d’Acclimatation (a visit to the Foundation includes access to the garden). The capacity of the Fondation Louis Vuitton to change the tourism geography of Paris and to create a “space event” is undoubtedly related to the “entrepreneurial” nature of this museum (Vivant 2009). The combination of emblematic architecture and major cultural events, facilitated by the concentration of resources in the hands of certain large foundations, thus propels the new star architecture venues among the leading cultural and, to a large extent, tourist destinations. This is happening at the same time as public exhibition venues are finding it difficult to mobilise the means now needed to organise large-scale temporary exhibitions (Dagen 2017) (Fig. 13.4). Table 13.1  The Top 5 temporary exhibitions visited in 2016. The exhibition “Icons of Modern Art. The Shchukin Collection” welcomed some 1.2 million visitors from 22 October 2016 to 5 March 2017. This is the most visited exhibition since “Tutankhamun” in 1967 at the Petit Palais. For example, it did better than the Barnes Collection at the Musée d’Orsay in 1993 (1,100,000 visitors), the Monet exhibition at the Grand Palais in 2010 (913,000 visitors), or the Dali exhibition at the Pompidou Centre in 1979 (840,662 visitors) Sites Fondation Louis Vuitton Centre Pompidou Palais de la Découverte – Universcience Catacombs Musée d’Orsay

Exhibitions 2016 Icons of modern art. The Shchukin collection René Magritte. The treachery of images Age of the dinosaurs

The sea in Paris The Douanier Rousseau. Archaic candour

Number of Visitors 1,205,063 597,390 514,730

512,284 478,855

Source: Office de Tourisme et de Congrès de Paris

Docks en Seine project in 2008, ZAC Rive gauche, 13th arrondissement of Paris.

5 

216

13  Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris

 he Philharmonie de Paris and the Renewal of North-East T Paris

Fig. 13.4 (next pages) Fondation Louis Vuitton or “The Cloud”, Paris. “The Fondation Louis Vuitton for Creation creates [...] an artistic centre that is sensitive and visible, open to the world, adding a major work of architecture to the city of Paris. Located on the northern edge of the Bois de Boulogne, Frank Gehry’s building magically emerges from the natural and urban environment, blending harmoniously with the trees, the garden, the river, the sky and the city.” (Fondation Louis Vuitton, 2010). (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2015)

Funded by the Ministry of Culture, Paris City Hall and the Île-de-France region and inaugurated in January 2015, the Philharmonie de Paris is a cultural institution mainly devoted to symphonic music (and, to a lesser extent, chamber music, jazz and world music), which benefits from state-­ of-­the-art acoustic equipment. It was born from an international competition for its project management launched in 2006, in which nearly a hundred teams participated (Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). Ateliers Jean Nouvel was awarded the Philharmonie de Paris project in 2007. The complex consists of a large symphonic auditorium with a capacity of 2400 spectators, rehearsal rooms, an exhibition area and an educational centre. It is located in the Parc de la Villette, near the Cité de la Musique, on a two hectare plot bordering the Boulevard Périphérique ring road. Despite delays in state funding, the building was delivered by the end of 2013. Various cultural and technological venues were quickly established in the park, such as the Zénith Paris concert arena inaugurated in 1984, the Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie (the largest science museum in Europe) in 1986 and the Cité de la Musique in 1995. According to architectural historian Danièle Voldman, this desire to rebalance the cultural infrastructure in eastern Paris cannot be understood without taking into account the Opéra Bastille project, inaugurated in 1989. For the author, the discourse of the new socialist majority at the time was “underpinned by the idea of competing with, or at least counter-balancing, the Bois de Boulogne and the Jardin d’Acclimatation embellishing the western districts”. The new venues created in Paris, the Louis Vuitton Foundation in the Bois de Boulogne and the Philharmonie de Paris in the Parc de la Villette, can only imply the idea of an old East-­West rivalry, but which remains intra muros. Since 2001, Paris City Hall has invested heavily into renovating the north-east of the city and continues to balance the cultural offer, notably with the opening of the Cent Quatre cultural centre, the Maison des Métallos cultural centre, the Marguerite Duras multimedia library and various cinema complexes, as well as the complete conversion of the huge Macdonald warehouse. All this was carried out within the framework of the Major Urban Renewal Project (Grand projet de renouvellement urbain (GPRU)) for North-East Paris, the largest area planned in the capital (200 hectares) between the Porte de la Chapelle and the Porte de la Villette (18th and 19th arrondissements). According to the director of the establishment, attendance at the Philharmonie de Paris in 2015 and 2016 was “far above all expectations” (1,150,000 visitors in 2015, the year it opened, and 1,140,000 visitors in 2016) (Bayle 2017, cité in Robert 2017). Some 21% of visitors come from the rest of France and from abroad. Major exhibitions devoted to particularly popular figures from the music world (such as “David Bowie Is” in 2015 or “Barbara” in 2017–2018) ensure very large numbers of visitors in ­addition to the musical programming (196,650 visitors for the “David Bowie Is” exhibition) (Fig. 13.5). 217

M. Gravari-Barbas

220

13  Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris Fig. 13.5 Philarmonie de Paris, Paris by Ateliers Jean Nouvel. The location of the Philharmonie de Paris appears to be the continuation of a policy to rebalance the number of public and cultural venues in the north east of Paris. This policy began in 1982 with the launch of the construction of the Parc de la Villette, the challenge of which was to endow Paris with “a symbol of the 21st century, a programme garden and a declaration of modernity” (Voldman, 1985). Various cultural and technological venues were quickly established in the park. (Source: JeanPierre Dalbéra)

Fig. 13.6  Seine Musicale, Ile Séguin, Paris by Shigeru Ban. This international music and performing arts centre will be equipped with a 1,100 seat auditorium, a large concert hall, rehearsal and recording rooms, a 2,660 m² business area, and several shops of a social and cultural nature. Its inauguration is anticipated in 2021. (Source: https://urbanattitude.fr/ seguin-shigeru-ban-jeande-gastines-architectes/)

La Seine Musicale on Île Seguin Since the shutdown of the production lines at the declining Renault factory in 1992, there have been numerous developments in the projects planned for Séguin Island. In 1999, after 3 years of discussions, a project to install a Foundation for Contemporary Art was announced by billionaire businessman and art collector François Pinault. The Fondation Pinault was to be constructed on one third of the island with a view to exhibiting his personal collection of some 2000 works of art in a museum measuring 32,000 m2 and costing an estimated budget of 150 million euros. Tadao Ando (laureate of the Pritzker Architecture Prize in 1995) was chosen for the project, which would have been his first project in France. The demolition of the factories began in May 2004 and was completed in March 2005, just 2 months before this date François Pinault gave up on the location on Séguin Island (in favour of Venice) because of administrative delays. It was finally only on 21 April 2017 that “La Seine Musicale” was initiated. It is designed by Japanese architect Shigeru Ban (recipient of the 2014 Pritzker Architecture Prize) who joined forces, as for the Centre Pompidou-­ Metz museum, with French architect Jean de Gastines. Several large-scale projects already finished or in progress reinforce the cultural and economic vocation of the (Seine Bouniol 2016). Indeed, the inauguration of the art centre is planned for 2021, with director of contemporary arts institutions, critic and curator Jérôme Sans being responsible for its programming. It should initially house the Laurent Dumas collection as well as the Renault art collection. Collaborations are envisaged with the Foundation Alberto and Annette Giacometti, as well as the Fondation Gandur pour l’Art (Catalan architects Rafael Aranda, Carme Pigem and Ramón Vilalta (RCR Arquitectes), recipients of the 2017 Pritzker Architecture Prize). Camille Rouchi (2017) thus notes a tropism of policies towards large architectural and urban projects signed by architects whose names tend to become a brand. “These starchitectures that aspire to become urban and international icons, praised and promoted, iconographed, placarded and disseminated everywhere: the Aimé Césaire centre by Rudy Ricciotti, the Musée Albert-Kahn departmental museum by Japanese architect Kengo Kuma, the U-Arena by Christian de Portzamparc, the Cité Musicale by Shigeru Ban and Jean de Gastines”. It can thus be understood that the will of the Departmental Council is to inscribe its territory among the urban and cultural models of globalisation (Fig. 13.6).

5 Conclusion In this chapter, the question of the relationship between the tourist polarities observed in Paris and what can be termed as the city’s “star architectural geography” has been given attention. In Paris, emblematic architectures, potentially constituting “urban events or event architecture”, have long been mainly concentrated intra muros, which may be one of the factors 221

M. Gravari-Barbas

explaining the discrepancy observed between the tourist development of Paris intra muros and that of its suburbs. The comparison with Rome and London has shown that the production of emblematic architectures in the latter has contributed to the expansion of tourist boundaries (London) or is on the point of doing so (Rome). In the case of London, the Tate Modern has clearly operated as a spatial “systemolysis” by permanently modifying the cultural, economic and tourism equilibria of the city. In the case of Rome, Zaha Hadid’s museum of contemporary art, in synergy with the nearby cultural infrastructures, could constitute an element of appeal outside of the historic city centre. Paris also seems, in recent years, to have started closing the gap that separated it from other cities in terms of large architectural projects, particularly with regard to its peripheral arrondissements and the inner suburbs. Until recently, only the Stade de France Stadium played the role of undeniably emblematic architecture, representative of the area in which it is located. This is also the case of the Grande Arche de la Défense that expands, if not tourism practices, certainly the symbolic perspective of the metropolitan area. The recent inauguration of several star architectural projects in the north and especially the west of the capital seems to be significantly changing the situation. Their success (if not from a tourism then certainly from a cultural perspective) has been confirmed for the Fondation Louis Vuitton, Philharmonie de Paris and La Seine Musicale through an association of iconic architecture and mega-events. One of the conditions for the touristic attractiveness of emblematic architectures lies in their ability to organise mega-events (e.g. the budget of the Shchukin Collection temporary exhibition in 2016 amounted to 13 million euros (Dagen 2017)). The second condition is related to the concentration effect of several emblematic architectural works built one near each other. The opening of La Seine Musicale on Île Séguin has boosted tourist numbers in the west of Paris. La Seine Musicale is indeed designed according to this logic of destination by the juxtaposition of several amenities: proximity to the Parc de Saint-Cloud, connection by a footbridge with the Sèvres-Cité de la Céramique and near the Albert-Khan Museum and its gardens (under renovation, at the time of writing). The third condition is the willingness of the local, departmental and regional actors to transcend the border constituted by the Paris ring road. In the case of the Hauts-de-Seine district, this expansion is indeed one of the objectives of the local actors, deployed notably within the framework of the Paris agreement (“Destination Paris: The Augmented City”). Paris’ successful bid to host the 2024 Olympic Games will, of course, play a major role in the emergence of a tourist destination in the west of the city. It should thus be noted that emblematic architecture is but one link (obviously essential) in a much more complex chain of relations that characterises or can characterise the development of new tourist dynamics in the marginal areas (Gravari-Barbas 2017) or around the periphery of major European tourist destinations. This observation is not new – the case of 222

13  Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris

Bilbao had already shown that without a comprehensive and quality urban project, Frank Gehry’s work of star architecture alone would not have been sufficient. In addition the city (Paris) which already attracts tourists has a much more complex geography than typically expected in Bilbao (Aranburu et al. 2016) as well as elsewhere. It therefore appears that emblematic architecture can generate a spatial “systemolysis” creating a destination outside the tourist epicentre of Paris but only as long as it also offers cultural tourism and leisure content. Almost by definition (because of the exceptional means granted by the public and especially private partners who have implemented these venues  – this is particularly true in the case of the Fondation Louis Vuitton), these emblematic buildings also have the capacity to implement cultural projects (such as temporary exhibitions) that are no longer within the possibilities of the majority of the cultural venues in the city centre of Paris. For the moment the visitors that these new venues attract are mostly local and regional. Nevertheless, the creation of new cultural and tourist destinations outside the city centre seems to be more than just a hypothesis.

References Aillagon JJ (2010) http://jean-jacques-aillagon.typepad.fr/le_blog_de_jeanjacques_ai/. Accessed June 2010 Appert M (2009) Ville globale versus ville patrimoniale? Des tensions entre libéralisation de la skyline de Londres et préservation des vues historiques. Revue Géographique de l’Est Reconversion et Patrimoine au Royaume-Uni 48:1–2. https:// journals.openedition.org/rge/1154. Accessed October 2018 Aranburu I, Plaza B, Esteban M (2016) Sustainable cultural Tourism in urban destinations: does space matter? Sustainability 8(8):699 Artioli F (2016) Restructurations du centre et conflits des périphéries. L’échec des projets urbains face au retrait des armées en Italie. In: Revue française de science politique. Presses de Sciences Po (P.F.N.S.P.) 2(66):229–250 Baudry SL (2017) Rome: a cultural capital with a poor working-class heritage: strategies of touristification and globalization. In: Gravari-Barbas M, Guinand S (eds) Tourism and gentrification in contemporary metropolises: international perspectives. Routledge, London, pp 134–152 Bayle L (2017) Interview with Laurent Bayle. In: Les Echos. https://www.lesechos. fr/14/03/2017/lesechos.fr/0211878899526_la-philharmonie-de-paris-s-est-imposee-dans-le-paysage-culturel-francais.htm. Accessed October 2018 Bianchini F et al (1992) Flagship projects in urban regeneration. In: Healey P et al (eds) Rebuilding the City. E &FN Spon, London Bouniol B (2016) Philharmonie de Paris, un succès chiffré. https://www.la-croix.com/ Culture/Musique/Philharmonie-de-Paris-un-succes-chiffre-2016-01-14-1404408. Accessed October 2018 Braun E, Eshuis J, Klijn EH (2014) The effectiveness of place brand communication. Cities 41:64–70 Celata F (2008) The Tourism “sprawl” and urban changes in Rome. Urban Stud 41(3):305–319. https://www.memotef.uniroma1.it/sites/dipartimento/files/T&US_ Celata.pdf . Accessed October 2018 Champy F (2008) The “reflective capacity” of professions confronted by international competition. European societies, professional work I Europe: concepts, theories and methodology. Taylor & Francis (Routledge) 10(4):653–672 Clark TN (2003) The City as an entertainment machine. Elsevier, San Diego

223

M. Gravari-Barbas Condevaux A, Djament-Tran G, Gravari-Barbas M (2016) Before and after tourism(s). The trajectories of tourist destinations and the role of actors involved in “off-the-­ beaten-track” tourism: a literature review. In: ViaTourismReview 9 | 2016 : Aux marges du tourisme : utopies et réalités du tourisme hors des sentiers battus. https:// journals.openedition.org/viatourism/413. Accessed October 2018 Dagen PH (2017) Le système des grandes expositions est-il encore viable et pour quelles institutions? In: Le Monde. 03 November2017 Dean C, Donnellan C, Pratt AC (2010) Tate modern: pushing the limits of regeneration. City Cult Soc 1(2):79–87 Delaplace M, Gravari-Barbas M (2016) Aux marges du tourisme: Utopies et réalités du tourisme hors des sentiers battus. In: Editoral ViaTourismReview 1(9). https:// journals.openedition.org/viatourism/417 Doucet B (2007) Flagship Regeneration: panacea or urban problem? Paper presented at the EURA Conference on The Vital City, Glasgow, Scotland, 12–14 September 2007. http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_47909_en.pdf. Accessed October 2018 Duhamel PH, Knafou R (2007) Le tourisme dans la centralité parisienne. In: Saint-­Julien TH, Le Goix R (dir) La métropole parisienne, centralités, inégalités, proximités, Paris, Belin, coll.Mappemonde pp 39–64 Edelmann F (2008). In: Le Monde. 27/28 July 2008 Espaces Post-Euclidiens et Evénements Spatiaux (2000) L’événement spatial en débat. L’Espace Géographique 3:193–199 Evans G (2003) Hard‐branding the cultural city – from Prado to Prada. Int J Urban Reg Res 27(2):417–440 Foundation Louis Vuitton (2010a) Press kit Foundation Louis Vuitton (2010b) Press release on http://www.lvmh.fr/. Accessed June 2010 Gospodini A (2002) European cities in competition and the new ‘uses’ of urban design. J Urban Design 7(1):59–63 Govers R, Go F (2009) Place branding. Global, virtual and physical identities, constructed, imagined and experienced. Palgrave Macmillan, New York Gravari-Barbas M (2009) Marques d’Architecte, Marque de Musées, L’architecture Médiatique en tant qu’outil de positionnement touristique urbain. Presses de l’Université du Québec, Éditions Téoros, pp 190–205 Gravari-Barbas M (2015) Architecture, Musées, Tourisme. La guerre des marques. In: Gravari-Barbas M, Renard-Delautre C (eds) Figures d’Architectes et Espace Urbain / celebrity architects and urban space. L’Harmattan, Paris, pp 139–164 Gravari-Barbas M (2016) Iconic Buildings and the Historic Urban Landscape. A joint analysis of urban globalization. Paper presented at the 4th UNITWIN-UNESCO conference, Budapest, 2016. https://www.academia.edu/36911822/ICONIC_ BUILDINGS_AND_THE_HISTORIC_URBAN_LANDSCAPE._A_JOINT_ ANALYSIS_OF_URBAN_GLOBALISATION. Accessed October 2018 Gravari-Barbas M (2017) Tourisme de marges, marges du tourisme: Lieux ordinaires et “no-go-zones” à l’épreuve du tourisme. Bulletin de l’Association de Géographes Français (BAGF) 3:400–418 Gravari-Barbas M, Delaplace M (2015) Le tourisme hors des sentiers battus. Teoros 34:1–2. https://journals.openedition.org/teoros/2790. Accessed December 2018 Gravari-Barbas M, Fagnoni E (2013) Tourisme et Métropolisation. In: Comment le Tourisme redessine Paris, sous la direction de, Belin, coll. Mappemonde. p 373 Gravari-Barbas M, Renard-Delautre C (2015) Figures d’Architectes et Espace Urbain / celebrity architects and urban space. L’Harmattan, Paris Kelly P (2009) Rome: politics and architecture. Blueprint 32:278 Klingmann A (2007) Brandscapes. Architecture in the Experience Economy. MIT Press Knox P (2012) Stachitects, starchitecture and the symbolic capital of world cities. In: Ben Derudder (ed) International Handbook of Globalization and World Cities. London, Elgar, pp 275–283 Le Monde (2006) Frank Gehry met l’art sous serre pour LVMH. 3 October 2006 Lefebvre N (2015) Destination et expériences: l’adaptation de l’offre touristique de Paris aux nouvelles attentes. In: Annales des Mines  – Réalités industrielles 3 (August 2015), pp  58–62. https://www.cairn.info/revue-realites-industrielles2015-3-page-58.html. Accessed October 2018 224

13  Star Architecture and the Boundaries of Tourism: The Case of Paris Lo Ricco G, Micheli S (2003) Lo spettacolo dell'architettura profilo dell'archistar. B Mondadori, Milano Lungo M (2007) Mondialisation, grands projets et privatisation de la gestion urbaine. Alternatives Sud 14:167–186 Lussault M (2007) L’homme spatial, Seuil. p173 Maggioli M, Bozzato S (2011) Contemporary art museums and territory. The case study of Rome. https://art.torvergata.it/retrieve/handle/2108/110489/185302/Bozzato_ Maggioli_Contemporary....pdf. Accessed December 2018 Maitland R (2007) Tourists, the creative class and distinctive areas in major cities: the roles of visitors and residents in developing new tourism areas. In: Richards G, Tourism WJ (eds) Creativity and development. Routledge, London Maitland, R (2016) Everyday Tourism in a World Tourism City: Getting backstage in London. Asian Journal of Behavioural Studies (AjBeS). Maiden, 1(1) May/June 2016, pp 13–20 Maitland R, Newman P (2004) Developing metropolitan Tourism on the fringe of Central London. Int J Tour Res 6:339–348. Published online in Wiley InterScience McNeill D (2007) The global architect: firms, fame and urban forms, Routledge, London Moore R (2005) Architecture in motion, Tate modern: the first five years. Tate Trustees, London, pp 29–32 Ouroussof N (2009) Modern lines for the eternal city. New York Times. 11 November 2009 https://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/12/arts/design/12zaha.html Plaza B (2000a) Guggenheim Museum’s effectiveness to attract Tourism. Ann Tourism Res 27(4):1055–1058 Plaza B (2000b) Evaluating the influence of a large cultural artifact in the attraction of tourism. The Guggenheim museum Bilbao case. Urban Aff Rev 36(b):264–274 Plaza B, Haarich SN (2013) The Guggenheim Museum Bilbao: Between regional embeddedness and global networking. In: European Planning Studies, pp 1–20 Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture. Scenes, actors and spectacles in contemporary cities. The Monacelli Press, New York RaiStoria (2011) MAXXI. Museo Nazionale delle Arti del XXI Secolo. https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=asNYssAQR9I. Accessed December 2018 Renard-Delautre C (2016) La vieille Europe et ses musées contemporains. Le cas de Rome: renouveller le regard touristique sur la ville éternelle. In: Fagnoni E, Gravari-­ Barbas M (eds) Nouveaux musées, nouvelles ères urbaines, nouvelles pratiques touristiques. PUL, Québec, pp 261–277 Renard-Delautre C, Gravari-Barbas M, Fagnoni E (2013) Architecture emblématique et métropolité touristique en métropole parisienne. In: Gravari-Barbas M, Fagnoni E (eds) Tourisme et Métropolisation. Comment le Tourisme redessine Paris. Belin, coll. Mappemonde, Paris, pp 179–196 Richards G, Wilson J (2006) Developing creativity in tourist experiences: a solution to the serial reproduction of culture? In: Tourism Management 27:1209–1223, p 1215 Richards G, Wilson J (2007) Tourism, creativity and development. Routledge, London Robert M (2017) La Philharmonie de Paris s'est imposée dans le paysage culturel français, Les Echos, 14 March 2017 Rouchi C (2017) Culture et Tourisme à l’Ouest du Grand Paris. Gouvernance et réseaux pour une métropole culturelle multipolaire. In: Thèse de Doctorat Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne Sklair L (2017) The icon project. Architecture, cities and capitalist globalization. Oxford University Press, New York Smythe H (1994) Marketing the City: the role of flagship developments in urban regeneration. E & FN Spon, London. http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_47909_en.pdf Swyngedouw E, Moulaert F, Rodriguez A (2002) Neoliberal urbanization in Europe: large-scale urban development projects and the new urban policy. Antipode 34(3):542–577 Travers T (2005) Renewing London. In: Tate modern: the first five years. Tate Trustees, London, pp 23–28 Tyler D (1998) Getting Tourism on the agenda: policy development in the London borough of Southwark. In: Tyler D, Guerrier Y, Robertson M (eds) Managing Tourism in cities: policy, process and practice. Wiley, London, pp 45–64 225

M. Gravari-Barbas Vicario L (2008) Another ‘Guggenheim effect’? The generation of a potentially Gentrifiable Neighbourhood in Bilbao. Urban Stud 40(12):2383–2400 Vivant E (2009) Du musée-conservateur au musée-entrepreneur. In: Teoros pp 43–52. https://journals.openedition.org/teoros/82. Accessed October 2018 Voldman D (1985) Le parc de la Villette entre Thélème et Disneyland. Vingtième Siècle 8(8):19–30

226

Eurostar Architecture: Comparing High-Speed Rail Stations in Europe

14

Fabian Wenner

Abstract

The spread of high-speed rail (HSR) in Europe since the 1980s has reinvigorated the role of railway stations as both spaces of public encounter and transport nodes. In reaction to the re-emerging task to design new passenger railway stations, several European railway companies have been attempting to underline this role by drawing on iconic architecture, sometimes assigning the task to star architects. This chapter explores the geographical distribution and motivations behind this strategy and presents the findings of a quantitative, comparative research across 73 railway stations in 10 European countries that have been newly built or replaced as part of HSR development. Architects’ ‘star status’ and the public and professional recognition of their station buildings were measured using a novel approach of architecture and tourism database analysis. The chapter concludes that star architecture for HSR stations is not always utilised in proportion to the importance of a station as a transport node. It is most often applied in urban sub-­ centres and at airport stations, less so in city centre locations. Public recognition of stations is not significantly linked to the ‘stardom’ of the architect, while professional recognition is. The most popular HSR stations remain refurbished, traditional inner-city stations. Keywords

Star architecture · High-speed rail · Railway stations · Station architecture

1 Star Architecture for High-Speed Rail Stations F. Wenner (*) Technische Universität München, Chair of Urban Development, Munich, Germany e-mail: f.wenner@ tum.de

The term ‘star architecture’ is used to describe buildings designed by internationally renowned architects, often not only to seek a high aesthetic and functional quality but also to take advantage of the architects’ prominence, for example, for marketing purposes (Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). By buying a certain ‘brand’, principals hope for further added value for their project, the urban surroundings or even the entire city (refer to Ponzini, Alaily-Mattar

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_14

227

F. Wenner

and Thierstein, Chap. 1 of this volume), which however usually comes at a higher monetary cost for the building. Public buildings hosting civic institutions, such as museums or libraries, are among the most discussed cases. This development has not stopped short of railway stations. Since the 1980s, after decades of closures and decline, the development of high-­ speed rail (HSR) systems has reinvigorated the role of railway stations and their surroundings as both public places and transport nodes (Bertolini 1999; Trip 2008). The need for completely new structures, often in central urban locations, in combination with the dynamism and technological progress associated with HSR has led to the involvement of internationally recognised architects in the development of HSR stations, such as Santiago Calatrava, Zaha Hadid and Norman Foster. Rail users, like others, desire high-quality architecture, usually regardless of the prestige that comes with the architect. At the same time, railway companies in Europe are almost always public or semipublic organisations, many operating on a tight budget. This means that railway companies are faced with a trade-off and must be selective where they invest in design, often giving priority to functionality (Gerkan 1996). This chapter, hence, addresses two questions: First, is the transport importance of a railway station higher when more star architects are involved, and vice versa? It is hypothesised that a disproportionately high ‘stardom’ of a station architect signals other motives than user satisfaction (such as deliberate upgrading or prestige) behind the commissioning, while a below-­average status might represent a lost opportunity to advertise the rail system. Second, the chapter asks whether star architecture actually results in public and professional acclaim in the field of HSR stations. Can railway companies buy popularity by commissioning star architects? The chapter starts with a short introduction into the history of railway station architecture and the development of HSR, followed by a short literature review on potential motivations for the use of star architecture. After developing a methodology to create a deeper understanding of the geographical distribution of star architecture for HSR, an analysis of a European HSR station database is presented and a specific quantitative approach to architecture and tourism analysis proposed. Finally, results are described and discussed.

Passenger Railway Stations as Urban Generators Soon after the opening of the first railway lines across Europe in the 1830s, passenger railway stations had become some of the most important public buildings of their cities. They were meeting spaces and integrators of society (Alexander 2017) and attracted and generated new urban development and dynamism (Berger and Enflo 2017; Dürr 1996), and even in smaller towns, they were surrounded by an aura of cosmopolitanism, as ‘gates to the world’. Large railway stations are described as secular ‘cathedrals of modernity’ of their time (Herzog and Leis 2010), combining innovative 228

14  Eurostar Architecture: Comparing High-Speed Rail Stations in Europe

engineering with a representative design (van Uffelen 2010). They were the representative posts of both their host cities and the railway companies that built them. Paris’ Gare du Nord and Frankfurt’s Hauptbahnhof are only some of the monumental examples for this ‘golden age’ of rail transport in the second half of the nineteenth century. Many of these stations were built before the nationalisation of railway companies, when station architecture was one component of competition between companies. With the spread of the private car and the expansion of air travel since the early twentieth century, rail transport suffered first a loss of demand and then of investment and prestige (Gerkan 1996). Developing new railway stations became a rare task for architects in most European countries. Railway stations lost their status as primary hubs for international travel to airports, with consequences for their image, both socially and architecturally (Schwarz 1996).

The Emergence of High-Speed Rail It is rare that a declining technology experiences a revival (Banister and Hall 1993), but railway operators sought to regain market shares through the development of new services, covering larger distances at higher speeds, requiring the construction of new high-speed rail infrastructure (UIC 2018) causing such a revival. In Europe, despite progressing unification, this development initially proceeded according to the intrinsic logic of the respective national railway companies, in several countries at the same time. Following the example of the Japanese ‘Shinkansen’ (Tokyo-Osaka, starting in 1964), HSR lines were opened by Italy’s Trenitalia (1977, RomeFlorence), France’s SNCF (1981, Lyon-Paris) and Germany’s Deutsche Bahn (1991, Hannover-Würzburg). RENFE in Spain followed in 1992 with the route Madrid-Seville, and since the completion of the channel tunnel in 1994, London is served by Eurostar. Strong passenger growth indicated the success of this strategy. Over time an international European network has developed, covering also Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden, also due to the Trans-European Networks (TEN) initiative of the European Union. On a global scale, China’s main railway operator has fast expanded its network in the twenty-first century, which is now the largest in the world. A number of further new HSR lines are currently under construction or in planning. However, due to the comparable socio-­political conditions that set the framework in which star architecture is implemented, especially the role of local government, public participation and market forces, and according to the scope of this book, this chapter concentrates on Europe. HSR is mainly defined as “specially built high-speed lines equipped for speeds generally equal to or greater than 250 km/h” (European Council 1996). Despite this common definition, the actual implementation of HSR varies. Particularly, there are notable differences in the station placement policies of the different railway companies, which have consequences for the number and type of stations that are (re)built for HSR. Some ­concentrate on providing direct access to existing stations in city centres via connecting conventional lines (Germany, Italy), while others have at least in the 229

F. Wenner

past followed a strategy of ‘out-of-town’ stations particularly for mediumsized and small cities (France, Spain), prioritising speed over local embeddedness. The choice of policy is influenced by settlement patterns, the political system and the quality of the existing rail infrastructure, inter alia. Railway companies in unitary countries with a single, dominating metropolitan centre tend to develop a more hierarchical HSR system focussed on the main city, while a more piecemeal approach with a stronger emphasis on incorporating the existing infrastructure can be seen in other countries. Meanwhile, most railway companies have also partially shifted their attitude towards air travel from competition to cooperation at least for long distances (Terpstra and Lijesen 2015), with the effect of a deliberate inclusion of airports in the HSR networks. The European railway companies use different approaches for station design decisions as well: most use design competitions, but direct commissioning also occurs. The SNCF uses its own in-house architecture consultancy, AREP, which is responsible for a majority of the HSR station designs. It meanwhile exports its services to other firms and countries. Finally, a number of European rail companies have actively opted not to develop new high-speed networks. Some of them have emphasised the improvement of their services through targeted upgrades of conventional lines in combination with a better coordination of timetables and third-­party services (particularly Switzerland and the Netherlands). Even though there are many publicly acclaimed rail station redevelopments in these cases as well, for better comparability only HSR stations are analysed for this chapter. It is important to note that the emergence of HSR has occurred simultaneously to the partial transformation of many railway companies in Europe from public authorities into semi-private forms of organisation or even full privatisation. These reforms often gave railway companies a greater autonomy and responsibility over their finances and reduced public service obligations. As a result, many (re)discovered the economic value of their centrally located real estate, fuelling a stronger commercialisation of railway stations (Hoffmann-Axthelm 1996) but also incentivising a more active role of railway companies in urban development.

 esearch Perspectives on High-Speed Rail Stations R for Urbanism and Architecture In spatial research, HSR has attracted some attention due to its (presumed) ability to direct urban development by virtue of its accessibility effects. Accessibility, understood as the potential of opportunity for interaction (Hansen 1959:75), is among the main drivers behind location choices of households and firms, especially since knowledge-intensive work is becoming more important (Thierstein et al. 2016; Zhao et al. 2017). On the one hand, it is assumed that HSR is able to revitalise and rebalance spatial economic structure (Ahlfeldt and Feddersen 2018) and that a reconcentration on public transport will help to (re)generate lively, sustainable, urban districts with the stations as both central transport node and as a place of encounter 230

14  Eurostar Architecture: Comparing High-Speed Rail Stations in Europe

Fig. 14.1  The new LiègeGuillemins station by Santiago Calatrava. Opened in 2009, it is one example of several newly built highspeed rail stations designed by internationally renowned architects. (Source: Photograph by author)

and urban development (Bertolini and Spit 1998; Trip 2008).On the other hand, there is also the expectation that it will lead to further economic polarisation and hierarchisation (Chen and Hall 2015; Garmendia et  al. 2012; Vickerman 1997) and urban sprawl (Schütz 1997). Relatively little attention has been paid in international research to the station buildings and the urban design of their immediate surroundings as part of these transformation processes (Ponzini 2013)  – among the few exceptions (refer to Morka 2012). This is despite the fact that several of the newly built HSR stations, some of which are designed by internationally renowned architects, have attracted considerable international public and professional attention (e.g. Jencks 1995). The stations of Lyon-Saint Exupéry (1994, formerly Satolas) and Liège-Guillemins (2009), designed by Santiago Calatrava (Fig. 14.1), and, more recently, Napoli Afragola (2017) by Zaha Hadid are examples.

Star Architecture as Engine of Upgrading? Star architecture is usually associated with principals who try to increase the prestige and economic value of their real estate through a design that is unique and branded. Increasingly also cities participate in this competition for professional and public attention by commissioning internationally renowned architects for public buildings, with the hope of attracting 231

F. Wenner

tourists, companies and employees in the longer term (the ‘Bilbao effect’, Plaza et  al. 2009; Alaily-Mattar et  al. 2018). Consequentially, usually locally bound actors push for star architecture projects (refer to the Introduction of this volume). Railway companies on the other hand are mostly state-owned national quasi-monopolists with little competition at least for short- and medium-­ range distances. As a result, the design of their stations theoretically has little impact on demand, as users will have to use them anyways. The predominant perspective of rail companies is that of balanced, hierarchical networks. The station site, for example, cannot usually be strategically chosen according to the requirements of star architecture. Often companies aim for a recognisable, similar design across all stations. At the same time, many of the rail companies are operating on a tight (public) budget. On this background it is a little surprising that star architects have been tasked with the design of HSR stations as well. When the international union of railways postulates that ‘stations are becoming legitimately more spectacular’ (UIC 2018), it suggests that railway companies have a self-­ interest in providing such architecture for their customers. However, literature points to a potential alliance between railway companies and local actors. Gerkan (1996, author’s translation) sees architecture – taken as ‘the appreciation of its contents’ – as one way to accomplish a social ‘gentrification’ of the railway station and its surroundings, that should be in the interest of railway companies: As long as railway stations are centres of red-light districts, focal points of the drug scene and meeting places of social outsiders, these phenomena will represent a high psychological barrier towards rail transport […]. If the aim is pursued to regain public appreciation for rail transport, it is imperative to fundamentally change the milieu of railway stations […].

This allies with railway companies and inner-city landowners, often influential in local political decisions. In addition, prestige can incentivise local and national governments. In the inauguration speech of Napoli Afragola station, the prime minister of Italy, Paolo Gentiloni addresses this point: “to those who say that this work is too great, Pharaonic, I reply that Pharaonic means leaving the mark of great civilisations and Italy must have the pride of leaving these legacies” (Del Porto and Lucarelli 2017, author’s translation). Star architecture for railway stations can hence be conceived of as a strategic tool to achieve not only architectural qualities for rail users but also to initiate social upgrading of both the station and its surroundings. In-depth case studies by students as preparation for this research suggest that local actors are indeed able to highjack HSR development projects and push for their own agenda, while the national actors have less interest in star architecture in the first place.

232

14  Eurostar Architecture: Comparing High-Speed Rail Stations in Europe

2 A Database of European HSR Stations and Their Architects Since a consistent framework for the analysis of star architecture is still missing, particularly pertaining to quantitative approaches, it is first necessary to establish a definition of star architecture, which is not meant to claim universal validity but to structure the subject for the purpose of this chapter. Despite the categorisation presented in the introduction of this book that the term ‘star’ in ‘star architecture’ can relate to both the status of the building and the architect, a more limited definition following Alaily-­ Mattar et al. (2018) is applied here, that ‘star architecture’ always involves an internationally renowned architect. Another difficulty is actually the way ‘architecture’ is defined. While the multiple dimensions of architects’ work are acknowledged, this chapter concentrates on the (outside) appearance of buildings as the design component that can be most directly witnessed by the public and reproduced by the media. This chapter starts from the baseline hypothesis that the commissioning of a star architect is related to the importance of a station as a transport hub. We borrow the concept of the ‘node-place model’ by Bertolini (1999) here, who developed a similar methodology to describe a corridor of optimum combinations of accessibility and urban and functional density. An above-average status of the architect of a station compared to its transport importance signals other motives than passenger satisfaction, particularly a local desire for upgrading, behind the commissioning of stars, while a below-­average status might represent a lost opportunity to advertise the rail system. This chapter is particularly interested in the geographical distribution of above-average use of star architecture. While it is assumed that above-­ average use of star architecture can be found in all countries studied, that is the dependence more on local factors than on the influence of the (national) railway companies, we expect to see outliers which lend themselves as candidates for potential in-depth studies. Their spatial pattern in turn enables further hypothesis formation. Given the competition for attention with other buildings, particularly cultural ones (refer to Chap. 4 by Thierstein, Alaily-Mattar and Dreher in this volume for an impact model), it can furthermore be assumed that in an intracity perspective, star architects are more often commissioned for stations in inner-city contexts. This chapter also tests whether the involvement of a star architect leads to an above-average public and professional recognition of that station. The assumption is that additional investment in a station building in the form of the commissioning of a star architect will ultimately lead to a higher recognition of this station among the general public as well as architecture professionals. The assumption is also that star architecture stations achieve a higher recognition than the existing, traditional stations.

233

F. Wenner

A Method to Quantify the ‘Stardom’ of Architects To test the hypotheses, a quantitative database was compiled of all stations that have been directly connected to newly built HSR lines in Europe between 1981 and 2018. This resulted in a list of 167 stations in ten European countries. Of these 167 stations, 50 (30%) are entirely new stations at a location where no railway station had existed before. In another 23 cases (14%), the previous station buildings were completely replaced by a new one. The remaining are renovated (29, 17%), extensions (6, 4%) and no changes (59, 35%). The further analysis concentrates on the 73 cases where entirely new station buildings were built, either because of a new location or a replacement (see Appendix). For these stations, data was gathered on the commissioned architects, urban integration and context, as well as traffic statistics, inter alia. While for 16 stations no architect could be identified from literature, there were also 5 cases of stations with no specific involvement of architects. Usually these were built using a modular system, consisting of barely more than platforms and a small shelter. These stations were excluded from further analysis. As mentioned, quantitative analyses of star architectural projects are still rare (Ponzini and Manfredini 2017). This is partly due to the difficulty in measuring abstract concepts like ‘star’ characteristics of an architect or the recognition of a building directly. Hence a novel methodology of using online databases and user-generated data to approximate these variables was applied. The number of search results for an architect on the Avery Index,1 a comprehensive architecture periodicals database, was used as a proxy for the ‘star’ status of an architect. In case of multiple architects involved, the highest score of any of the parties was used. For comparison, other indices such as Google search results as proxy for general public recognition of ‘star’ status were tested but revealed less nuanced results. With regard to the professional recognition of single station buildings, the Avery Index entries were used as well, this time for the building. We used the average number of search results for both the English and local name of the station building. Public recognition of buildings was measured through scores on the travel review website TripAdvisor.2 On this website, users can review tourist sights, inter alia. For each station record was made of whether the station is listed as a sight (in the category ‘things to do’), how many users reviewed it, the average rating of all reviewers (measured in 0.5 intervals between 0 and 5, 5 being best) and the rank of this rating compared with all other tourist sites in the respective city. TripAdvisor self-advertises as ‘the world’s largest travel site’ and ‘home to the world’s largest travel community of 490 million average monthly unique visitors’ (TripAdvisor 2018). Even though the website owners actively manage the reviews, the high number of reviews per sight leads us to assume that the source is sufficiently unbiased and suitable as a source, especially in relative terms. All data was gathered in September 2018. https://library.columbia.edu/locations/avery/avery-index.html https://www.tripadvisor.com

1  2 

234

Fig. 14.2 Search results on Avery Index for station architect and number of departures for HSR stations in Europe. While ‘stardom’ of the station architect corresponds with its transport importance in most cases, there are notable exceptions, such as Vienna Main Station (Wien Hbf) and KasselWilhelmshöhe with a lower Avery score of the station architect than expected and Lyon-Saint Exupéry with a higher score

235

F. Wenner Table 14.1 Average Avery scores for station architects of analysed HSR stations by country. It shows that Belgium and Italy score highest, while both Germany and Austria have the most serviced stations they are seldom made use of star architects Country Austria Belgium France Germany Italy Netherlands Spain Sweden Switzerland United Kingdom All

Average search results on Avery Index 20 638 123 136 624 222 177 56 14 26 164

Source: By Authors

Departures of High-Speed Trains per hour

9 8

Madrid Puerta de Atocha

7 6 Rotterdam Centraal

5 4

Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe Stuttgart Main station Vienna Main Station

R² = 0.0945

3 2

Reggio Emilia AV Mediopadana Liège-Guillemins

Sevilla Santa Justa Berlin Main station

1

Napoli Afragola

Lyon-Saint-Exupéry TGV

0

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

Avery Index search results of station architect

3 Results: Eurostar Architectures Figure 14.2 shows a map of the stations analysed for this chapter. The size of the dots symbolises the importance of a station as transport hub, measured by the number of high-speed train departures per hour; the colour indicates the ‘star’ status of the stations’ architect, measured in the number of Avery Index search results. The Avery results range from 0 to 1125 (Napoli Afragola, Zaha Hadid). A score of 200 or more is rare, and only achieved by well-known international architects, even though this chapter does not set a certain threshold for ‘stardom’, instead taking a gradual perspective. It becomes clear that there are several stations with a relatively low number of departures, but high ‘star’ status, and vice versa. 236

Fig. 14.3 Relationship between a station’s importance as transport node, measured in departures per hour, and ‘star’ status of a stations architect (Avery Index score). It demonstrates a relationship between the more important stations that made use of famous architects, with Berlin main station and Sevilla Santa Justa close to the ‘balanced’ line. (Source: Author)

14  Eurostar Architecture: Comparing High-Speed Rail Stations in Europe Table 14.2 Average Avery and TripAdvisor scores for stations based on their urban location and context. It demonstrates that star architecture is found in urban sub-centre locations and at airports, and less often at inner city stations Average search results Urban location on Avery and context Index Inner city 132 Urban 243 sub-centre Greenfield, 142 but close to city Peripheral 32 Airport 422 All 164

Average TripAdvisor Average number of reviews rating reviews 8 3,9 1632 5 3,8 448

Average rank of sight within city 61,68% 71,86%

3

48,74%

3,2

252

0 0

Source: By Author

A look at the average Avery search results for station architects of these 73 stations for the different countries (refer to Table 14.1) reveals that particularly in Belgium and Italy, HSR stations are built by star architects. On the other hand, Austria and Germany show some of the most serviced stations that at the same time have low Avery results for their architects. Avery results were available for 53 of the 73 stations. Figure 14.3 shows the relation between a station’s importance as transport node, measured in departures of high-speed trains per hour, and the ‘star’ status of its architect, measured in Avery Index search results. It shows that the relationship between the importance of the station and the fame of the architect is very low, with a coefficient of determination R2 of 0.09.The linear trend line can be read as a ‘balanced’ combination. For example, the stations Berlin Hauptbahnhof (main station) and Sevilla Santa Justa are close to this line – here, the ‘stardom’ of the architect was in line with the importance of the station. Lyon-Saint Exupéry TGV, on the other hand, only has one high-speed train departure per hour on average – a low figure if contrasted with the Avery Index score of 638 for the architect Santiago Calatrava, indicating an ‘excess’ of star architecture for this situation. Vice versa, Rafael Moneo, the architect of Madrid Puerta de Atocha station with its eight departures per hour, has a comparatively low score of 492. Table 14.2 shows the average ‘stardom’ of station architects for different urban locations and contexts. Other than expected, both peripheral and inner-city stations have below-average scores. Instead, star architecture can especially be found in urban sub-centre locations and at airport ­stations. The TripAdvisor reviews show a general preference for stations in urban contexts, with the urban sub-centre stations serving more as landmarks than the inner-city stations – possibly due to the fact that inner-city stations fade in comparison to other nearby buildings. Figure 14.4 shows the relationship between the public recognition of a station’s architecture (TripAdvisor Score) and the star status of its architect (number of Avery Index search results). The R2 is almost 0, indicating no 237

F. Wenner

Tripadvisor score of building

5.0

3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0

Avery Index search results for station

R² = 0.0002

4.0

0 500 1,000 1,500 Avery Index search results for station architect

40 30 R² = 0.2192 20 10 0 0

500

1,000

1,500

Avery Index search results for station architect

relationship between the variables. Only 15 of the 73 analysed stations have a rating on TripAdvisor, rendering the sample very small – these are however the largest and most important ones. The remaining stations almost all score low on the Avery Index. The lowest Avery score (37) despite a relatively high TripAdvisor ranking (4,0) is Vienna Main Station, showing that public recognition can be achieved without star architects. Vice versa, Napoli Afragola, designed by Zaha Hadid and opened in 2017, has a very high architect Avery score (1125) but a low TripAdvisor ranking (3,0). The station is still very new and not yet well connected to local public transport, which could have led some users giving it a lower score irrespective of the actual question of its quality as a ‘sight’. Without this outlier, there is a slightly positive relationship between both variables, indicating a small but positive effect of star status on public recognition. Figure 14.5 on the other hand shows a stronger relation between the Avery Index search results for a station, that is, its professional recognition, and the results for its architect (R2 = 0.21). It suggests that professional acclaim is much more linked to ‘star’ status than public recognition. The last assumption regards whether star architecture stations achieve higher public recognition than refurbished traditional stations. This must be denied: both the top stations with the highest rank within their city and

238

Fig. 14.4 Relationship between public recognition (TripAdvisor Score) and ‘star’ status of a station’s architect (Avery Index search results for station architect). It demonstrates as negligible and that and public recognition of stations can be achieved without star architects. (Source: By Author)

Fig. 14.5 Relationship between professional recognition (Avery Index search results for station) and ‘star’ status of a stations architect (Avery Index search results for station architect). It is suggested, through this graph, that professional acclaim is much more linked to ‘star’ status than public recognition. (Source: By Author)

14  Eurostar Architecture: Comparing High-Speed Rail Stations in Europe

the stations with the highest rating in Europe are mostly traditional; inner-­ city stations, Amsterdam Centraal and Antwerpen Centraal, are among the top ten sights of their respective cities, while Berlin and Leipzig main stations also achieved high ranks. Amsterdam Centraal is also the most reviewed HSR railway station with 14,457 reviews. Together with London St. Pancras International, these stations also enjoy the highest rating of 4,5. The highest ranking star architecture stations are Rotterdam Centraal by Benthem Crouwel architects, Meyer and Van Schooten architects and West 8 (rank 3 of 162 in Rotterdam) and Reggio Emilia AV Mediopadana by Santiago Calatrava (rank 10 of 82 in Reggio Emilia). At the same time, other star architecture stations receive only mixed reviews, such as Jean Nouvel’s redesign of Bruxelles Midi (3,5) or Zaha Hadid’s Napoli Afragola (3,0). This suggests that star architecture stations can play in the highest league of public acclaim if they are well designed, but star status is by far not a guarantee for recognition. Rather, the high ratings for refurbished stations show that traditional, inner-city stations are still the most popular.

4 Conclusions: The Space of Eurostar Architectures The results have shown that star architecture is utilised to a varying degree by the different European railway companies. On the one hand, the utilisation of star architecture for HSR stations is in some cases proportional to the importance of the respective station as transport node, which indicates an appropriate use of the strategy. On the other hand, there are several significant exceptions. These exceptions hint at situations where other motivations than the rail users, particularly local urban upgrading or prestige, were driving forces. If railway stations are to remain inclusive, democratic spaces, these upgrading effects must be observed with care. The finding that redeveloped historical station buildings attract a higher recognition than most star architecture buildings furthermore shows the potential for working with the existing structures. Further research can investigate the function of such stations at the urban and regional scales. All airport stations in this dataset were designed by star architects, by the measure of their Avery Index score. It is unclear, however, if this must be attributed to the competition effect of direct neighbourhood or the influence of airport operators themselves, who assign their own architects for the airport stations also, as in the case of Cologne/Bonn Airport station (designed by Murphy/Jahn Architects). So, it might simply be another example that so far ‘airport architecture is qualitatively highly superior to railway station architecture’ (Hempel 1996, author’s translation), as one critic put it. Methodologically, the attempt to quantify ‘star’ status and recognition of buildings using Internet sources has proven to be difficult. Pitfalls in the form of missing data, unclear intentions of user-generated data and questions of manipulability limit the validity and make it difficult to attribute effects clearly. TripAdvisor, like many similar web portals with user-­ 239

F. Wenner

generated content, is a managed platform; its source code is not published, turning the exact calculation algorithms for scores into a ‘black box’, despite their plausibility at first glance. Even though it is the largest website of its type, by far not all stations have reviews, leading to small sample sizes, and wherever they exist, it cannot be excluded that visitors were voting on the transport quality of the station, rather than the design quality, even though there is a separate category for this on the website. The Avery Index, maintained by the Columbia University, on the other hand, might favour Anglophone publication and hence represent a biased view of architectural recognition. Nevertheless, there are further potentials for quantitative approaches even for questions that rely heavily on personal judgement. Particularly travel websites such as TripAdvisor still present a huge untapped reservoir for science (refer to Chap. 9 by Chareyron and Jacquot in this volume), for example, with other types of civic institutions, such as museums, which would likely yield more robust results, as these usually attract more reviews. It would be interesting as well to compare such evaluations over a longer time span, to see if public recognition for star architecture is fading over time or whether it can exert a lasting influence. Acknowledgements  Data collection for this study was substantially and kindly supported by students from TUM’s Urbanism and Architecture programmes as well as guest researchers. These were Cemal Akçiçek, Lubna Al Sammak, Khoi Anh Dang, Lukas Ferstl, Lucie Heinz, Lucas Schneider Zimmer and Isabella Traeger.

Appendix List of stations that have been newly built or completely replaced in the course of HSR introduction Name

Country

Municipality

Architect

Aix-en-Provence TGV

Year of opening 2001

France

Albacete-Los Llanos Allersberg (Rothsee) Antequera Santa Ana Antwerpen-­Luchtbal Avignon TGV

2010 2006 2007 2009 2001

Spain Germany Spain Belgium France

Aix-en-­ Provence Albacete Allersberg Santa Ana Antwerpen Avignon

Gare de Belfort-­ Montbéliard TGV Berlin Hauptbahnhof Berlin-Spandau Besançon Franche-Comté TGV Breda

2011

France

Belfort

2006 1998 2011

Germany Germany France

Berlin Berlin Besançon

2009

Breda

Gare de Calais-Fréthun

1993

The Netherlands France

Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/AREP Unknown Not applicable L35 Arquitectos Not applicable Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/ AREP Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/ AREP Gerkan, Marg und Partner Gerkan, Marg und Partner Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/AREP Koen van Velsen Architects

Fréthun

Camp de Tarragona

2006

Spain

La Secuita

240

Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/ AREP Unknown (continued)

14  Eurostar Architecture: Comparing High-Speed Rail Stations in Europe

Appendix (continued) List of stations that have been newly built or completely replaced in the course of HSR introduction Name

Country

Municipality

Architect

Champagne-­Ardenne TGV Ciudad Real Córdoba

Year of opening 2007

France

Reims

Pierre-Michel Desgrange

1992 1992

Spain Spain

Ciudad Real Córdoba

Cuenca-Fernando Zóbel Ebbsfleet International

2010 2007

Cuenca Gravesend

Figueres-Vilafant Girona Guadalajara-­Yebes Hannover Messe/Laatzen Hörnefors Husum(S)

2010 2013 2003 1991 2010 2010

Spain United Kingdom Spain Spain Spain Germany Sweden Sweden

Unknown Gabriel Rebollo, José Miguel Asensio, Ángel Rebollo y Jorge Benítez ADIF (Infrastructure Operator Spain) Alastair Lansley and Mark Fisher

Figueres Girona Yebes Laatzen Hörnefors Husum

Ingolstadt Nord Kassel-­Wilhelmshöhe

2006 1991

Germany Germany

Ingolstadt Kassel

Kinding (Altmühltal)

2006

Germany

Köln/Bonn Flughafen Kramfors Le Creusot Montceau Montchanin TGV Liège-Guillemins Lille Europe

2002 2010 1981

Germany Sweden France

Kinding im Altmühltal Köln Kramfors Montchanin

2002 1993

Belgium France

Liège Lille

Limburg Süd Lorraine TGV

2002 2007

Germany France

Limburg Louvigny

Gare de Lyon Part-Dieu Lyon Saint-­Exupéry TGV

1981 1994

France France

Mâcon Loché TGV Madrid Puerta de Atocha Málaga María Zambrano Marne la Vallée-Chessy

1981 1992 2007 1994

France Spain Spain France

Medina del Campo AV

2015

Spain

Meuse TGV

2007

France

Montabaur Napoli Afragola Noorderkempen Nordmaling

2002 2017 2009 2010

Germany Italy Belgium Sweden

Lyon Colombier-­ Saugnieu Mâcon Madrid Málaga Marne la Vallée Medina del Campo Les Trois-­ Domaines Montabaur Afragola Brecht Nordmaling

Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Arkinova Architects KB Sweco (PeGeHillinge, Margareta Diedrichs) Maier Neuberger Architekten GmbH Andreas Brandt, Giovanni Signorini, Yadegar Asisi (Entwurf), Peter Schuck (Umsetzung) Not applicable Murphy/Jahn Architects Unknown Unknown Santiago Calatrava Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/ AREP Schuster Architekten Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/ AREP Eugène Gachon and Jean-Louis Girodet Santiago Calatrava Unknown Jose Rafael Moneo COT & Partners Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/ AREP Unknown Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/AREP Jux and Partner Zaha Hadid Not applicable Arkinova Architects KB (continued)

241

F. Wenner

Appendix (continued) List of stations that have been newly built or completely replaced in the course of HSR introduction Name Örnsköldsvik C

Year of opening 2010

Country

Municipality

Architect

Sweden

Örnsköldsvik Örnsköldsvik Herrera Puertollano Reggio nell’Emilia Requena Rotterdam

Sweco (PeGe Hillinge, Pekka Leppänen, Margareta Diedrichs) Unknown OPTA arquitectos Unknown Santiago Calatrava

Örnsköldsvik Norra Puente Genil-Herrera Puertollano Reggio Emilia AV Mediopadana Requena-Utiel Rotterdam Centraal

2010 2007 1992 2013

Sweden Spain Spain Italy

2010 2009

Spain Netherlands

Segovia-Guiomar Sevilla Santa Justa Siegburg/Bonn Stratford International

2007 1992 2002 2007

Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof TGV Haute-Picardie

1991 1993

Spain Spain Germany United Kingdom Germany France

Torino Porta Susa

2009

Italy

Stuttgart Ablaincourt-­ Pressoir Torino

Tullnerfeld UmeåÖstra Vaihingen (Enz) Valence TGV

2012 2010 1991 2001

Austria Sweden Germany France

Tulln Umeå Vaihingen Alixan

Valencia Joaquín Sorolla Västeraspby Vendôme-­Villiers-­surLoir Villanueva de CordobaLos Pedroches Villena AVE Visp Wien Hauptbahnhof

2010 2010 1989

Spain Sweden France

Valencia Apsby Vendôme

2014

Spain

2013 2007 2012

Spain Switzerland Austria

Villanueva de Cordoba Villena Visp Vienna

Wien Meidling Zaragoza-­Delicias

2012 2003

Austria Spain

Vienna Zaragoza

Segovia Sevilla Siegburg London

ADIF (Infrastructure Operator Spain) Team CS (Benthem Crouwel architects, Meyer & Van Schooten architects and West 8) OPTA arquitectos Cruz y Ortiz Hartmut de Corné Alastair Lansley and Mark Fisher Christoph Ingenhoven Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/ AREP AREP with Jean-Marie Duthilleul, Etienne Tricaud, Silvio d’Ascia and Agostino Magnaghi Günter Lautner White Arkitekter Schmitt, Kasimir & Partner Jean-Marie Duthilleul & Etienne Tricaud/AREP IDOM Not applicable Unknown Unknown ADIF (Infrastructure Operator Spain) Steinmann & Schmid Atelier Albert Wimmer (Wien), Atelier Ernst Hoffmann (Wien) and Theo Hotz Architekten und Planer (Zürich) Unknown Carlos Ferrater, José María Valeround Félix Arranz

References Ahlfeldt GM, Feddersen A (2018) From periphery to core: measuring agglomeration effects using high-speed rail. J  Econ Geogr 18:355–390. https://doi.org/10.1093/ jeg/lbx005 Alaily-Mattar N, Dreher J, Thierstein A (2018) Repositioning cities through star architecture: how does it work? J Urban Design 23:169–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 574809.2017.1408401 242

14  Eurostar Architecture: Comparing High-Speed Rail Stations in Europe Banister, D, Hall P (1993) The second railway age. Built Environ 19 (3-4):157–162 Berger T, Enflo K (2017) Locomotives of local growth: the short- and long-term impact of railroads in Sweden. J Urban Econ 98:124–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jue.2015.09.001 Bertolini L (1999) Spatial development patterns and public transport: the application of an analytical model in the Netherlands. Plan Pract Res 14:199–210 Bertolini L, Spit T (1998) Cities on Rails. The redevelopment of railway station areas. E & FN Spon, London Chen CL, Hall P (2015) High-speed trains and spatial-economic impacts: a British-­ French comparison on two scales: intra- and inter-regional. In: Hickman R, Givoni M, Bonilla D, Banister D (eds) Handbook on transport and development. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 301–317 Del Porto D, Lucarelli O (2017) Tav di Afragola, Gentiloni: “Qui garantiamosicurezza e sviluppo”. La Repubblica 6 June 2017 Dürr H (1996) Bahn frei für eine neue Stadt. In: Gerkan MV (ed) Renaissance der Bahnhöfe: Die Stadt im 21. Jh. Vieweg, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden, pp 13–15 European Council (1996) Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system. Directive 96/48/EC. L 235, 17/09/1996 P. 0006 - 0024. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?ur i=CELEX:31996L0048:en:HTML. Accessed 12 Aug 2016 Garmendia M, Ribalaygua C, Ureña JM (2012) High speed rail: implication for cities. Cities (29):26–31 Gerkan MV (1996) Renaissance der Bahnhöfe als Nukleus des Städtebaus. In: Gerkan MV (ed) Renaissance der Bahnhöfe: Die Stadt im 21. Jh. Vieweg, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden, pp 17–63 Hansen W (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J AM Inst Plann 25(2):73–76 Hempel AG (1996) Großer Bahnhof. In: Gerkan MV (ed) Renaissance der Bahnhöfe: Die Stadt im 21. Jh. Vieweg, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden, pp 222–223 Herzog M, Leis M (2010) Der Bahnhof: Kathedrale, Erlebniswelt, Sozialstation und Konsumparadies. In: Herzog M, Leis M, Girtler R (eds) Der Bahnhof Basilika der Mobilität – Erlebniswelt der Moderne. W. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart, pp 7–16 Hoffmann-Axthelm D (1996) Stadtunterfahrung: Zu einer modischen Wendung im Verhaltnis von Stadt und Bahn. In: Gerkan MV (ed) Renaissance der Bahnhöfe: Die Stadt im 21. Jh. Vieweg, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden, pp 225–232 Jencks C (1995) Von High-Tech zu Organi-Tech, Arch+, pp 66–73 Morka A (2012) Brief Encounters and Lasting Impressions: Contemporary Train Station Architecture. In: Fraser B, Spalding S (eds) Trains, culture, and mobility: riding the rails. Lexington Books, Plymouth, pp 171–204 Plaza B, Tironi M, Haarich SN (2009) Bilbao’s art scene and the “Guggenheim effect” revisited. Eur Plan Stud 17(11):1711–1729 Ponzini D (2013) Branded megaprojects and fading urban structures in contemporary cities. In: Del Cerro Santamaria G (ed) Urban megaprojects: a worldwide view. Emerald, New York, pp 107–129 Ponzini D, Manfredini F (2017) New methods for studying transnational architecture and urbanism: a primer. Territorio (80):97–110 Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture: scenes, actors and spectacles in contemporary cities. Monacelli, New York Schütz E (1997) Stadtentwicklung durch Hochgeschwindigkeitsverkehr: Konzeptionelle und methodische Ansätze zum Umgang mit den Raumwirkungen des schienengebundenen Personen-Hochgeschwindigkeitsverkehrs als Beitrag zur Lösung von Problemen der Stadtentwicklung. Dissertation, Technische Universität Kaiserslautern Schwarz U (1996) “Motion and Emotion”: Bahnhöfe als Traumhäuser der Moderne. In: Gerkan MV (ed) Renaissance der Bahnhöfe: Die Stadt im 21. Jh. Vieweg, Braunschweig, Wiesbaden, pp 287–291 Terpstra I, Lijesen MG (2015) The impact of high speed rail on airport competition. Tijdschr Econ Soc Geogr 106:263–275. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12103

243

F. Wenner Thierstein A, Wulfhorst G, Bentlage M, Klug S, Gilliard L, Ji C, Kinigadner J, Steiner H, Sterzer L, Wenner F, Zhao J (2016) WAM Wohnen Arbeiten Mobilität. Veränderungsdynamiken und Entwicklungsoptionen für die Metropolregion München. Lehrstuhl für Raumentwicklung und Fachgebiet für Siedlungsstruktur und Verkehrsplanung der Technischen Universität München Trip JJ (2008) What makes a city: Urban quality in Euralille, Amsterdam South Axis and Rotterdam Central. In: Bruinsma F, Pels E, Priemus H, Rietveld P, van Wee B (eds) Railway development: impacts on urban dynamics. Physica, Heidelberg, pp 79–99 TripAdvisor (2018) About TripAdvisor. https://tripadvisor.mediaroom.com/us-aboutus. Accessed 17 December 2018 UIC (2018) High speed rail. Fast track to sustainable mobility. https://uic.org/IMG/pdf/ uic_high_speed_2018_ph08_web.pdf. Accessed 25 Mar 2019 Van Uffelen C (2010) Stations. Architecture in focus. Braun, Salenstein Vickerman R (1997) High-speed rail in Europe: experience and issues for future development. Ann Reg Sci 31:21–38 Zhao J, Bentlage M, Thierstein A (2017) Residence, workplace and commute: interrelated spatial choices of knowledge workers in the metropolitan region of Munich. J Transp Geogr 62:197–212

244

IV

STAR ARCHITECTURE IN HERITAGE RICH CITIES

Star Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations

15

Francesca Cominelli and Sébastien Jacquot

Abstract

This chapter analyses the interplay between the preservation of cultural heritage, especially in UNESCO World Heritage Sites, and the development of star architecture projects in Europe. It will stress the way projects are accepted, conflicts are raised and World Heritage rules and narratives influence the project realisation. The methodology will be based on two main approaches. The first approach is a survey crossing a database of 420 projects designed by star architecture firms since the 1990s in cities and towns with World Heritage Sites, permitting to identify the scenarios of the interplay between star architectures and UNESCO. The second approach consists in a comparison of two case studies of World Heritage Sites that had to face the issue of the integration of star architecture projects: Liverpool and the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin. The comparison is based on the conflicts, assessments and regulations developed in relation with star architecture. Keywords

Star architecture · Urban landscape · Urban planning · World Heritage Sites · Liverpool · Mining Basin · Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin

1 Introduction

F. Cominelli (*) · S. Jacquot Université Paris 1 Panthéon Sorbonne – EA EIREST, Paris, France e-mail: francesca. cominelli@univ-­ paris1.fr; sebastien. [email protected]

A large number of cities since the 1980s, including shrinking cities, started to develop a knowledge- and culture-based economy (Fanstein 1996; Scott 2000; Florida 2002). David Harvey (1989) analysed this major shift in urban local government and explained it was due to the increasing competition among territories. He put emphasis on attractivity policies, meant to reinforce cultural measures for urban regeneration (Bianchini and Parkinson 1993; Zukin 1995) and to attract creative people able to strengthen urban economic growth (Florida 2005). These mentioned trends leading to identify a shift in the urban economy mainly based on the industrial sector until the 1980s and two major strategies regarding the relation to cultural heritage sites previously neglected.

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_15

247

F. Cominelli and S. Jacquot

First, the strategy of heritagisation (Heinich 2009; Gravari-Barbas 2012), characterised by a constant expansion of the heritage field (typological, chronological, spatial) and of heritage producers (local actors, inhabitants, associations, national states, international institutions), nourished, for example, by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) World Heritage designations. Second, the strategy of star architecture (Gravari-Barbas and Renard-Delautre 2015; Ponzini and Nastasi 2016; Alaily-Mattar and Thierstein 2018). The notion of star architecture is slightly different from the notions of flagship or iconic architecture. Flagship architecture refers to large-scale and significant achievements, with the objective to become an emblem of urban change, producing new territorial images (Bianchini et  al. 1992; Smyth 1994). Star architecture refers to the notoriety or fame of the architect or firm, contributing to media coverage, and constituting in itself a legitimation of the project. It can be defined as the production of iconic buildings by internationally known firms, often in relation with mega-events (Olympic Games, European Capital of Culture, etc.), or the building of new museums and cultural centres (Plaza 2000). These two strategies (heritagisation and star architecture) are often combined, but their logics may appear as contradictory (Charney 2007). Thus, this chapter analyses the interplay between the preservation of cultural heritage sites and the development of star architecture projects in Europe. The tension between cultural heritage and new iconic architectures raised an international debate that led to the definition of concepts, categories and processes able to influence the development of architectural projects located in safeguarded area. This debate resulted in the construction of the notion of Historic Urban Landscape, following the Vienna Memorandum on “World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture  – Managing the Historic Urban Landscape” (2005). The challenge was to reconcile contemporary architecture changes with the inherited townscapes (Cullen 1996) and urban heritage. UNESCO and the International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) played a crucial role in that attempt to coordinate the transformations of landscape through star architecture and heritage regulations (Van Oers 2010; World Heritage Centre 2010). In this perspective, this article considers architectural projects in Europe that have gave rise to discussions and, in some cases, conflicts within the UNESCO World Heritage Committee, as well as within public or private organisations that take part in consultation, like ICOMOS. The analysis starts at the European level, in areas directly designated as UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS) or strongly connected with it (buffer zones). The study is based on UNESCO files: official nomination file, advisory body evaluations, mission reports, periodic reporting, states of conservation reports and World Heritage Committee’s decisions1. These documents permit to understand how star architecture projects have been presented, if they have raised a debate within the Committee These files are available online on the UNESCO database dedicated to WHS.

1 

248

15  Star Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations

and how eventual conflicts have been tackled. This overall analysis will be followed by the study of two specific cases: Liverpool and the NordPas de Calais Mining Basin.

2 Crossing World Heritage Files and Star Architecture Projects This section identifies the types of relations between star architecture projects and WHS in Europe, from acceptance to conflicts and the impact of World Heritage rules and narratives on the way star architecture is accepted and implemented on a territory. This analysis is built of two scales: the overall study (refer to Sects. 1 and 2) will enable the justification of the selection of two case studies (refer to Sect. 3).

Database Construction The starting point is the identification of cities and sites in Europe that have been inscribed on the UNESCO World Heritage List (WHL) and where star architecture firms completed one or more projects. The database produced by Ponzini and Manfredini (2017), corresponding to projects designed by star architecture firms in Europe from 1990 to 2014, was used and was crossed with the WHL and the UNESCO files referring to the management of World Heritage properties. Among the 471 WHS inscribed in Europe, 73 are ongoing concern of one or many star architecture projects, within or outside the WHS boundaries, for a total of 420 star architecture projects, constituting the corpus of enquiry. This reveals that the issue of the coexistence between star architecture and heritage is not marginal, but concerns many WHS. Consequently, to identify the interplay between star architecture projects and heritage management, the documents produced by the UNESCO World Heritage Centre concerning the WHS selected were consulted. These files, listed in the introduction, constitute an archive permanently updated of the debates that arose around the management of the sites. This initial general survey shows three main difficulties in understanding the relations between star architecture and WHS. Firstly, in most cases, star architecture projects are located outside the limits of the WHS, for instance, in other neighbourhood of the metropolitan area. But this separation between heritage and star architecture does not mean a mere spatial distinction. The process of World Heritage designation produces a complex zoning, distinguishing between the “core zone” and the “buffer zone”. The core zone is the area that is supposed to epitomise the “Outstanding Universal Value” (OUV), whereas the buffer zone is aimed at “enhancing the integrity and management” of the WHS and ensures “the protection of the views and settings of an urban area” (Martin and Piatti 2009). It is not possible to just constrain the analysis to the WHS area: star architecture may have a visual impact even built outside the heritage 249

F. Cominelli and S. Jacquot

perimeter, and this visual relationship justifies regulations. Moreover, the establishment of such projects may lead to conceive a new perimeter of the buffer zone. Secondly, the database constructed only takes into account projects that have been completed, and not the ones that have been cancelled due to heritage regulations. For instance, in Cologne the 2002 Master Plan enabled the construction of high-rise buildings, but this possibility was cancelled following the intervention and the debates raised by UNESCO. Thirdly, the category of star architecture is not used by UNESCO: the mission reports and committee decisions refer to new buildings, and their impacts on the views. So, the selected corpus neglects all decisions concerning architectural projects that have not been conducted by star architects. But, only in rare cases the architectural features (and not only the volumetric of new developments) are explicitly a matter of discussion and assessment. In any case, the UNESCO’s concern is mainly related to the impact of the architectural projects on heritage landscape.

Database Analysis The analysis of the database reveals a large range of situations. Thus, this section presents five scenarios of WHS management dealing with star architecture. First scenario  In most cases, there is no mention of the relation between star architecture projects and the WHS, since projects have been built outside the boundaries or the buffer zone. In Le Havre, inscribed in 2005, Les Bains des Docks is located outside the buffer zone. In Roskilde, the Kostermark School is far from the Cathedral inscribed in 1995. In fact, most of the WHS are monuments, with a limited buffer zone, and are not concerned in this debate (e.g. the Town Houses of Victor Horta in Brussels or the Cathedral of Perigueux on the road to Compostela). Another reason for this lack of references is the fact that star architectures have been built, in some cases, before the UNESCO nomination, and are consequently included within the area of the site or its buffer zone at the time of the application. For instance, in Hamburg, the WHS had been inscribed in 2015 (Speicherstadt and Kontorhaus District with Chilehaus), and the buffer zone contains one star building (Hanseatic Trade Centre) and three other constructions that have been built between 1999 and 2010, very close to it, within its visual axis. Second scenario  Star architecture projects are explicitly developed outside of the WHS, in the context of a lower standard of heritage regulation. In this case, the lack of a buffer zone constitutes a way to define relations between the WHS and the possibility of contemporary architecture. In Hamburg, some debates during the application process concerned the size of the buffer zone and aimed to protect the views from potential urban 250

15  Star Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations

developments. Nevertheless, the World Heritage nomination file justifies the nonextension: “the densely builtup area around the ensemble largely consists of high buildings so that the nominated ensemble cannot be experienced from outside the buffer zone”. In Arles (France), inscribed as WHS in 1981, the boundaries of the site have been mapped in 2006 but the buffer zone was not defined. The periodic report of 2014, edited by the State, mentions the tower of the LUMA Project by Frank Gehry, which is outside the WHS, but so close that the establishment of a buffer zone would certainly raise a debate about its inclusion inside. In Paris, the Banks of the Seine were inscribed on the WHL in 1991, while the boundaries of the site have been mapped in 2011, but the periodic reporting files from 2014 mention the necessity to adapt its perimeter in order to include the Quai Branly Museum, designed by Jean Nouvel in 2006. In that perspective, star architecture can be included in the WHS, defining a new type of relation, which is explained in the next scenario. Third scenario  In few cases, star architecture projects have been regarded as part of the WHS values, such as in Essen (Zollverein Coal Mine Industrial Complex, inscribed in 2001) or in Saint-Emilion. Related to the project in Essen, in the application, Forster’s intervention (Red Dot Design Museum Essen) is justified by the fact that it will “preserve the outer appearance of the ensemble” and the ICOMOS evaluation approved it. In Saint-Emilion, new wineries have been built inside the WHS or its buffer zone, such as the Cheval Blanc in 2011 by the Atelier Christian de Portzamparc, but no objections have been formulated officially. Moreover, the “World Heritage Management Plan” established in 2013 and published on the UNESCO website justifies the legitimacy of these new buildings, by quoting the Memorandum of Vienna (2005). According to that World Heritage Management Plan, the cultural landscape should be conceived as evolutionary, to integrate new artefacts. Fourth scenario  In some cases, contemporary projects raise opposition or doubts from ICOMOS or the World Heritage Committee, such as in Riga or Warsaw. These two WHS reveal the history of long and intense debates concerning the integration of contemporary architecture within the site. In most cases, these projects are not built by star architecture firms, and in official documents the name of the architect is not mentioned when the compatibility with the WHS was discussed. In Riga, in 2003, the National Commission of Latvia and the State Inspection for Heritage Protection alerted UNESCO about the construction of a 23-storey tower (the “Saules Akmens” project), within the buffer zone, threatening the visual integrity of the WHS. A 2004 law enabled “modification of a number of projects taking into consideration the cultural historical environment of Historic Centre” (State of Conservation: Riga, 2005), but the debate remained focused on the limitation of the heights of new buildings within the zone of implementation. Nevertheless, in the 2009 State of Conservation Report, a new concern emerged about the “quality of much contemporary infill architecture”, as “some projects, concerning scale 251

F. Cominelli and S. Jacquot

and concept, do not fit into the traditional historic fabric and streetscape”, leaving room for a new criterion for negotiations. For instance, related to the construction of Citadeles Moduli, the website of the firm explained that “the architect Meinhard von Gerkan succeeded in convincing the authorities – after agreement with UNESCO – about his modern design for Riga”. The opposition to controversial projects in Riga produced new regulations, and a new scenario. Fifth scenario  New regulations emerge, following debates, conceiving the establishment of criteria to accept contemporary architecture. For instance, in Warsaw historical centre (inscribed in 1980), two star architecture buildings have been constructed in the perimeter in 2013 and 2014: a 52-storey skyscraper by Daniel Libeskind and a 44-storey skyscraper by Helmut Jahn. The periodic reporting of 2006 mentioned the need to preserve the old town panorama which faced urban development pressures, but in 2014 a buffer zone was approved, 666 hectares surrounding the historic centre, integrating into the perimeter the two aforementioned towers. At the same time, local authorities were encouraged to realise urban plans to cover the whole buffer zone and to establish rules to urban development. This shows a new relation between star architecture and WHS: a regulation a posteriori or the redefinition of architectural project, through negotiations. So, even if UNESCO does not thematise, as such, the relationship between heritage protection and star architecture, the debate arises through the integration of contemporary buildings or the World Heritage management views in and beyond UNESCO-inscribed areas. This issue can influence the local debate and choice of star architecture projects or can lead to more open conflicts when a shared solution is not negotiated before.

In-Depth Case Study Analysis The general survey presented above shows the complexity of cases, conflicts and solutions. It seems thus necessary to complete this broader survey by an in-depth case study analysis addressing three main issues. First talks about the contradictions that can emerge in WHS when star architecture projects are implemented. Second is the role played by heritage stakeholders, especially UNESCO, in the definition of limits and constraints, and the peculiar narratives used to express the articulation of star architecture with heritage conservation. This UNESCO “vocabulary” enables us to identify the criteria used to authorise, criticise or reject some projects. Third is the identification of the relations between pro-growth coalitions that laud star architecture projects and heritage stakeholders and pro-­ regulation coalitions at both local and global level. The dynamics of negotiation among multiple stakeholders and their divergent interests seem to lead to the selection, normalisation and renegotiation of star architecture 252

15  Star Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations

projects, and the development of new patterns of urban planning and decision-­making in WHS. Each above question will be analysed with reference to two specific case studies: Liverpool and the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin. These cases will not be treated as independent ones, but will be mobilised in parallel throughout the chapter, an attempt to show how similar conflicts can lead to different solutions and how these different solutions can be seen as a new discourse learnt by heritage actors and architects and integrated through the years within their practices. The first case, Liverpool, was inscribed on the WHL in 2004 as “Liverpool, Maritime Mercantile City” and its perimeter extends from the historic centre to docklands along the River Mersey. The City had been inscribed in a time of major urban projects concerning the waterfront. Several conflicts emerged at various scales, among local stakeholders and in relation with international institutions. The second case, the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin, was inscribed on the WHL in 2012, eight years after Liverpool. The site is described as a landscape that has been shaped by coal extractions from the seventeenth until the twentieth century. It covers an area of 120,000 hectares, and it is characterised by mining and coal transport infrastructure, railway stations, workers’ mining villages and the presence of the Louvre-Lens Museum, a star architecture building.

3 How the Relationship Between Star Architecture and a World Heritage Site Is Established in Liverpool and Lens The World Heritage status implies that the contradiction between urban development and heritage preservation should be expressed in relation to the notion of Outstanding Universal Value (OUV) that became central in the 2000s (Labadi 2013). The narratives related to star architecture seem somehow to justify a threat or to express a compatibility. This may lead to a “criteriology” to assess star architectural developments within or around WHS (Heinich 2009). Liverpool and the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin illustrate various scenarios of the relation between star architectures and World Heritage: from the perception of a “threat” to the attempt of “conciliation”.

 Fourth Grace in Liverpool? The Taming of an Iconic A Architecture In the case of Liverpool, the UNESCO World Heritage designation was regarded at the beginning by local stakeholders as an adjuvant of urban regeneration, a process that was initiated in the 1980s, with the e­ stablishment 253

F. Cominelli and S. Jacquot

of the Merseyside Development Corporation (Parkinson 1993). This corporation aimed at reversing the decline of the city, as the decrease of the port activity, depopulation and processes of deindustrialisation set in. Among the first project realised was the refurbishment of the nineteenth-­ century Royal Albert Dock with museums (including the Tate Liverpool, first outreach satellite of Tate Gallery, opened in 1988), hotels and restaurants. In the 1990s a consensus emerged through various public private partnerships conducting projects in the city centre, led by Liverpool Vision. At the time of the UNESCO application, the goal was to become “a world-class city”, and the label was regarded as a recognition of this world status. The main objective was to build a consensus between heritage and development. As stated in the nomination file (Liverpool City Council 2003): “The World Heritage Site Management Plan will be a crucial planning tool in addressing potential tensions between regeneration and conservation. It will seek to develop criteria against which developments can be assessed and create a consensus” (p. 223). Nevertheless, some conflicts arose. The first debate emerged at the time of application, with the project of the Fourth Grace. This project consisted in a new museum, in the core of the UNESCO area, nearby the Pier Head, the main monumental waterfront, and the three Edwardian commercial buildings known as the Three Graces (Aughton 2003). In 2002, Liverpool launched the call for projects. The selected project “The Cloud” had been designed by Will Alsop. Two additional buildings were planned for residential and commercial uses to fund the main building. The project is also called the “Fourth Grace”. This project was cancelled in 2004, but the explanations are not clear: the official reason is the increase in costs. However, the World Heritage Committee during the debates about the inscription of Liverpool in 2004 assessed that the project may already affect the OUV. The World Heritage Committee considered that new architectures on the waterfront should be “recessive” rather than “dominant” or “intrusive”. Following these debates, a milder and less spectacular project than Will Alsop’s was chosen, no longer called the “Fourth Grace”, designed by the Danish firm 3XN (Kim Herforth Nielsen) and inaugurated in 2011. The UNESCO-ICOMOS report mission in 2006 proposed two criteria to assess this project: the townscapes characteristics and the sense of place (World Heritage 2006). The museum was judged respectful according to its height, size and position thereto. The mission report in 2011 concluded on the basis of the volumetric and situational aspects that this new museum had a less disturbing effect on the Pier Head. The architect implicitly admitted this recessive architecture, as he declared that he did not want to compete with the Three Graces and that, on the contrary, the building offers a view from the top valorising the three historical buildings. In this case, the protection of heritage values implies a less ambitious architectural project. The observation is thus the shift from star architecture to a less spectacular project.

254

15  Star Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations

An Assessment Referring to the Townscape Characteristics Following the Fourth Grace case, other urban and architectural projects contributed to transform, over the years, the city centre of Liverpool, putting the World Heritage status under threat, as illustrated by the declarations of the World Heritage Committee. The main issue raised by UNESCO was no longer the protection of the Three Graces, but the more general features of the city centre, along the docks, as these other projects threatened the views from or to the UNESCO site, especially within the buffer zone (refer to Fig. 15.1). Nevertheless, not every project is regarded as a threat: one of the most important projects, Liverpool One, designed by Cesar Pelli, a mixed-use development on 17 hectares of former open fields in the city centre, was completed in 2008, and UNESCO periodic reporting stated that it is a “major success”. On the contrary, the other major development project, Liverpool Waters, appears more controversial (refer to Fig.  15.2). It is developed by the Peel Group (one of the most important real estate investment companies in the United Kingdom, that bought the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company in 2005) where the main concern was the height of the planned buildings, up to 55 storeys, located inside the buffer zone and threatening the landscape and the views, in various sides of the UNESCO site. The planning and the implementation of these multiple real estate projects led to the inscription of Liverpool on the WHL “in danger” in 2012, and the last evaluation by the World Heritage Committee in 2017 clearly mentioned the possibility to delete the territory from the WHL, on the basis of the threat on its landscape resulting from the Liverpool Waters2 project and the planning permission granted for a 34-storey tower (UNESCO, Decision 41 COM 7A.22, 2017).

Lens: Two Joint Projects for Urban Regeneration The inscription of the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin on the WHL in 2012 and the joint inauguration of the Louvre-Lens Museum represent another example of a strategy sustained by public and private actors seeking to use heritage in the purpose of urban regeneration (Fagnoni 2013). The case of Lens is not a pioneer project: since the 1980s culture is seen as the “magical recipe” for development (Sacco et al. 2013) and as able to generate spillover effects on other sectors (Cooke and Lazzeretti 2008; Greffe and Pflieger 2005; KEA 2009; Towse 2011). Compared to the case of Liverpool, this example is interesting because, few decades later, it seems to have perfectly integrated the vocabulary, narratives and rhetoric needed to make heritage and star architecture projects successful, to smooth conflicts and to gather together all divergent interests of stakeholders in the name of culture, development, heritage, innovation and cultural Liverpool Waters is a large-scale urban project developed by the Peel Group along the River Mersey at the north of the Albert Dock close to the very centre of the WHS. 2 

255

F. Cominelli and S. Jacquot

New Museum Railways Primary Roads

256

100 200

400m

15  Star Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations Fig. 15.1 The waterfront of Liverpool. The socalled Three Graces (the historic buildings at the centre right in this photograph) that represent the heritage of the city of Liverpool are quite distinct in the skyline. The contemporary and future additions to these buildings caused heated debates regarding the urban landscape and its meaning for the city of Liverpool. (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2013)

Fig. 15.2  The new museum in the wider neighbourhood in Liverpool waterfront. It is located inside the WHS, close to the Three Graces but also in the perspective between the Three Graces and the Albert Dock. This very sensible position explains the debates that arose concerning the architecture of this project, leading to the cancellation of a first version (The Cloud by Will Alsop), regarded as too prominent. On the west part of the waterfront is the developed Liverpool Waters, an important development project. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap Alexander Arndt)

creativity. The UNESCO designation and the Louvre brand clearly accompany and legitimise the construction of a post-industrial and knowledge-­ based economy in a territory where, from 1960 until 1990, the coal mining activity gradually ceased, leaving 220,000 unemployed miners and their families. The decision to create the Louvre-Lens Museum was motivated in 2003 by the will of the French Minister of Culture, Jean-Jacques Aillagon, to relocate part of the collections of the main cultural institutions, especially overcrowded ones, out of Paris. In 2004, Lens, a city in northern France was chosen for the implementation of this new Louvre Museum, hosting part of its collections. An agreement was signed between the Louvre Museum and the Regional Council of Nord-Pas-de-Calais (nowadays Hauts-de-France). The motivation of both institutions permitted to match the cultural and political purposes, but also the region’s financial resources with the Louvre brand. The national press stressed the link among heritage, local communities and urban and economic revitalisation. The newspaper Le Monde wrote “Fourteen years after the closing of the last mine shaft, the inhabitants of the sub-prefecture of Pas-de-Calais have mobilised around their Mayor to win this prestigious museum” (Chirot 2004). And the project was announced using words like “a historic and eternal gift”, “a renaissance”, “a culture shock”, “an original architecture”. The link with the historical and future UNESCO site was also stressed: “Lens does not want to break with its past [...] to the point where an association is campaigning to have the mining landscape classified as UNESCO World Heritage Site”3 (ibid.) (refer to Fig. 15.3). The international architectural competition was launched in 2005 and 120 firms of 12 different nationalities were received. In 29 April, the jury selected six finalists: the local architect Jérôme de Alzua, Zaha Hadid, Steven Holl, Rudy Ricciotti, Sejima And Nishizawa And Associates (SANAA) (Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa), Jean-Philippe Vassal and Anne Lacaton. At the end of 2005, the projects were exhibited to make the population aware of the future transformation of the territory (Guilain and Bonvarlet 2005). The project of the Japanese firm SANAA was finally selected, and the constructions started on 4 December 2009, to be finalised three years later. The link between the two projects, the star architecture and the WHS, could have been problematic since the new construction was meant to be realised within the area of the mining pit Saint-Théodore that opened in 1890 and was finally closed in 1960. The remains of these mining pits were still charged with memory and their demolition to make place to the new museum was controversial. Those conflicts were not ignored by the local authorities and the SANAA international firm since the beginning stressed the intention to create a building that integrates with the site, without overwhelming it with its presence. Consequently, the Louvre-Lens Museum and the potential designation of the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin as WHS can be seen as two different ways towards a common objective: the economic development, especially through touristic attractiveness. In this perspective, the Mission Translations by the authors

3 

257

F. Cominelli and S. Jacquot

Louvre Lens Museum Railways Primary Roads

258

100 200

400m

15  Star Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations Fig. 15.3 The LouvreLens Museum in the wider neighbourhood. It is located in an ancient site of the Mining Basin, the pit 9/9bis. The architectural project goes beyond the museum, thanks to a 20-hectare park, designed by the landscape architect Catherine Mosbach, and a broader urban plan that strengthens the connection between the museum and the city, through 4 kilometres of walking paths, more than 1000 parking spaces and a system of bridges designed by Christian de Portzamparc. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap Alexander Arndt)

Louvre-Lens Tourism was created to conceive and accompany the development of the destination Around Louvre-Lens (ALL). This approach confirms a more global tendency to match the processes of heritagisation with touristic development. In fact, on the one hand, all over the world we assist to an expansion of the notion of cultural heritage and of conservation policies that arrive to include, within their boundaries, industrial sites (Heinich 2009), and on the other hand, tourism becomes a major force to initiate the transformation of territories valorising any form of cultural heritage and involving a multiplicity of actors (Delaplace and Gravari-­Barbas 2016) (refer to Fig. 15.4).

4 The Emerging of a UNESCO “Vocabulary” and “Discourse” Influencing Project Stakeholders The dynamics of urban regeneration in Liverpool or Lens may endanger heritage values, conceiving a discourse that can stress either the threat or the necessary integration of the architectural project within the territory or landscape. So, what in both cases are the vocabulary and the conceptual basis that incite a perception of threat or integration?

Liverpool: Height as a Major Threat to Landscape

Fig. 15.4 The LouvreLens Museum designed by SANAA. The building for the new museum has been designed with the goal of integrating the structure into the landscape surrounding it. (Source: Photograph by Michele Nastasi, 2013)

The consideration of all the UNESCO decisions relative to Liverpool enables the identification of the nature of the threat and, implicitly, the criteria that should follow new developments. In UNESCO reports the notion of “development” is omnipresent: it appears 163 times in the report missions and 35 times in the decisions. So, the threat on the OUV in relation with Liverpool Waters is clearly associated to new projects, even if the conservation of historic buildings is always regarded as successful. Moreover, the notion of development is not in itself presented as negative: it is used either to indicate the overall context of the decisions or to laud Liverpool to define a strategy between development and the conservation of the OUV. Firstly, the narratives of the threat are based on the “visual integrity of the site” (World Heritage, Mission Report in 2006) and the townscape. More specifically, they define this visual integrity through a variety of points of view (on the skyline, on the riverfront) and mostly through the control of density and heights of buildings. Secondly, the threat is characterised as a threat to “wider values”, referring to building density, urban patterns and the sense of place. For instance, the Mission Report of 2006 assessed Paradise Street’s contemporary architecture interventions as acceptable, as they “follow the traditional urban pattern, building height and the rhythm of the historic facades”. Thirdly, in 259

F. Cominelli and S. Jacquot

the Mission Report, the notion of “setting” is also used widely, to indicate the need to articulate the preservation of the UNESCO core zone with the buffer zone.

 he Louvre-Lens Museum: An Iconic Symbol T of Regeneration The case of the Louvre-Lens Museum is also emblematic because it did not raise an open conflict with UNESCO.  The project is mentioned 62 times in the nomination file. It is recognised, by the document, as one of the projects that will redefine the structure of the territory and its urban planning. This project is also mentioned stressing its attractiveness potential in terms of number of visitor and more globally as a crucial element of the destination. The document does not mention the architectural characteristics of the projects and its coherence with the site, but mainly its importance as factor for economic growth for the area: “great infrastructures”, “a challenge and a chance”, “a considerable engine for tourism”, “tremendous accelerator of development”. The question of the coherence with the WHS seems to be expressed and solved since the beginning. In fact, all the six preselected projects stress their capacity of being integrated within the landscape of the site. The SANAA firm states: We try to implement devices that allow a smooth transition to the environment, through transparency, reflections or direct opening to the outside. Not to know where the landscape stops and where the building begins, this is most often our intention.4 (Louvre-Lens website, Kazuyo Sejima and Ryue Nishizawa, 2018)

The relation of continuity with the landscape is thus a purpose of the project; the horizontal lines have been chosen to avoid “conflicts” with the fragile beauty of the site. The architectural gesture of a star architecture seems here to be perfectly controlled to respond to the needs and constraints of the WHS.

5 Towards New Systems of Regulation and Planning It has been seen that UNESCO produces documents that contribute to the regulation of urban and landscape changes of each WHS, but also produce a vocabulary and a discourse that can be appropriated by other stakeholders beyond the institution. Those different stakeholders (e.g. public authorities, urban development agencies, etc.) mobilise criteria, rhetoric and processes to justify architectural projects and avoid their rejection. This raises the issue of territorial regulation, combining various scales and objectives. This section analyses the relations between pro-growth Translation by the authors.

4 

260

15  Star Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations

coalitions that extol star architecture projects and heritage stakeholders, to understand the dynamics of negotiation among multiple stakeholder. The expression “pro-growth coalition” (Logan and Molotch 1987) refers to a large public and private coalition whose goal is the pursuit of economic growth and urban development, through the production of a consensus on the agenda of urban development. To what extent do heritage narratives and rules resulting from UNESCO designation transform these regulations? The comparison between Liverpool and Lens reveals two ways of integrating heritage issues in the process of urban regeneration.

 iverpool: Pro-growth Coalition Vs Pro-regulation L Coalition In Liverpool, from the 1990s a consensus emerged to define urban regeneration as a tool to redevelop the city, through private and public partnerships such as Liverpool Vision and Northwest Regional Development Agency. Priority is given to urban development, rather than the preservation of the UNESCO values, regardless of the political party that control the City Council. At the time of the application, the Liberal Democrats Party had leadership, and the main opponent was Joe Anderson, from the Labour Party, who criticised the methodology of urban development. But when Joe Anderson became mayor, he described the UNESCO title as a “plaque on the wall” and that it is “dispensable”. So regardless of political affiliations, the agenda remains the same, in favour of development. Indeed, the city council has constantly minimised the impact of the World Heritage title on development projects, presenting the relation as complementary, without mentioning the commitments it implied. Moreover, the Liverpool City Council has approved projects that have been assessed negatively by heritage institutions, refusing to reconsider their authorisation, despite the alerts of UNESCO and national institutions (in UNESCO decisions from 2011 to 2018). In reaction, several movements constituted a pro-regulation coalition, led by the Merseyside Civic Society, with some officers of the Liverpool City Council who collaborated in an informal way, or English Heritage striving to diffuse the need of efficient planning. This coalition used ­strategically the title of World Heritage to alert and pressure for the development of projects on the waterfront. It is only in 2017 that the Liverpool City Mayor officially took public initiatives to “reset the relationship with UNESCO”, but without reconsidering the overall project of the waterfront (Liverpool Waters mainly). The main pressure on regulation relies in UNESCO policies, through the scrutiny of the site and the inscription on the WHS in Danger in 2012. Through this mechanism Liverpool is encouraged to stop all new project authorisations. The threat of the withdrawal from the WHL induced the intervention of national institutions, such as the Department of Culture, English Heritage. Facing UNESCO recommendations, the Liverpool City Council 261

F. Cominelli and S. Jacquot

strives to argue that all the stakeholders, including the Peel Group, are aware of the need to protect the OUV. But this implies also more concrete measures and politics. The first direction to conciliate urban development and heritage relies in the planning system. In the Unitary Development Plan of 2002, the notions of setting, landmarks, skyline and views are presented as key in the process of planning permission. At the national level in 2002, a “Guidance on Tall Buildings” has been adopted and then actualised by English Heritage and the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment (CABE). Liverpool has set up a local application of that Guidance, through a Supplementary Planning Document “The Tall Buildings” in 2004 that defines clusters for tall buildings, but it has not been applied by the local government due to critics from the private sector. Nevertheless, the condition of WHS implies deeper commitments. First the application file itself has to prove that the OUV would be protected correctly. In 2009 a specific planning document, concerning the UNESCO site, has been passed, defining the importance of the views and integrating the buffer zone as part of the setting. Nevertheless, it was not sufficient to prevent the authorisation of the Liverpool Waters project that had the support of local authorities. So UNESCO since 2012 asks Liverpool to have stronger commitments, through new planning tools, which is still in discussion. The second issue is to set up clear criteria to indicate the projects that could be accepted. In 2004, the delegations of Lebanon and the Netherlands expressed the need for clear criteria to accept or not projects on the Pier Head, in the case of the Fourth Grace. English Heritage has developed a methodology whereas the new management plan for Liverpool is supposed to precise the criteria of such assessment, by better defining the OUV. The idea is to encourage pre-discussions around a project to verify its compatibility with the OUV. As analysed before, it is mainly analysed through its effect on urban landscape.

Lens: Regulation Tools and the Search for Cohesion The implementation of the urban regeneration process connected to the Louvre-Lens Museum and the World Heritage nomination is managed by taking into account both heritage and economic priorities (Boquet 2014). The city of Lens, aware of its mining heritage, has gradually developed some tools, plans and frameworks for safeguarding it. For instance, the territory of Lens-Liévin has been labelled “Pays d’Art et d’Histoire” and the Local Urban Plan has been used to enhance local architecture, improving the links between neighbourhoods that have been built to respond to the needs of mining activities. In addition, Lens set up a technical partnership with the tourism and heritage authorities and with other economic stakeholders gathered together by Euralens, a forum of actors whose objective is to take advantage of the arrival of the Louvre-Lens Museum to activate the development of the territory. Euralens includes local authorities, public actors and also more explicitly pro-growth coalition like the 262

15  Star Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations

Chambers of Commerce and Industry and plays the role of incubator of projects and economic development. The association has contributed to the organisation of a structured cooperation around the city of Lens that led to the creation of the Metropolitan Pole of Artois, bringing together 150 municipalities and nearly 650,000 inhabitants (Euralens 2017). Euralens is thus an overall structure that seeks to focus the interest of multiple stakeholders and creates synergies between the mining area and the Louvre-Lens Museum project, seeking to avoid conflicts. According to the nomination and periodic reporting files, Euralens was created to accompany the insertion of the Louvre-Lens Museum within the territory, focusing on thematic districts: new technologies, arts and crafts and tourism. In this sense, Euralens labelled and sustained some crucial projects: the Louvre-Lens Vallée, a cluster focused on cultural innovation that aims at matching culture and new technologies, and the Institute of Arts and Crafts and Heritage (IMAP), a network of excellence for crafts and heritage. A major action meant to regulate the local activities towards a common objective is the implementation of the Destination Contract ALL − Around Louvre-Lens (ADRT du Pas-de-Calais 2015, 2018). The Destination Contract is a tool designed at the National level by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Development in order to sustain the emerging of new destinations in France. It is signed by the Ministry, with regional and local, public and private organisations. The opening of the Louvre-Lens Museum and the nomination of the mining area as WHS in 2012 contributed to give birth to this destination. The project is carried by the Mission Louvre-Lens Tourism that works in close collaboration with all the actors in charge of tourism. This project is explicitly meant to accompany the process of economic reconversion of the mining basin. Thus, the touristic strategy seems here to become a response to a combination of difficulties: a crisis of traditional economic activities, a crisis of attractiveness, an urban crisis. The Louvre-Lens Museum and its architecture are at the centre of this project “Around Louvre-Lens”, they are fundamental factors reshaping the mining landscape and playing a symbolic and active role as catalyst of different actions and interests. In this sense, the Louvre-Lens Museum has strongly contributed to improve the living environment, to redesign public spaces and to foster the development of new businesses, especially in the tourist sector. The 2017 report (Euralens 2017) states that 86% of the inhabitants is proud of the museum and considers it has largely contributed to change the image of the city.

6 Conclusion The issue of this chapter was to show at the European level, through the database analysis and then more precisely through the in-depth study case analysis on how heritage and star architecture projects are combined and used nowadays as major factors for territorial regeneration and economic development. In particular, within this broad issue, the focus was on the 263

F. Cominelli and S. Jacquot

conflicts that, on the one hand, the implementation of heritage project, such as the inscription and management of WHS, and, on the other hand, the realisation of star architecture projects can raise and what can be the possible scenarios of these relations. The more conflictual case of Liverpool and the case of Louvre-Lens Museum and the Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin have shown how tensions can be raised; how heritage, architecture and economic stakeholders can be influenced by the emerging of a UNESCO “vocabulary” and “discourse”; and finally which systems of regulation and planning can be implemented. The development of planning tools can smooth potential conflicts raised between heritage and star architectures. It seems following the dynamics of Liverpool and Lens that heritage priorities and constraints can have an impact on the circulation, implementation and transformation of star architecture projects. The vocabulary chosen to present star architectures in WHS, the management projects developed as well as the architectural features take advantage of previous experiences and become conscious of the discourse to adopt to incite collaboration among all actors and avoid resistances. The less and less conflicts are raised at the international level, like the analysis of UNESCO files show, and even pro-growth coalitions seek to avoid these debates, preferring solutions that adapt the size, height, location and effect of views of the new constructions to the constraints of WHS. Star architecture, especially in heritage sites, seem to be implemented not only for their originality and visibility but also for their capacity of dialoguing with the environment, respecting the landscape view. A few decades after the Bilbao phenomenon, heritagisation and the construction of star buildings seem to endure as a strategy for cities and territories to rethink their future, and especially their economy and development. Furthermore, the decrease of the conflicts among those two dynamics seems to be achieved through negotiation, planning, projects developed involving inhabitants and their aspirations and integrating heritage values to the implementation process.

References ADRT du Pas-de-Calais, Mission Louvre-Lens Tourism (2015) Contrat de destination. Autour du Louvre-Lens ADRT du Pas-de-Calais, Mission Louvre-Lens Tourism (2018) Contrat de destination. Autour du Louvre-Lens Alaily-Mattar N, Thierstein A (2018) Urban transformations through exceptional architecture: introduction. J Urban Design 23(2):165–168 Aughton P (2003) Liverpool: a people’s history. Carnegie, Lancaster Bianchini F, Parkinson M (eds) (1993) Cultural policy and urban regeneration. The West European experience. University Press, Manchester Bianchini F, Dawson J, Evans R (1992) Flagship projects in urban regeneration. In: Healey P, Davoudi S, Tavsanoglu S (eds) Rebuilding the city; property-led urban regeneration. E & FN Spon, London Boquet M (2014) L’impact touristique des nouveaux musées : analyse des relations entre l’environnement urbain et la spatialisation de l’impact à travers les exemples du Centre Pompidou-Metz et du Louvre-Lens. Revue belge de géographie 1, Belgeo 264

15  Star Architecture Landing in UNESCO Sites: Local Frictions and Regulations Charney I (2007) The politics of design: architecture, tall buildings and the Skyline of Central London. Area 29(2):195–205 Chirot F (2004) Lens espère que l'arrivée du Louvre II fera revivre l'ancien bassin minier. Le Monde, 17 December:16 Cooke P, Lazzeretti L (eds) (2008) Creative cities, cultural clusters and local economic development. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Cullen G (1996, 1961) The concise townscape. Architectural Press, Oxford Delaplace M, Gravari-Barbas M (2016) Nouveaux territoires touristiques. Invention, reconfiguration, repositionnement. Presses de l’Université du Québec, Québec Euralens (2017) Louvre-Lens, 5 ans ! Chiffres clés et impacts 2012–2017. Livret Euralens 12 Fagnoni E (2013) Patrimoine versus mondialisation ? Revue Géographique de l’Est 53(3/4) Fanstein S (1996) The changing world economy and urban restructuring. In: Fanstein S, Campbell S (eds) Readings in urban theory. Blackwell, New York/London Florida R (2002) The rise of the creative class. And how it’s transforming work, leisure and everyday life. Basic Books, New York Florida R (2005) Cities and the creative class. Routledge, New York Gravari-Barbas M (2012) Tourisme et patrimoine, le temps des synergies ?. In Khaznadar C (ed) Le patrimoine oui, mais quel patrimoine. Babel, collection Internationale de l’imaginaire 27, pp 375–399 Gravari-Barbas M, Renard-Delautre C (2015) Starchitecture(s), figures d’architectes et espace urbain. L’Harmattan Greffe X, Pflieger S (2005) La culture et le développement local. OCDE, Paris Guilain AC, Bonvarlet JY (2005) Louvre-Lens: quel aurait été votre choix ?. La Voix du Nord, 24 December 2005 Harvey D (1989) From managerialism to entrepreneurialism: the transformation in urban governance in late capitalism. Geografiska Annaler, Series B, Human Geography, The Roots of Geographical Change: 1973 to the Present 71(1):3–17 Heinich N (2009) La fabrique du patrimoine. De la cathédrale à la petite cuillère. Maison des Sciences de l'Homme, coll. « Ethnologie de la France » KEA (2009) The impact of culture on creativity. KEA European Affairs, Brussels Labadi S (2013) UNESCO, world heritage, and outstanding universal value, value-­ based, analyses of the world heritage and intangible cultural heritage conventions. AltaMira Press, Plymouth Liverpool City Council (2003) Maritime Mercantile City Liverpool. Nomination of Liverpool – Maritime Mercantile city for Inscription on the World Heritage List Logan JR, Molotch HL (1987) Urban fortunes, the political economy of place. University of California Press, Berkeley Martin O, Piatti G (2009) World heritage and buffer zones. UNESCO World Heritage Centre Parkinson M (1993) Liverpool: a tale of missed opportunities. In: Bianchini F, Parkinson M (eds) Cultural policy and urban regeneration. Manchester University Press, Manchester, pp 155–177 Plaza B (2000) Guggenheim museum’s effectiveness to attract tourism. Ann Tour Res 27(4):1055–1058 Ponzini D, Manfredini F (2017) New methods for studying transnational urbanism and architecture: a primer. Territorio 80:97–110 Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture: scenes, actors, and spectacles in contemporary cities. The Monacelli Press, New York Sacco P, Ferilli G, Blessi GT (2013) Understanding culture-led local development: a critique of alternative theoretical explanations. Urban Stud 10. https://doi. org/10.1177/0042098013512876 Scott A (2000) The cultural economy of cities. Sage Publications, Londres Smyth H (1994) Marketing the City. The role of flagship developments in urban regeneration. Taylor and Francis Towse R (ed) (2011) A handbook of cultural economies. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham Van Oers R (2010) Towards new international guidelines for the conservation of the historic urban landscape. City & Time 3(3) 265

F. Cominelli and S. Jacquot World Heritage (2006) Report of the joint UNESCO-ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission to Liverpool- Maritime Mercantile City, UK World Heritage Centre (2010) Managing historic cities. World Heritage Papers 27:242 Zukin S (1995) The culture of city. Blackwell, Oxford

266

The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens

16

Maria Gravari-Barbas

Abstract

The Acropolis Museum in Athens illustrates the difficulties in reconciling the desire of star architecture projects to stand out from and the need to integrate the existing historic urban fabric. This “premium” museum was expected to firmly establish Athens among international cultural urban destinations, yet it faced significant frictions in its landing within a complex urban landscape, under the sacred rock of the Acropolis. The long-standing controversy broke out again in the summer of 2007 when this iconic building demanded the “sacrifice” of several surrounding neoclassical and Art Deco buildings in order to be fully visible. Inaugurated in 2009, the building designed by America-­ based Swiss architect Bernard Tschumi was indeed intended to be iconic, branded and highly visible. Based on a comprehensive overview of the press and several interviews with stakeholders, this chapter shows how political, economic or cultural goals are continually negotiable between the various actors involved in the process of star architecture making. Keywords

Athens · Acropolis Museum · Heritage · Iconicity · Star architecture · Historic city

1 Introduction M. Gravari-Barbas (*) IREST, EIREST, Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Paris, France e-mail: maria. gravari-barbas@ univ-paris1.fr

Within the context of globalisation and increasing competition between regions, urban decision makers adopt the construction of star architecture buildings as a strategy to “position” their cities on the new world map. In most European cities, however, such buildings must take place within a dense existing urban environment and integrate a pre-existing urban stratification. While representing an urban manifesto, likely to ensure their media coverage, they must also comply with the constraints of their

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_16

267

M. Gravari-Barbas

p­ rogramme and this environment. Although this has always been the case, it should nevertheless be remembered that the growing recourse to “flagship buildings” (Gravari-Barbas 2015), built not only to house a function but also to create an urban event (refer Chap. 13 by Gravari-Barbas), makes this arbitration increasingly difficult. The iconicity of symbolic buildings only makes sense when it is set against the presumed banality of the surrounding urban fabric (Gravari-Barbas 2015). The iconic building cannot accept competition with its surroundings, the inherent risk being that of self-annihilation. The analysis of the iconic architectural works that have been most noticeable in recent years highlights this often difficult relationship between the signed architectural object and its surroundings (Kaika and Thielen 2006). Iconicity draws on such foundations of monumentality as size, height, the use of noble and rare materials, and the break with the surrounding urban landscape. The New Acropolis Museum in Athens certainly illustrates the difficulties of the arbitration between the desire to stand out and the need to integrate well. On the one hand, it was necessary, through this great museum that had been so highly anticipated for several decades, to firmly establish Athens in the galaxy of international tourism cities (Gravari-Barbas 2007). The city had to be able to fully play the role it struggles to maintain, despite its major heritage and important Olympic “facelift” (Beriatos and Gospodini 2004), namely, that of a real urban tourist destination. On the other hand, it was necessary for this building to integrate an urban, architectural and archaeological context presenting constraints and difficulties without common comparison due to the proximity of the sacred rock of the Acropolis (Loukaki 2008). The building designed by America-based Swiss architect Bernard Tschumi was inaugurated in 2009 and hailed as a “master building” right from the publication of the first photographs in the international press in 2007. It was intended to be an iconic building, the result of a closed international competition reserved for the leading figures of international museum architecture with the final choice of an architect from among the idols of the architecture world. As soon as its definitive shape was sketched out, in the summer of 2007 this iconic building “demanded its due”, in other words, to be fully visible. This required the “sacrifice” of the buildings that prevented it from taking its full and “rightful” place in the public space. It is related to this opposition between “iconicity” and “banality” which manifested in the press that followed the conflict closely, as well as among stakeholders who participated in the discussions and arbitrations. This chapter is based on multiple sources to show that iconicity and banality are the result of the view of a society at a given moment with respect to its architectural environment. This view is structured around political, economic or cultural objectives that are constantly renegotiated between the different actors involved in this process. In this sense, it is representative of the values of a society and the way in which this society classifies their values at a given time. In this game of arbitration and negotiation, which implies the participation of a multitude of local, national and international actors, it seems important to analyse their 268

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens

Fig. 16.1 The Acropolis Museum finally located on the south side of the Acropolis. This, after a series of sites were chosen on the periphery of the Acropolis but abandoned due to the uncovering of objects with archaeological value. This city block had remained largely vacant, and the architect lifted the building on piles thus minimising impact on the archaeological value. (Source: Adapted from Openstreet Maps by Alexander Arndt)

respective involvement in the various phases of the project. In a context where the eponymous architectural signature functions as a regional label (Biau 1992), it is important to fully grasp what the systematic recourse to star architecture entails for contemporary cities (Fig. 16.1).

2 The Athens Museum: Star Architecture Under the Icon of the Acropolis “Brandscape” Versus Landscape In the wake of the supposed success of the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, several local authorities have sought in recent years to focus on architecture as an essential element of their repositioning in the tertiary economy. “Make us a ‘new Bilbao’” (Plaza 2000; Ockman 2004) is the commission given to architects who, to be able to respond by bringing the symbolic capital of their own signature, must be part of the international architecture star system (Gospodini 2002).

269

M. Gravari-Barbas

The last decades of the twentieth century certainly brought about significant changes in the relationship between contemporary architecture and iconicity. Globalisation has affected architectural production, the latter having become one of the main elements that regions can mobilise to distinguish themselves, to standout (Sklair 2005, 2006, 2017) relates the “globalising” trends observable at the end of the twentieth and beginning of the twenty-first centuries to contemporary architectural production. According to the author, in the experience economy where the product proposed is the experience in and of itself, we evolve towards a consumption not of objects but of sensations or lifestyles. In contemporary societies, buildings are no longer seen as objects but as advertisements and destinations. For Klingmann, the design of the urban environment as a skyline or cityscape gives way to the design of “signed” environments (“brandscapes”) produced by eponymous designers who contribute not only the value of their project but also that of their name (McNeil 2005). Contemporary star architecture uses the methods and concepts of branding in the sense of a strategic tool for cultural and economic transformation. In architecture, branding refers to the mission of expressing an identity, whether for the company or for the city in which the building is built. In this sense, New  York, Bilbao and Shanghai, for example, have used architecture to improve their image, to generate economic growth, to better integrate into the global economy, to embark on tourism or to consolidate their place among international tourist destinations (Gravari-­ Barbas 2015). These considerations are closely related to questions of regional identity. The soliciting of an architecture idol has been exploited by local authorities in the same way as the launching of major festivals and other events (e.g. International or Universal exhibitions, european capitals of culture) or the development of national or cultural heritage (Gravari-­Barbas 2005). This has been one of the ways of constructing a new local identity. More than other functions, museums have focused these trends over the last decade (Lampugnani and Sachs 1999; Fagnoni and Gravari-­Barbas 2015). These iconic buildings, however, often take their place in a pre-existing urban context that they have to take into consideration (or not?). While the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao was built in the vast industrial area of Abandoibarra, a district that has been completely “rewritten” since then, things are very different for iconic buildings that have to integrate an inhabited urban area. The impressive prisms of the Denver Art Museum designed by architect Daniel Libeskind stand out in a very visible way, by their shape and volume, from the surrounding urban fabric. The Kunsthaus Graz designed by architects Peter Cook and Colin Fournier, with its radically different shape compared with the surrounding buildings is, according to its designers, a “friendly alien” that has touched down in a small Austrian town (refer to Chap. 4 by Dreher, Alaily-Mattar and Thierstein in this volume). In some cases, the construction of an iconic building makes it possible to bring coherence to the pre-existing urban fabric when it has suffered from haphazard urban operations in the past. This is the case of the Bullring in Birmingham, for example, a building that has contributed 270

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens

to the restructuring and regeneration of the district of the same name (Emery 2006). But it can often question secular urban forms. In any case, an eponymous architectural act, far from being neutral for the geographical environment in which it is inscribed, can give rise to multiple mutations and transgressions.

The New Acropolis Museum: A Story with Several Twists The idea of building a new museum to house the sculptures of the monuments of the Acropolis dates back as far as 1830, the date of the signature of the London Protocol, an agreement between the three Great Powers, establishing Greece as an independent and sovereign state. Various reasons motivated this idea, not least of all the desire for the return to the country of the fragments of the Parthenon friezes removed by Lord Elgin in 1801. Several locations were successively chosen within the perimeter of the Acropolis, but with each ground breaking, new buried wonders were revealed. Gradually, the project fell apart. It was only with the return of democracy to Greece in 1974 that the idea of the museum was reborn from its ashes. In 1976, a first competition reserved for Greek architects failed after the jury awarded only the third, fourth and fifth prizes to projects deemed unsatisfactory. In 1979, the results of a second competition were no more conclusive. The victory of the Socialist Party in 1981 and the nomination of Melina Mercouri as Minister of Culture gave new impetus to the museum project. In 1986, a third competition  – this time international  – was organised, some 438 architects from forty countries presented their plans 3 years later. Italian architects Manfredi Nicoletti and Lucio Passarelli were awarded first prize in 1990 (Philippopoulou-Michaēlidou et al. 1991). However, the competition was declared null and void by the Constitutional Council, which suspected that the jury did not respect the principle of anonymity. Satisfied with the winners, the Ministry nevertheless commissioned detailed plans in 1992 from Nicoletti and Passarelli. In the absence of precise specifications, the latter were forced to rethink their plans for an area that now measured only 10,000 m2 compared with the original 35,000 m2. To further complicate matters, in the late 1990s, well after the competition won by Nicoletti and Passarelli, the Ministry of Public Works decided to locate one of the stations of the Athens Metro, then under construction, in the same area, without consulting the Ministry of Culture. Eleven years after the competition, with the plans finally completed, construction could begin. New archaeological discoveries, however, would further delay work. Indeed, for the international competition of 1989, the archaeologists considered that the site as already excavated and did not suspect further worthy finds; while the preparatory work for the construction of the museum was undertaken, an entire ancient district, unique in Athens, with high density remains preserved largely in elevation was unearthed. 271

M. Gravari-Barbas

An international protest movement, led by art historian Kenneth Frampton and supported by the Greek Architects Association, had already pointed out the problems with the project. A letter addressed to the then Minister of Culture, signed by 22 architects (including David Chipperfield, Michael Graves, Steven Holl, Richard Meier and Richard Rogers), called for the cancellation of the project: “One cannot imagine a more inappropriate project for the Parthenon friezes than this, […] the interior layout is more reminiscent of a supermarket than a museum”. The letter notably emphasised the discrepancy between the size of the proposed building and that of the construction site; the inevitable relocation of 150 families; the decision  – taken after the fact  – to build a metro station there; and, the undeniable importance of the archaeological site. Kenneth Frampton ended his letter by calling the project “absurd”. In 1999, just 5 years before the 2004 Olympic Games, the date by which the museum should have been completed, it was acknowledged that the Italian architects’ project, drawn up 10 years earlier, was not feasible. In November of the same year, the Ministry of Culture officially ratified the cancellation of the project and published the decision of the Organisation for the Construction of the New Acropolis Museum (OANMA), founded by the Greek Parliament in 1995, to organise a fourth competition. It was won by Bernard Tschumi, up against big names in international architecture such as Arata Isozaki and Daniel Libeskind. The various competitions held successively revealed the difficulties that the construction of the museum had faced since its inception and, in particular, those related to the nature of the site on which it was to be built. Indeed, after several debates and controversies, and against the advice of almost all of the competent Greek professional organisations and the international community, the new Athens museum was built on block number 440 of the Makryianni District (refer to Fig. 16.2). The ultimate selection of the Makryianni block, the only site proposed for the last competition of 2000, was due to the will of the Central Archaeological Council (CAC) of the Ministry of Culture that supported the museum’s construction solution on this site, systematically underestimating or ignoring the many inherent problems. As pointed out by N. Vatopoulos, “it is even ironic that in the endless mess that is their capital, the Greeks decided to cram the new museum into one of the very rare beautiful places in the city, not for it to coexist with what was previously there, but to the detriment of the latter” (2007a). The Makryianni site bears the name of its first owner, General Makryianni’s, hero of the Greek War of Independence. It is located near the southern flank of the Acropolis hill and in its direct line of sight. Its proximity to the Acropolis hill explains the richness of its archaeological remains. The four façades bordering the block were gradually built between 1830 and 1970. Its centre, however, has always remained largely unoccupied, with the exception of the former military hospital built in 1834 by Bavarian engineer Wilhelm Von Weiler (refer to Fig.  16.2). Located near the north side of the site and long disused, the former hospital occupies a large surface area, making the implementation of a building 272

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens

Sout

h slo

pe o

f Acr

opoli

s Entrance 17

Dionysiou

u

Areopagito

19

Museum

atz

ich

Mak rig

Ch

iann i

ing

ld Wailer Bui

rist

Mitseon

ou

Acropolis Museum Primary Roads

Fig. 16.2  The “Makryianni” block and the final location of the Acropolis Museum. South of the Acropolis hill and in direct line of sight of the Acropolis, its proximity explains the richness of its archeological remains on the site. The position of controversial demolished and delisted buildings are also indicated on the map. (Source: Adaptated from OpenStreetMaps data by Alexander Arndt, data by author)

25

50

100m

within a programme as complex as that of the Acropolis Museum very difficult indeed (refer to Fig. 16.7).

A Controversial Architectural Project The construction of the museum began despite strong reaction on the part of the architectural world concerning its volume, considered too massive and imposing within such a sensitive urban environment. In 2003, its construction, called into question, was finally authorised because the new building, surrounded by the buildings bordering Dionysiou (D.) Areopagitou Street (at the north), was not very visible from the public roadway. According to the minutes of the meeting of 24 June 2003 of the CAC, which preceded the museum construction work, “the question of the relationship between the museum and the rock of the Acropolis has been resolved, and it is estimated that the museum is not visible from D. Areopagitou Street and therefore does not negatively impact the monuments and buildings listed as ‘to be preserved’ on both sides of the street”. Following this, the Supreme Court considered that “the reasons for the 273

M. Gravari-Barbas

cancellation of the construction of the building of the size, volume and height of the New Acropolis Museum are not legally justified and must be considered to be without foundation” (Plenary session of the Supreme Court 676/2005). In 2003, the unprotected building at No. 15 D. Areopagitou Street was demolished to allow the construction of the monumental entrance to the new museum. This building, designed by architect D. Axelos and dating from 1935, was a fine example of the architecture from the period between the two World Wars (Vatopoulos 2003). Its demolition raised some reactions at the time, motivated both by its architectural value and the dismantling of the façade of D. Areopagitou Street that borders the archaeological pathway of Athens, reunifying the different archaeological sites of the city following the work carried out for the Olympic Games of 2004 (refer to Fig. 16.3). In 2004, the façades of the building at No. 17, including the rear façade overlooking the museum (Fig.  16.9), were cleaned and restored, partly thanks to a grant from the Ministry of Culture awarded following the unanimous decision of the Directorate for Modern and Contemporary Monuments. Between 2004 and 2007, no new decision questioned the monumental character of the protected buildings located on D. Areopagitou Street. By 2007, the construction of the Acropolis Museum was almost

274

Fig. 16.3 View of the Acropolis Museum from the Acropolis. The two delisted buildings remain at No.’s 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street in the foreground in the same city block as the Museum. The museum entrance is to the left of these in front of the Wailer Building (1934). The grand entrance was made possible by the demolition of 15 D. Areopagitou Street. (Source: Photograph by author, 2018)

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens

complete. Its construction on this sensitive site, debated for three decades, was no longer on the agenda. The construction on piles made it possible to preserve on site a large part of the discovered archaeological remains. The 1960s buildings of Chatzichristou Street (refer to Fig. 16.2) on the south side, pre-empted by the Ministry of Culture, were evacuated by the families who lived there and who had long refused to leave them. The museum’s communication campaign was in full swing and national pride at its peak, the construction of the museum having been linked from the outset with the return of the Parthenon sculptures from the British Museum. Tschumi’s project comprised a building constructed over three levels (Fig. 16.4). Measuring the exact size of the Parthenon temple and following the orientation of the temple, the purpose of the gallery was to accommodate the 160-metre-long frieze that adorned the monument – or, more specifically, to accommodate the 40% of the frieze still present in Athens pending the expected return of the 60% sold to the English by the Turks in the early nineteenth century.

History of a Change in Attitude It is on the pivotal date of 29 June 2007 that a change in attitude towards the new Museum was witnessed on the part of the authorities (Ministry of Culture, OANMA, archaeologists and part of the architectural world). On this day, the Ministry of Culture invited the CAC and the Centre for Modern Monuments to attend a meeting held on 3 July 2007 to discuss “the cancellation of the listing ‘to be preserved’ for No. 17 D. Areopagitou Street”. Following this meeting, which saw fierce opposition between the architects (openly against the delisting) and the archaeologists (in favour of this measure), the decision was made to delist No. 17.1 This building, the work of architect Vassilis Kouremenos, is a major witness to the Art Deco architecture of the city (Fig. 16.5). According to François Loyer (2007) “the rigorous detail of the façade testifies to an obvious proximity to the debates surrounding the construction of the Champs-Élysées theatre in Paris by Auguste Perret” (2007). The conditions necessary for the outbreak of a major conflict were thus in place. They were particularly instructive in how urban values and hierarchies are formed and “deformed”. Up until then, there had been many conflicts of different characters – archaeological, architectural and urban – referring, respectively, to the establishment of the building on a site so rich in ancient remains and its relationship to the rock of the Acropolis; the quality of Bernard Tschumi’s project, its volume and architectural scale; and the relationship of the museum to the The decision was passed by one vote – the double vote of the President of the Central Archaeological Council who was also Secretary General of the Ministry of Culture. The delisting decision was unprecedented and could only be justified for two reasons according to the case law of the Supreme Court: the realization, after reasoned and wellfounded explanation that its listing was unfounded and/or the demonstration that the monument in question was detrimental to a major monument of very great value. 275 1 

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens

rest of the city in general and the district especially. The announcement notifying of the demolition of the two buildings located at 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street (refer to Fig. 16.5) sparked a new conflict during the summer of 2007, which on this occasion was not only architectural but also involved national and cultural heritage considerations. The reasons for the massive reaction of public opinion and on the part of the professional world deserve to be analysed. Indeed, these two buildings were not the first to be sacrificed to the “great cause” that was the new museum with its associated cultural and political issues. Twenty-five other buildings had been demolished since the beginning of the project without raising any major opposition from an architectural point of view. The reactions were essentially confined to the interests of the private owners who occupied them or to considerations on an urban scale.

3 Demolition to Affirm the New Monument A Complex Set of Actors

Fig. 16.4  The three architectural registers of the Acropolis Museum. The main museum entrance off D. Areopagitou Street (Archeolgical / Grand promenade) is flanked on the left with the Wailer building and over the site of demolished 15 D. Areopagitou Street, and adjacent to 17 D. Areopagitou Street. The lowest level of the building is on piles thus preserving the archeological remains, an intermediate level intended to receive the artefacts exposed in the Old Acropolis Museum, and both of these being crowned with a glass gallery as the third level. (Source: “Un nouveau Musée pour l’Acropole” Ministère de la Culture, 2007)

Archaeologists and Architects: Differentiating Positions The quarrel between those who were “for” and those who were “against” the demolition of Nos. 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street was portrayed in the press as an opposition between architects and archaeologists. The latter, dominant within the CAC, had long desired and campaigned for the establishment of the New Acropolis Museum on the Makriyanni site. The primary objective of the construction of a premium museum to house the Acropolis sculptures, the archaeologists generally reacted only tentatively to the demolition of both the superstructures (the remarkable buildings built on the site) and the infrastructures (the discovered archaeological remains, despite their great importance). When the issue of the delisting of No. 17 was raised, they mainly supported it: in addition to the more direct visual connection between the new museum and the monuments of the Acropolis, they put forward the argument of the continuation of excavations under the two buildings at Nos. 17 and 19. It was the architects who were generally more virulent regarding the construction of the New Acropolis Museum on the Makryianni site and the jeopardising of the existing architectural gems, including recent ones (buildings from the first half of the twentieth century). Thus, the circles of architecture (the Technical Chamber of Greece, the Association of Greek Architects, the Schools of Architecture of the Greek Technical Universities, the architects working for such NGOs as ICOMOS or INTBAU and notably specialists in Art Deco architecture2) condemned Art Deco Trust, Art Deco in the Tropics – Innisfail, Art Deco Society of Boston, Art Deco Society of Los Angeles, etc. The split between architects and archaeologists, clear cut in Greece, was much less pronounced internationally, where, on the one hand, archaeology associations such as the World Archaeological Congress defended the two buildings threatened with demolition, and on the other hand, the museum was very well received by architecture professionals. 2 

277

M. Gravari-Barbas

the decision to demolish Nos. 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street. Their competence in this field made their position a priori legitimate. As the Director of the Archives of Neohellenic Architecture puts it: “Who are those who have the right and the duty to decide on questions concerning urban planning and the architecture of Greek cities if not the Technical Chamber of Athens, the Panhellenic Union of Architects, the Schools of Architecture of the Technical Universities, and the Greek section of ICOMOS?”(2007). The opposition between architects and archaeologists was also expressed in relation to the architecture of the new museum. While those architects who spoke out expressed a certain hostility towards the massive architecture of the building, the archaeologists were mostly satisfied with the building designed to house the sculptures of the Acropolis under what they considered ideal conditions. While there could be no doubt concerning the division between the architects and the archaeologists, this alone cannot explain or allow for analysing the nature of the conflicts; it is necessary to further qualify a much more complex reality. Indeed, the performance of the actors was complicated by the presence of both famous personalities directly involved in the conflict and the very great interest that the case aroused in the public opinion, the one being linked to the other since the personalities involved contributed to the media coverage of the conflict.

278

Fig. 16.5  The two threatened buildings located at No.’s 17 (left) +19 (right) D. Areopagitou Street. Part of the “Grande promenade” of the reunified archeological spaces in Athens. Built in neoclassical architectural style at the end of nineteenth century, the value of its street façade gave grounds to argue that it remained a listed building and the authorisation of construction of the new Museum was based on these buildings obscuring the façade of the new Acropolis Museum. (Source: Photographs by author, 2008 and 2017)

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens Fig. 16.6  Petition on the entrance door of No. 17 D. Areopagitou Street. Also photographs showing solutions for masking and treating the rear facades of the two buildings threatened with demolition. A petition for the preservation of the two buildings is also on display, inviting passers-by to sign it. (Source: Photograph by author, 2008)

 n International Heritage Dispute A The threat of demolition of the buildings led to huge international mobilisation by professionals, artists and famous personalities. An online petition was signed by hundreds of people. An announcement on the door of No. 17 D. Areopagitou Street the building explained the threat and invited passers-by to sign the petition. Many people, connoisseurs or not, both tourists and locals, stopped to sign it (refer to Fig. 16.6). Several key personalities also took a stand for the preservation of the two buildings. Jack Lang, who was in Athens in the summer of 2007, compared the conflict around D. Areopagitou Street with that of the Les Halles de Paris (undoubtedly one of the major heritage conflicts of the twentieth century), exhorting the Athenians not to make the same mistake as the Parisians. The architectural works with which the building by architect Vasilios Kouremenos was compared were symptomatic of the value attributed to it. Architect J.  Kefalos, for example, believed that “the ­ destruction of the Kouremenos building is analogous to condemning the Loos Haus in Vienna in order to give a better view of the Hofburg Palace from a new museum built by a contemporary architect” (2007). The personalities involved contributed to the creation of an international sounding board in a conflict that could have remained national. Bernard Tschumi, architect of the New Acropolis Museum and member of 279

M. Gravari-Barbas

the international star system, also contributed to the media coverage of the conflict. Having designed a premium museum that took into account the constraints of the existing buildings previously listed as “to be preserved”, once built, he wanted it to be seen without any hindrance from the public road, and that it could also look out, again without hindrance, towards the Acropolis. The star architect thus became the prescriber of the showcasing of his construction and the delisting of those buildings that represented obstacles to achieving this end.

Positioning of the Famous Personalities and the Growing Conflict The property values of the apartments located in the two buildings at Nos. 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street are among the highest in the Athens urban area. The apartments are owned by leading personalities from Greek and international cinema, theatre and music. While some, like the actress Irene Papas, remained discreet on the subject, others, such as the singer Mariza Koch or the composer Vangelis openly and publicly took a stand to denounce the delisting of their buildings by the “architectural tsunami Tschumi” (Papathanassiou 2007). In May 2007, shortly before the meeting of the CAC that decided to delist No. 17, and within the context of rumours concerning the still unformulated intentions of the Ministry of Culture, Vangelis, owner of No. 19, applied for the creation of the “Papathanassiou/Vangelis Foundation for the Study of Music, Arts and Science”, the idea being that the location of the headquarters of a non-profit foundation at this address would make the pre-empting and demolition of the building more difficult. Among the owners of No. 17 was also the daughter of architect Vasilios Kouremenos, responsible for her father’s real estate and architectural heritage, with all the legitimacy that being his direct descendant conferred upon her. The private interest of the owners, legitimate or not, instrumentalised the public interest. It is difficult to distinguish whether the famous personalities who defended the buildings did so in the name of public heritage (belonging to “everyone” in the sense of the famous expression by Victor Hugo3) or in the name of their own private heritage, in the same way that any owner would defend his or her property. Moreover, it should be remembered that in the more than 30-year history of the construction of the New Acropolis Museum, the owners of the two buildings in question played a vital role. Indeed, their social and intellectual status as well as the value of their buildings provided a much greater voice of opposition than that of the owners of the buildings along the other three streets bordering the block. These private actors therefore played a major role in this public conflict over the configuration of this major thoroughfare for Athens. “There are two things in a building: its function and its beauty. Its function belongs properly to its owner, its beauty to everyone – to you, to me, to us all. To destroy it is thus to exceed one’s rights”. Victor Hugo, Guerre aux démolisseurs, 1832. 3 

280

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens

Public Versus Private Heritage The prescribers and supporters of the delisting and demolition of the two protected buildings (Nos. 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street) opposed the private interests of the buildings’ owners. The President of the CAC and Secretary General of the Ministry of Culture thus presented the demolition of the two buildings as a “courageous act” based on the public interest – to the detriment, therefore, of private interests. He said he understood “the sentimentalism and anxiety concerning the private residences but, when we have to do with the public interest, certain individuals may be affected; (…) In this case, what is most important, and which is not comparable with the work by architect Kouremenos, is the global impact of the Greek civilization, the place (the Acropolis) that concentrates thousands of people and that exerts the most important influence with regard to the Greek civilization, (the most important thing) is to give the greatest impression possible of the Greek civilization” (Central Archaeological Council 2007:37).

 emolition, Conservation, and Restoration: An Eclectic D Viewpoint The decision to delist No. 17 D.  Areopagitou Street and the threat of demolition of Nos. 17 and 19 brought the relations between the new museum and its neighbours to a head. However, it is important to observe and analyse the full range of the positionings and reactions with respect to the different buildings on the Makryianni block. While some buildings were considered “untouchable” from the outset, a number of buildings were pending demolition in 2008 and 25 others had already been pre-empted and demolished. There were thus arrangements that cannot be attributed in a strict sense to the intrinsic architectural value of the buildings preserved or demolished. Other considerations were taken into account and ultimately represent an interesting typology depending on the heritage values attributed to the buildings in question (refer to Fig. 16.2). Despite its location at the heart of the block, which posed the most difficult problems to be overcome, there was broad consensus from the outset concerning the preservation of the military hospital built in 1834 by Bavarian engineer Wilhelm Von Weiler.4 The reasons behind the attachment to this building were not only related to its architecture but also to its history. At no time was the question of its total or even partial demolition General Makriyannis decided in 1834 to build a military hospital on the block belonging to him and now bearing his name. He commissioned engineer Wilhelm Von Weiler who built a functional and robust building, without any particular architectural pretensions. However, this is a historic building of great importance since it was the first military hospital in Athens operational since the independence of Greece. But the building also played an important role in the country’s more recent history: it was here that the bloodiest episodes of the Greek Civil War took place in 1944 between the government gendarmes and demonstrators of the National Liberation Front. 4 

281

M. Gravari-Barbas

raised (Refer to Fig. 16.7). The two buildings at 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street had, until July 2007, formed an integral part of the new museum’s landscape. Their demolition was considered at this time for a specific reason, namely, to make the sacred rock completely visible from the museum, without the unpleasant visual interposition of their rear façade (refer to Fig. 16.9). Their sacrifice was supposed to serve to the major cause which was that of the notable and distinguished monument of the Acropolis. Buildings that were not yet fully recognised were demolished with regret. This was notably the case of the building by architect D. Axelos, located at No. 15 D. Areopagitou Street, built in 1935. A few newspaper articles (Vatopoulos 2003) at the time underlined the lack of interest in the apartments built between the two World Wars (refer to Fig. 16.3). Small neoclassical buildings initially “to be preserved” were delisted in the early 2000s and scheduled for demolition as part of the construction of the new museum. Access to the worksite having been gained by the demolition of less prestigious buildings, thus the remaining delisted buildings demolition was postponed. As they had not been pre-empted and demolished within the statutory four year period, officials from the Ministry of Culture presented their cases once again to the CAC in an attempt to save them. Here, the opposition did not play as strong a role as for the two controversial buildings at Nos. 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street. It was notably the gazette of the Greek Communist Party that defended these buildings considered “modest in comparison with the monumental architecture of the new museum”5: “The showcasing of historical monuments should aim at developing the relationships of the inhabitants of the city with monuments and archaeological spaces. But only provided there are monuments to be showcased. If we demolish them, we raise to the status of Historic Monument, for the collective consciousness, a building such as the Acropolis Museum. And the neoclassical buildings that surround it are considered, according to the dominant reactionary conception, as ‘obstacles’ to this beacon, particularly ideological, that the museum constitutes (…)” (Avdis 2008). The CAC meeting of 27 March 2008, in its majority, confirmed the decision to delist these buildings and paved the way again for their demolition. But time had worked in their favour. They are still in place today and largely restored (refer to Fig. 16.8). The positions of public opinion vis-à-vis the demolitions were influenced by considerations that were also of an emotional or ideological nature and not exclusively scholarly. The typology outlined above was not stable over time; it evolved over the years under the influence of several factors. There was therefore no “doctrine” with respect to the preservation of some buildings or the demolition of others, but rather the gradual adjustments of the various actors in the presence of the abrupt “landing” of this “foreign body” that was the new museum. Tragganidas G., “Memory… ‘prevents’ the Museum from ‘breathing’”, Rizospastis, 6/4/2008. 5 

282

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens

Fig. 16.7  Confrontation between the Acropolis Museum and the ancient military hospital built by the engineer Wailer (1834). It describes the difficulty of implementing a building within a programme as complex as that of the Acropolis Museum. At no time was the question of its total or even partial demolition raised. (Source: Photographs by author, 2008)

Fig. 16.8  The neoclassical buildings that close the corners of the Makryianni plot. In addition to their architectural value, their demolition would have raised the problem of the scale of the block and its relationship with the surrounding urban fabric. They have finally been preserved and restored. (Source: Photograph by author, 2017)

283

M. Gravari-Barbas

4 “Iconicity” and “Banality”: The Result of a Continually Renegotiated Viewpoint From what has just been presented, the year 2007 witnessed a remarkable change in outlook regarding the new museum. In 2003, the CAC considered that the two buildings at Nos. 17 and 19 D.  Areopagitou Street constituted a visual screen between the museum (criticised by the architects for its mass and its height) and its particularly sensitive archaeological and monumental environment. Their role as a screen was considered in a positive light at that time. The construction of the museum was authorised by the very existence of these two buildings that would mask its volume from both D.  Areopagitou Street and the Acropolis. It was for the same reasons that the Supreme Court, to whose approval the construction of the museum was submitted in extremis in 2005, authorised its construction. The public and professionals alike were convinced that the new museum should remain hidden: “The façade of the museum on the side of the buildings is ugly. Consequently, it is preferable to hide it” (Adami 2007). “The success of B. Tschumi’s proposal lies precisely in the preservation of this screen of small-scale buildings, putting into perspective the unbearable confrontation between the monumental grandeur of the Parthenon and the cumbersome volume of the modern building. Athens is not Bilbao, and the plastic liberties that Frank Gehry took within a context of port wasteland cannot be directly transcribed” (Loyer 2007). At the time, however, the perspective was directed from the street towards the building. It was only with the first photographs taken during the summer of 2007 from the newly built platform above the monumental entrance, where the museum cafeteria would be located, for the perspective to change epicentre. Now seen from the museum itself, it became unacceptable for any obstacle to interpose the two major elements of the composition, namely, the museum and the rock of the Acropolis (refer to Fig.  16.9). This had a significant influence on the delisting of these buildings. Appreciated up until then because the beauty of their façades masked the modern architecture of the new museum, the buildings at Nos. 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street had to be condemned because they did not allow the Acropolis Museum, as the president of OANMA put it, to “breathe”.6 From that point on, the actors of the Ministry of Culture became intolerant of the from the cafeteria platform into the rear façades of the two buildings on D. Areopagitou Street that notably were not designed to be viewed. Bernard Tschumi puts the question in these terms: “When I go up

Calling for the demolition of the two buildings at Nos. 17 and 19 because they blocked the view of the Acropolis from the terrace of the museum implied accepting what previously seemed unacceptable, in other words, making the terrace of the museum cafeteria visible from the street and the rock of the Acropolis. It should be remembered that the POS formally prohibits cafés and restaurants along the promenade of the reunified archaeological areas. 6 

284

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens

Fig. 16.9  View of the rear facades of the buildings No.’s 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street seen from the Acropolis Museum. From the time the museum was partially completed and these buildings were viewed with their undersigned rear facades, the debate shifted to their interposed role in the experience of iconicity and monumentality between the new Acropolis Museum and the Acropolis. (Source: Photograph by author, 2008)

onto the terrace of the museum and look towards the Acropolis I ask myself: can these buildings of the 1930s participate in the exchange between the Acropolis, the museum and the cityscape? Or do they constitute an ‘interference’ in this exchange between the museum and the monument?” (Tschumi 2003). But there was also another outlook involved, this time an exterior perspective that of the visitors and tourists captured thousands of times by their cameras from the terrace of the cafeteria. The logic is thus moved from the Acropolis to the new museum. As Champy recalls in the case of the Bibliothèque Nationale de France in Paris, “These buildings are designed for the hurried glance of the tourist passing through: even before the construction of the Bibliothèque François Mitterrand, its architect, Dominique Perrault, declared that he wanted the most beautiful photographs of the country to be taken there” (Champy 2002, p. 16). In the same way, the commentators stress that “the museum’s architect, Bernard Tschumi, invested much in this added value of the building, which, as expected, will constitute the major tourist centre of Athens”. “Athens offers a work of contemporary architecture of great symbolic value not only to the city and its citizens, but also to the whole world, and for these reasons it must do so under the best possible conditions. Even if this means the sacrifice of two major monuments” (Vatopoulos 2007a).

285

M. Gravari-Barbas

Before they actually visit the museum, tourists become prescribers, without their knowledge, of what the museum must show them – or not: “I believe that a building that will be visited by more than two million people per year and that will both actually and symbolically represent Greece, a building that refers to a specific archaeological space, can only look towards the rock of the Acropolis” (Bernard Tschumi, quoted in Vatopoulos 2007a). The change in perspective is, of course, first of all a change in the hierarchy of values: the values of heritage and modernity are renegotiated. The left-wing newspapers summarised the ongoing conflict as follows: “Around the Acropolis two different approaches come into conflict and give rise to the real dilemma: a glittering downtown area with high land values and unaffordable services available to only a few, a sparkling field of glory for ‘free time capital’ and tourism, or a city that belongs to those who live there and produce its wealth? In other words, the people?” (Tragganidas 2008). This analysis cannot, of course, be disconnected from those dealing with the new roles that museums have taken on in recent years (Van Aalst 2002).

5 As a Conclusion: The Cathedral and Its Forecourt, a Difficult Mediation “But, good people, who, from the depths of your libraries, seem to have seen nothing (of the state of Old Paris) name even one ancient monument worthy of interest, one valuable building for art, curious by its collections, which my administration has destroyed, or which it has taken care of, except to make it stand out and to highlight its exceptional value, to give it as beautiful a perspective as possible”. Baron Haussmann, Mémoires. The contemporary architecture of the New Acropolis Museum requires a relationship to the city close to that proposed by Baron Haussmann for the monuments of the nineteenth century: a “distance effect” created by means of a large forecourt. This offers the necessary distance for the admiration of the architectural work and for the creation of vast perspectives of view. Indeed, Bernard Tschumi willingly compares his museum to maedieval cathedrals and asks for a tailor made space for his work, not a residual space like the one entrusted to him: a real forecourt worthy of this name. The request to sacrifice the buildings at Nos. 17 and 19 D. Areopagitou Street means that the museum managed to transcend its iconic building status to ultimately become monumental: erected as a monument, it is assigned the attributes of monumentality, namely, to be visible, to dominate, to be a bearer of meaning. This bears witness to a tremendous shift in outlook from the rock of the Acropolis to its substitute, the museum. It is this space that will receive the original sculptures that were placed on the monuments of the Acropolis for 2500  years  – a move therefore from the original site to this duplicate, arranged in parallel and built with the same dimensions as the Parthenon itself; in other words, a transfer of the original body to its reliquary – the 286

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens

glass room that crowns the new museum. In this sense, the iconic museum building absorbs some of the attributes (that of iconicity and monumentality) of the original site. Both a subject and a transmitter of perspective, the new museum becomes the orchestrator of the new urban order.

Appendix  volution of the Legislative Framework E Concerning the Surroundings of the New Acropolis Museum The building located at No. 17 Dionysiou Areopagitou Street had been listed as “to be preserved” by the Ministry of Planning and as a “Historic Monument” by the Ministry of Culture (FEK 405D/9.8.1978). In 1978, Article 1 of the General Urban Planning by-law, as amended, specified that the buildings located at Nos. 17, 19, 21, 23, 29, 33, 35, 37 and 39 Dionysiou Areopagitou Street were “to be preserved” and called for the restitution of their original architectural character. At this time, the measure clearly aimed to preserve the entire façade of Dionysiou Areopagitou Street. In 1987, the Central Archaeological Council expropriated for demolition the buildings on block 440 in which the New Acropolis Museum was to be built, with the exception of Nos. 17 and 19, which constituted an architectural ensemble that had to be preserved. In 1991, the Ministry of Culture published the results of the international architectural competition for the construction of the new museum. In the programme, it confirmed the listing of “three buildings to be preserved”. The architects selected by the 1989 competition also claimed to have chosen the site under the Acropolis, rather than one of the other two alternatives, because “being surrounded by the urban fabric, the new museum will not affect the cityscape”. In 1992 [Official Gazette (FEK) 124D 7.2.92], 27 buildings on block 440 were considered to be expropriated for demolition as part of the future construction of the Acropolis Museum. In 1995, the expropriation decision was revoked because the buildings to be expropriated also included the buildings listed as “to be preserved”. In 1996, the General Urban Planning Code was amended to define the location of the construction of the new museum “with the exception of the part where buildings Nos. 17 and 19 are located” (7.6.96). In 2003, the building located at No. 15, significant and representative of 1930s architecture, was demolished because it was not listed as “to be preserved”. To the reactions of the deputies, architects, journalists and writers, the Minister of Culture, at the time of the ruling Socialist government, argued that, in return, the buildings at Nos. 17 and 19 would be preserved. In 2003, the law “on the preparation of the Olympic Games” settled the issue of the construction of the museum. It replaced the building permit for 287

M. Gravari-Barbas

the future museum. The buildings listed as “to be preserved” were not included in the pre-emptions and are visible in the drawings and models of all of the published results of the new architectural competition. Authorization was given for the museum to be five metres higher than the legal height (which, because of the sloping nature of the ground, meant that the museum was 11  m higher than the buildings on Chatzichristou Street bordering the site to the south), so that it would emerge above the buildings “to be preserved” on Dionysiou Areopagitou Street and ensure “a visual connection between the exhibited artefacts and the rock of the Acropolis”. In 2004, the Council of State considered that “any intervention likely to negatively affect the space around ancient monuments or to devalue them is not legal. In particular, with regard to the Acropolis monuments, prominent elements of World Heritage, this constitutional protection not only confers upon them the primary importance of their immediate surrounding area, but also of the entire Athens region, so that it is not possible for other elements to dominate them by their size, their height, their volume, etc. Consequently, the controversial construction of the museum, with a height varying from 15.30 to 28.50 m and a volume almost five times greater than the Parthenon itself, located at a distance of a mere 370 m from the southern slope of the sacred hill, represents an obvious obstruction to the prominent place of the monuments and, for the same reasons, constitutes an unauthorized intervention in the space necessary for showcasing them”.

References Adami M (2007) Neohellenic architecture archives of the Benaki Museum. Eleytheros Typos. 5 July 2007 Avdis L (2008) In: Rizospastis. 6 April 2008 Beriatos E, Gospodini A (2004) “Globalising” urban landscapes: Athens and the 2004 Olympics. Cities 21(3):187–202 Biau V (1992) L’architecture comme emblème municipal, Plan Construction et architecture. Ministère de l’Équipement, du Logement des Transports et de l’Espace, Paris Central Archaeological Council (2007) Proceedings of the meeting of the Central Archaeological Council. Ministry of Culture. 3 July 2007, p 37 Champy F (2002) Des valeurs et des pratiques de l’architecture contemporaine. Trois tentatives d’explication de la « monumentalisation » des constructions publiques In: Ville et Monument. L’Homme et la Société 145:9–28 Emery J (2006) Bullring: a case study of retail-led urban renewal and its contribution to city centre regeneration. J Retail Leis Prop 5:121–133 Fagnoni E, Gravari-Barbas M (eds) (2015) Nouveaux musées, nouvelles ères urbaines, nouvelles pratiques touristiques. Presses Universitaires de Laval, Quebec Gospodini A (2002) European cities in competition and the new ‘uses’ of urban design. J Urban Des 7(1):59–63 Gravari-Barbas M (2005) Habiter le Patrimoine: Enjeux, Approches, Vécu. Presses Universitaires de Rennes. Collection Géographie Sociale, p 760 Gravari-Barbas M (2007) The 2004 Olympic games in Athens: a critical analysis of the City’s (re)positioning on the global map. In: Guoqing D (ed) Tourism and urban transformation. Rikkyo University Press. 184 p, Tokyo, pp 3–27 Gravari-Barbas M (2015) Architecture, Musées, Tourisme. La guerre des marque. In: Gravari-Barbas M, Renard C (eds) Figures d’Architectes et Espace Urbain/Celebrity Architects and Urban Space. L’Harmattan, pp 139–164 288

16  The Challenges of Star Architecture in Historic Cities: The Case of the Acropolis Museum in Athens Kaika M, Thielen K (2006) Form follows power. A genealogy of urban shrines. City 10(1):59–69 Kefalos J (2007) Letter of protest to the minister of culture. November 2007 Klingman A (2007) Brandscapes: architecture in the experience economy. MIT Press, Cambridge Mass Lampugnani VM, Sachs A (eds) (1999) Museums for a new millennium. Prestel, Munich Loukaki A (2008) Living ruins, value conflicts. Ashgate, Padstow Loyer F (2007) Letter of protest to the minister of culture. November 2007 McNeil D (2005) In search of the global architect: the case of Norman Foster (and partners). Int J Urban Reg Res 29(September):501–515 Ockman J (2004) New politics of the spectacle: “Bilbao” and the global imagination. In: Lasansky M, McLaren B (eds) Architecture and Tourism, pp. 227–238 Papathanassiou EO (2007) Ta Nea. 19 November 2007 Philippopoulou-Michaēlidou E, Alivizatou C, Kalogeratou E (eds.) (1991) The New Acropolis Museum, International Architectural Competition. Ministry of Culture, Directorate of Museum Studies Plaza B (2000) Guggenheim Museum’s effectiveness to attract tourism. Ann Tour Res 27(4):1055–1058 Sklair L (2005) The transnational capitalist class and contemporary architecture in globalizing cities. Int J Urban Reg Res 29(3):485–500 Sklair L (2006) Iconic architecture and capitalist globalization. City 10(1):21–47 Sklair L (2017) The icon project. Architecture, cities and capitalist globalization. Oxford University Press Supreme Court (2005) Plenary session 676/2005 Tragganidas G (2008) Memory… ‘prevents’ the Museum from ‘breathing’. Rizospastis. 6 April 2008. Tschumi B (2003) “Public buildings and cityscape”. Paper presented at conference, 11 July 2003, Athens Van Aalst I (2002) From museum to mass entertainment: the evolution of the role of museums in cities. European Urban and Regional Studies 9(3):195 Vatopoulos N (2003) Oi nostalgoi tis polykatoikias. Kathimerini. 4 May 2003 Vatopoulos N (2007a) “The irrationality of the New Athens, Eleftherotypia, 6 June 2007 Vatopoulos N (2007b) In: Kathimerini. 21 July 2007

289

Star Architecture and the Urban Landscape: The Case of Vienna

17

Sandra Guinand

Abstract

The demolition of the Hotel InterContinental at the Heumarkt and its reconstruction as a tower comprising a hotel and luxury housing has been raising much debate and has been qualified as the most controversial project in the city of Vienna’s history of architecture. The project is considered controversial as its construction largely exceeds the authorised heights and the UNESCO recommendations for the buffer zone compromising visual integrity of the city centre’s skyline. This chapter investigates how city authorities (re)negotiate the urban landscape from increasing outside international pressure and looks at how actors in charge of urban development influence and shape the dynamics between the old fabric and iconic high-rise architectural elements. Keywords

Vienna · Urban landscape · UNESCO · Heritage · High-rise

1 Introduction

S. Guinand (*) Department of Geography and Regional Research, Vienna University, Vienna, Austria e-mail: sandra. [email protected]

The demolition of the Intercontinental hotel at the Heumarkt and its reconstruction as a tower comprising a hotel and luxury housing designed by international renowned architect Isay Weinfeld has been raising much debate and has been qualified as the most controversial project in the city of Vienna’s history of architecture (Seiss 2017). Interestingly, the public debate has mainly focused on the tower’s presence in the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) buffer zone near the city centre, thus jeopardising the visual urban landscape’s integrity and its World Heritage status. It emerged on the UNESCO World Heritage endangered list in 2017 (UNESCO 2017a, b). The city centre of Vienna was registered on the UNESCO World Heritage list in 2001 according to three different criteria: (1) the urban and architectural qualities of its historic centre, (2) the exceptional illustration of the Middle Ages, the Baroque and the Gründerzeit period and (3) the acknowledgement of the city as the musical capital of Europe (UNESCO 2001). For years now, the capital city has been capitalising on this classical heritage for the tourism industry and as a calling card for investments (Suitner 2015).

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_17

291

S. Guinand

With the fall of the Iron Curtain redefining the geopolitical position of the capital, city authorities have started to modernise and give a new dynamic to its image as a metropolitan capital. Different redevelopment projects were undertaken: the reconversion in 2001 of the former Gasometers (dating from 1896) by architect Jean Nouvel and Coop-­ Himmelb(l)au, the MuseumsQuartier (1998) by Ortner and Ortner, the Zaha Hadid Learning Centre (2014) or the DC Tower (2014) designed by architect Dominique Perrault. But, contrary to the Heumarkt project and other planned projects,1 all these architectural pieces are either located outside or from a reasonable distance from the historic centre or, when situated inside, do not overshadow the classical buildings as in the case of the MuseumsQuartier. Precipitating the adoption of Vienna on the UNESCO endangered list, the Heumarkt project illustrates what could be identified as a momentum in the city’s urban governance and policies. Looking at the Viennese case, this chapter aims at exploring how various actors in charge of urban development influence and shape the dynamics between the old fabric and high-rise star architectural elements. Maintaining an important cultural heritage while simultaneously experiencing increasing population, real estate and housing market pressures in a place where planning and real estate markets are highly regulated in comparison to other European cities, Vienna represents an interesting urban environment to investigate how city authorities (re)negotiated the urban landscape from increasing outside international pressure. In order to do so, this chapter will first recontextualise Vienna in the European urban socio-economic environment and retrace the city’s first experiment with high-rise star architecture interventions. It will then turn to the role of local government in the city’s development, planning and shaping and its relationship to the World Heritage perimeter. Following Leslie Sklair’s stance on growth coalition (2005, 2006) and Clarence Stone on urban regime theory (1993), the last section will underline the current pressure experienced by the city, showing that the Heumarkt and UNESCO crisis indicate a shift in the actors’ growth coalition and might be the sign of a new urban regime for Vienna. It will conclude by stressing the limits of the current urban policy pursued by city authorities and UNESCO in regard to the relationship between the historic centre and high-rise iconic architecture.

2 High-Rise Iconic Architecture in Vienna  Means to Reposition Vienna as an International A Metropolis Vienna is located in the eastern part of Austria. It used to be the capital of the Habsburg Empire whose city centre is marked by monumental Baroque architecture morphology. The capital was described as a dynamic centre The extension of the Winterthur-Haus at Karlsplatz, the Wien Mitte Project, etc.

1 

292

17  Star Architecture and the Urban Landscape: The Case of Vienna

Fig. 17.1  United Nations’ headquarter in Vienna, 2010. An impressive concrete iconic architecture building from the 1970s that set the change in the urban landscape on this side of the Danube. Today the area (Donau City) hosts the International Convention Centre and the DC Tower of Dominique Perrault. (Source: Creative Commons, Behrooz Rezvani)

during the nineteenth and beginning of the twentieth centuries (Paal 2003; Hatz 2008). But the loss of the Second World War and the division between eastern and western Europe positioned Vienna as a second-tier capital city. While Cold War diplomacy profited from Vienna’s geographic position as a political centre of intermediation between the East and the West, the city remained situated at the economic and geographic margins of the Western Hemisphere (De Franz 2005). City officials attempted to change this dynamics with the opening of the Vienna International Centre and one of the United Nations’ seat headquarters in the 1970s in an impressive modernist concrete architecture building that followed the plans of Austrian architect Johann Staber (refer to Fig. 17.1). These redevelopment projects took place on the other side of the Danube riverbank, an area hardly perceived at the time and still today as “Vienna” in people’s imaginations (Interviews 2017).2 The real impulse came with the downfall of the Eastern Bloc and their opening to outside communication, trade and mobility. This political change brought an important shift in Vienna’s geographical position. The capital that used to be confined to the far east of Europe suddenly became located in the ­middle of a continent. Its membership integration within the European Interviews conducted by Master’s students (2017–2018) and 4Cities Master’s students (2017) for the class “Photography as a tool for qualitative research”. Department of Geography and Regional Research, Vienna University. 2 

293

S. Guinand

Union in 1995 also reaffirmed its significance as a strategic international economic node (Franz 2011). This movement was followed by redevelopment projects headed by state and city actors. Projects such as Donau City planned in 1994 and located next to the United Nations headquarters or the MuseumsQuartier, the former Imperial Baroque stables, planned as early as 1986 and completed after the 1990s (Lourenço Caldeira 2014), were planned and presented in discourses as the new symbols of Vienna’s modern identity. According to Monika De Frantz, the MuseumsQuartier was the capital’s first cultural flagship project (2005, p. 53). It is also during this period that city government undertook the first regeneration project of former industrial sites and solicited star architects such as Jean Nouvel and Coop Himmelb(l)au to transform the Gasometers (Pličanić 2012). Located in the outskirts, the “Gasometer city” project was, for some (ibid.), analogue to the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, an architectural object that would become a brand and circulates in the media. However, if Viennese and visitors may be familiar with all these emblematic buildings, one cannot talk of branding for the Viennese urban landscape. All these star architecture projects, apart from the MuseumsQuartier, are located outside of the city centre and the UNESCO buffer zone. It is also the case for the Sofitel hotel by Jean Nouvel by the Donau Canal and the Zaha Hadid Learning Centre on the new campus of the Vienna University of Economics and Business (refer to Fig.  17.4). As mentioned, in the case of the MuseumsQuartier, the new additions do not override the height of the former stalls buildings that are discovered when reaching the courtyard. The presence of these architectural pieces in the Viennese urban landscape takes place, at the local scale, as a means to change or alter the neighbourhoods’ representation and their socio-economic dynamics. There seems to have been a general consensus not to intervene too much in or by the historic city centre. The location of these architectural pieces resulted, in fact, from a general claim made by the Social Democrats city government at the time for more equity in spatial distribution (Suitner 2015; Hatz 2009). It stresses the social consensus that had been prevalent in the conduct of the city’s urban affairs. For instance, in the case of Donau City, the project aimed at mitigating office pressure on the city centre while also reversing the traditional urban growth westward and capturing attention for future development going eastward (City of Vienna 2010). The refurbished Gasometers were a signal that former industrial areas and their buildings could be reclaimed and transformed into mixed-used neighbourhoods. Most of these projects undertaken by city authorities and star architects aimed at diverting attention from the city centre to transforming areas resulted in mixed success however.

 ourism as a Motor for the Transformation in Vienna’s T Landscape Tourism boosts the economy and contributes to the consolidation of Vienna’s image as an international metropolis (refer to Table  17.1). 294

17  Star Architecture and the Urban Landscape: The Case of Vienna Table 17.1  Numbers of overnight stays in Vienna. The numbers between 2001 and 2017 have almost doubled. Until now the tendency shows a steady increase each year. Year 2017 2016 2015 2012 2006 2001

Overnight stays 15.5 million 14.9 million 14.3 million 12.2 million 9.3 million 7.68 million

Source: Statistik Wien 2001, 2006, 2012, 2015, 2016, 2017

According to Hania Bomba, CEO of RegioPlan Austria, an Austrian independent consulting firm in the retail sector: “Vienna is on a good path. Tourism is THE driving force behind successful retail figures in city centre. Short-term desires to buy are high, and so are the associated purchase amounts. In order to maintain this high growth level in Vienna in the future, consistent investments and future-oriented strategies will be required in terms of environment, attractiveness and offers”. (quoted in der Standard 30.09.2017, Immobilien)

In this statement, Vienna is referred to as the “city centre” (first district). The statement confirms the important role the city centre’s image plays in the overall economic growth of trade and tourism in the metropolitan area. Indeed, companies’ service headquarters and the new international elite tend to choose it as a prime location, as they are attracted by the image and the appeal its architecture conveys (Interview V Pamer3 2017). This focus on the historic centre from a variety of prevalent economic actors tends to put pressure and exacerbate tensions on this central area. As the tourism economy numbers showed, Vienna has experienced an enormous increase in value. The year 2017 recorded the second highest population growth rate (after Munich) in Europe (12.4% in a 10-year comparison), and the city’s 1,888,776 population (2018) might pass the two million mark by 2027 (City of Vienna 2017, 2018). The upward trend is however slowing down (City of Vienna 2018). The city also witnessed a positive development of regional purchasing power with a current index of 187.4 for Vienna city centre. This influx of population, money and low interests’ rates have, in the last years, put much pressure on housing and real estate (Interview C. Schepp4 2018). As such, the (re)development of new neighbourhoods and new constructions have been seen by the city authorities and local elites as crucial in order to maintain the city’s level of attractiveness. Yet this pressure has also worried local associations and residents because of its significance in compromising social equity and urban quality. This concern has pushed city government to react by bringing in new policies. This was the case with the 2014 high-rise regulation (City of Vienna 2014a, b) in which the idea of “compensation” for high-­ rise construction was introduced. High-rise buildings can be built as long Urban planner at the City of Vienna, Department of Urban District Planning and Land Use. 4  Sale manager at C&P Immobilien AG. 3 

295

S. Guinand

as they offer a compensatory role that “benefits” the community, a notion, however, that is not explicitly defined.

Regulating Vienna’s Cityscape Vienna holds two administrative entities. Part of a federal political system, it is a region and a municipality. As such, in addition to federal guidelines and laws, it possesses its own special planning instruments and regulations. The urban planning department, as a part of municipal administration, undertakes this task. All decisions on future urban (re)developments and projects on the municipal perimeter are approved by the city council, and any change in the land use plan is submitted to public discussion before city council approval. The Social Democratic Party has been governing the city since 1919 (with an interruption during the National Socialist regime). But the results of the 2015 election resulted in a coalition engagement of the Social Democratic Party with the Green party. The marginal (39.59% SPÖ, 30.79% FPÖ, 11.84% GRÜNE)5 advance of the Social Democrats puts them in an uncomfortable position as the next election is expected in 2020. They need to regain trust among the Viennese population through visible actions while governing with the Green party in order to avoid opposition from the FPÖ. Tensions among the city government are thus palpable. The First Republic (1919–1934) was identified as the “Red Vienna” period whose government’s characteristics were the implementation of social housing constructions (Gemeindebau) and strong urban policies. For instance, the Karl Marx Hof is considered one of the most prevalent and defining element of the city and is still very much present as a symbol of Vienna’s municipal socialism in Viennese mindset (Weihsmann 2009, p. 14). The city government still partially builds on this tradition. Urban regulations and interventions are prevalent in the conduct of urban affairs leading to important bureaucratic administration and long-term processes. For example, the city is a leading actor and regulator of the housing market, characterised as very fragmented compared to other European capitals (Franz 2011). The department in charge of social housing also holds the largest share of the city’s budget.6 Until recently, little manoeuvre had been left to private developers, as the “free” market relates to specific segments such as new buildings construction or renovation without financial incentives mostly confined to luxury housing. By the end of the 1980s, only a few towers had been built in downtown Vienna for housing and offices purposes. Most of the buildings were scattered throughout the urban area and would replace buildings damaged during the war. The most prominent example is the 73 metres high building of Retrieved from https://www.wien.gv.at/english/politics/elections/. Accessed 04 Dec 2018. 6  Retrieved from https://www.wien.gv.at/finanzen/budget/ra17/index.htm. Accessed 04 Dec 2018. 5 

296

17  Star Architecture and the Urban Landscape: The Case of Vienna

Fig. 17.2  View of Vienna from the Belvedere (1758– 1761), Bernardo Bellotto. This eighteenth century constructed view of Vienna is still considered a cultural reference for the city’s urban landscape with St. Stephen’s Cathedral tower setting the limitation for building heights in the city centre. (Source: Creative Commons)

the Wiener Städtischen Versicherung (1950) located at the crossroad of the Ring and the Donau Canal, expressing, at the time, the power of the social state. Constructions in the city centre traditionally followed a building height regulation (now of 35 metres) that dates back to the first formalised zoning plan from 1893. This plan set St. Stephen’s Cathedral as the highest building in the city centre with regulations decreasing concentrically from centre to periphery. This regulation was inspired by Bernardo Bellotto’s “Canaletto perspective” painting of Vienna (the painter Bellotto used the nickname of his uncle – Giovanni Antonio Canal – “Canaletto”) (refer to Fig.  17.2) that has since then been prevalent in any skyline discussion. High-rise buildings disregarding this scheme were the exception long into the twentieth century (Grubbauer 2013, p.  202). Already in the 1970s, high-­rise and urban landscape regulations discussions were taking place. And as early as 1974 was Coop Himmelb(l)au asked to come up with a proposal. Among his main recommendations he suggested that building “should provide a productive tension with the urban, topographical and cultural features of the city” (Himmelb(l)au 2007, p. 67). Like his predecessors, his recommendations never materialised into a plan. Conformist guidelines were eventually elaborated by city technicians in 2001. Today this regulation for the city centre still holds while any building exceeding 35 metres of height or 25,000m2 of gross floor area requires citizen’s participation process prior to land allocation. Moreover, issues and topics on high-rise buildings in the city are, according to the city’s Vice Mayor, Maria Vassilakou, “dealing carefully and sensitively with Vienna’s building stock” (Stadt Wien 2014b). Until the mid-2000s this mix between strong regulations and the presence of the city as a major housing operator 297

S. Guinand

prevented real estate investment and speculation particularly in the city centre (De Frantz 2012; Kadi 2015; Franz and Gruber 2018).

3 Historic Built Elements as Formative Pieces of the Viennese Urban Landscape The Horizontal Landscape As Monika De Frantz stresses cultural heritage, expressed through social and political traditions, is still very prevalent in Vienna’s conduct of affairs (2005). She further explains that against the background of its problematic national socialist period, the Habsburg Heritage has contributed as a symbol of national pride in the construction of Austrian post-war identity (De Frantz 2005). This, in turn, also influences the self-representation and symbolic imagery one wishes to be associated with and acts on its tangible and intangible dimensions. The urban landscape is no exception to it. Interventions on heritage can become particularly problematic due to the complex political symbolism and collective memories associated with it (Veschambre 2008; Ben Hounet and Guinand 2007). Urban redevelopment projects in the historic centre or in its surrounding thus do not take place without any aesthetics or emotional considerations. As an example, the MuseumsQuartier by star architect firm Ortner and Ortner (which was launched prior to the UNESCO World Heritage label of 2001) contained a tower, which raised much debate and mobilisation against it. Interestingly, at the time, the main issue of contention was whether Vienna’s international image should be enhanced to pursue active growth strategies or whether the quality of life associated with a more low-­ key profile should be maintained (De Frantz 2005, p. 55). The conflict over architectural size reflecting different expectations about the city’s future ambitions favoured a horizontal urban landscape. Following this project and the UNESCO World Heritage label in 2001, questions of whether the centrality of the cathedral tower should be complemented by other sizable landmarks resulted then in the exclusion of skyscrapers and big contemporary architecture projects from the city centre (De Frantz 2005). A study on Viennese’s perception of urban landscape (Karazs 2008) confirmed these expectations. It showed that despite its transformation with added architectural elements, the formative pieces (such as St. Stephen’s Cathedral) remain and rest on visual structures based on Baroque forms (ibid:316). The survey also showed that high-rise buildings could be erected depending on their geographic position. This meant as long as they would not disturb the perspective. For instance, proponents of skyscrapers would consider a high-rise construction next to St. Stephen’s Cathedral as a destruction of the urban landscape. The latter, although constitutive of layers of historical architectural accumulation, is perceived as a harmonious unity that any new high or iconic buildings would jeopardise. It creates what Kevin Lynch coined as the “public image” (Lynch 1960, p.  46) 298

17  Star Architecture and the Urban Landscape: The Case of Vienna

p­ articipating in the “legibility” and materialising the identity (as recognisable elements) of the city. This “public image” is also very much supported by Vienna’s tourism actors as well as visitors’ expectations. For instance, market research by the Vienna Tourist Board in 2010 showed that the significant features of the city were its: Imperial heritage; profusion of music and culture (Vienna Tourist Board 2010); savoir vivre; functional efficiency; and balance of urban and green areas. Glancing at the Vienna Tourist Board’s website one can see that these elements are still prevalent (Vienna Tourist Board 2016).

UNESCO, City Authorities and the Canaletto Perspective

Fig. 17.3  “Canaletto’s per­ spective” with the addition of the planned Heumarkt project. The photomontage shows the projected tower and its impact on the Viennese urban landscape. (Source: Initiative Stadtbildschutz, Prof. Martin Kupf, 2018)

The Heumarkt project is considered controversial as its construction largely exceeds the authorised heights and the UNESCO recommendations for the buffer zone which follow the “Canaletto perspective”. As the photomontage of the Stadtbildschutz association (refer to Fig. 17.3) and Wilfried Lipp’s, President of International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), reaction to the landscape transformation both show: “Compared with the famous Canaletto view of Vienna the visual integrity of the historic centre with the tower of the Stephansdom seen from the Upper Belvedere could now be ruined by another high-rise project” (Lipp 2014, p.  27). As Daniele Karazs points out, the painting ordered by Empress Maria Theresa embodies a distorted landscape which favours a represen­tation of a certain Baroque social order. Yet, this specific sociopolitical context is usually left out from the debate when the painting is mobilised (Karasz 2008, p. 315). Moreover, the integrity of this perspective with the city axes radiating from St. Stephen’s Cathedral was one aspect covered by the UNESCO core protection zone and was depicted as having conserved its “characteristic” urban profile (UNESCO 2001, p. 6). Yet, the authentic features bringing its universal value are:

299

S. Guinand “(…) the overlapping and multi-layered interweaving of urban buildings, structures, and spaces. The property has to a remarkable degree retained the architectural elements that demonstrate its continuous interchange of values through authentic examples from the three key periods of European cultural and political development”. (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1033)

But new and contemporary constructions that might be regarded as layers and testimonies of the city’s urban and morphological development are perceived as interfering with this homogenous historical imagery. The 462 hectares buffer zone is thus considered a protection from any intrusion: “The historic urban fabric of the Historic Centre of Vienna is thus informed by this ongoing interchange, which has caused the urban landscape to evolve and grow over time, reflected in the new, emerging skyline outside the buffer zone. Vienna’s continuing development requires a very sensitive approach that takes into account the attributes that sustain the Outstanding Universal Value of the property, including its visual qualities, particularly regarding new high-rise constructions”. (https://whc.unesco.org/en/list/1033)

Looking at different urban redevelopment projects that were planned and constructed at the fringe of the buffer zone after 2000 (refer to Fig. 17.4), it is not fortuitous that UNESCO together with ICOMOS, the city of Vienna and the Federal Ministry for Education, Sciences and Culture held, in May 2005, an international Symposium on “World Heritage and Contemporary Architecture” at Vienna City Hall. The international conference led to the adoption of the “Vienna Memorandum” on managing an historic urban landscape bringing in the concept of visual impact and normative instruments to address visual integrity. Article 11 was of particular saliency in regard to the Viennese case, in which one can see how notions of perspective and identity could suddenly play an active role: “11. The Vienna Memorandum focuses on the impact of contemporary development on the overall urban landscape of heritage significance, whereby the notion of historic urban landscape goes beyond traditional terms of “historic centres”, “ensembles” or “surroundings”, often used in charters and protection laws, to include the broader territorial and landscape context”. (UNESCO 2005, p. 2)

Since then, and in a call to regulate real estate pressures, city planning authorities have paid attention to new and appropriate policies. For instance, the city of Vienna’s urban development plan STEP (Stadtentwicklungsplan) 2025 was revised (2014) in line with the Memorandum. The Glacis Master Plan proposed a new redevelopment concept for the Ring area which incorporated notions of “sightlines” following and preserving different axes viewed from and to “identification points of historic and identity creating significance” (City of Vienna 2014c, p. 17) such as St. Stephen’s Cathedral, Church of St. Charles Borromeo or the Belvedere. In this document, importance is stressed on the visual perception from these points “of the city as a whole” (ibid, p. 17). Contemporary to the master plan, a high-rise buildings concept, put together in 2001, was revised in line with STEP 2025. Both plans take into account views and perspectives and the new high-rise concept defines zones with specific recommendations (City of Vienna 2014a, b, p. 21). The document does not however completely prevent the construction of high-­rises in the city centre: 300

17  Star Architecture and the Urban Landscape: The Case of Vienna

Karl-Marx-Hof

DC Towers

Vienna Insurance Group

Learning and Library Centre Sofitel Hotel Vienna Stefansdom St. Stephan Cathedral Vienna Central Station Intercontinental Hotel Vienna Winterthur House

Triiiple Gasometer

1

Fig. 17.4 Vienna World Heritage perimeter and buffer zone. This map shows the importance of the buffer zone perimeter (orange overlays), the location of St. Stephen’s Cathedral and the different architectural projects. The Heumarkt project is located at the northeast edge of the protected area and the buffer zone. (Source: Adapted from OpenStreetMap by Alexander Arndt, data by author)

2

4km

“(…) the core and buffer zones of the UNESCO World Heritage properties call for increased vigilance in the evaluation of high-rise projects”. (City of Vienna 2014b, p. 16)

Moreover, the high-rise concept states that the presence of potential high-rises must respond to added value (enrichment or meaningful transformation) respecting the social and urban fabric (City of Vienna 2014b, p. 23) which, without concrete guidelines, might remain elusive. The document is also limited to a sector approach to urban landscape. It only mentions links to be made with the urban fabric present in the identified zone and does not look at new high-rise architectural objects as a whole and as a language to be articulated within Vienna’s urban landscape (e.g. by presenting potential three-dimensional images or models). As such, it does not anticipate how new architecture or high-rise star architecture could respond to Vienna’s contemporary identity. Noticeable tensions suggest that this does not reflect the stance of all city departments (Interview V Pamer 2018), this lack of positioning underlines the hesitating and cautious position of city authorities to engage in a real discussion and reflection upon high-rise buildings’ strategy and their potential role in reshaping 301

S. Guinand

the Viennese skyline. But it also illustrates a shift in regard to the horizontal landscape previously favoured and the tacit agreement that it could potentially evolve.

4 The Potential Loss of the UNESCO Title: A Sign of a New Urban Regime? Vienna can today be qualified as a city in transition with a transforming landscape in which the main drivers for iconic architecture are growing stronger. These are, according to Leslie Sklair (2005, 2006), conceptualisation of the main drivers for iconic architecture are growing stronger, these are: corporate fraction (transnational corporations); state (politicians and bureaucrats); professional (technical) and consumerist’s (businesses, media and advertisement industry) interests and resources in a coalition acting together in conjunction for neoliberal urbanism (Le Galès 2016); and capitalist globalisation. Despite the new regulations and constraints on high-rises, new iconic pieces have started to emerge in the Viennese landscape as the example of the TRIIIPLE towers’ project by the Donau Canal shows (refer to Fig. 17.5). Moreover, the numerous cranes in the Viennese skyline seem to signal a booming real estate market. C. Palfy of Kerbler Holding recently stated that as developers in Vienna, one could practically not do anything wrong (Putschögl 2018). For instance, the once constraining and expensive reconversion of old buildings in the city centre (De Frantz 2005, p. 58) has now become a lucrative business. In a 500-metre circumference around the Schottentor subway and tram station, one could count no less than six reconversions of large-scale Baroque-style buildings into luxury housing and global brand hotels, often complemented by two-storey penthouse apartments. The developers have managed to “escape” the Altbau rent control by offering serviced apartments, a category that does not fall under city regulation. These different indicators among which include the Heumarkt project, and the extension of the Winterthur-Haus on Karlsplatz, seem to show that new projects such as the TRIIIPLE by the Danube canal, comprising contemporary iconic architecture, have strong chances of emerging within the historic landscape intensifying tensions with ICOMOS and UNESCO. As developers are present on different sites of the territorial municipality, negotiations and compromises between the different parties are taking place. For instance, Soravia, in charge of the TRIIIPLE building, is also the new chosen developer for the Sargfabrik project in the twenty-third district of Vienna where strong arguments as to keep the current cultural function have been taken place between the different parties. They have also recently announced the start of the construction of a 135-­ metre high-rise office tower next to the TRIIIPLE project (der Standard 2018).

302

Fig. 17.5  The TRIIIPLE project advertisement published in der Standard on 30 September 2017. The advertisement reads: “Where does the waterfront meet the Metropolis?” and proposes to “live in another dimension”. (Source: Soravia)

303

S. Guinand

5 Conclusion Although public authorities in their response to the ICOMOS report indicated that they would rework their legal framework on high-rise regulations and better respond to sightline protection (Bazil 2017), city and even state authorities are in fact not very worried about the UNESCO label (Bischof 2018). Following the new trend of Smart City (City of Vienna 2016), there is however a race and ranking that they do not want to lose: quality of life. For the ninth consecutive year, the capital has been ranked highest for quality of living according to Mercer, a consulting firm (Mercer 2017, 2018). But the pursuit of this strategy requires both compromise and financial resources. If the city has been a major player in housing provision, the state of its finances and the recent European public finance regulations (Stability Pact) have pushed it to announce savings up to 500 million Euros by 2020 in order to reduce its deficit (Stadt Wien 2018). The city thus relies more and more on partnerships for public provisions such as high-quality amenities shifting the traditional coalition of actors in the conduct of urban affairs. International competition and strong pressure on land and real estate market call for a really comprehensive reflection about the real estate market and the historic fabric. A skyline definition of contemporary architectures and its relationship with the historic urban landscape touches on the dimensions of urban quality (Da Cunha and Guinand 2014).While the public debate raises the issue (City of Vienna 2014a, b, c), the strategies and planning for these constructions tend to focus on the object and the neighbourhood scale when they should, in fact, also integrate the larger city scale. The threat of the removal of the historic city centre from the UNESCO list might be perceived as a danger for some, but it is mostly in regard to built elements and the protection of visual integrity. This is also exacerbated by ICOMOS and UNESCO whose discussions confine themselves to reactions to single projects. The two institutions should in fact bring the debate one step further and question the cultural role of contemporary iconic architecture in regard to cities’ historic built environment. Moreover, this type of debate calls for open processes feeding traditional “cooperative processes” usually limited to experts and economic actors, in order to address questions of city identity and urban growth objectives (refer to the case of Athens in Chap. 16 of this volume, and Paris in Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). While the city is gaining more socio-economically diverse residents, city authorities need to address the issue of contemporary Viennese identity before it loses its UNESCO label and more especially its smart city and life quality ranking, if it is serious about a shared urban quality benefit perspective. Acknowledgements  This work was supported by the Swiss National Foundation for Scientific Research, advanced postdoc mobility under Grant P300P1_167644. I also thank my colleagues Yvonne Franz and Elisabeth Gruber at the Department of Geography and Regional Research (Vienna University) for their pieces of advice, the workshop participants at the Villa Vigoni June 2018 for their constructive feedbacks and Sarah Houston for the English editing. 304

17  Star Architecture and the Urban Landscape: The Case of Vienna

References Bazil C (2017) State of conservation report. Historic centre of Vienna. (Austria) (C 1033). Budeskanzleramt, Österreich Ben Hounet Y, Guinand S (2007) La restauration des qsûr : institution du patrimoine et enjeux de mémoire. Espaces et Sociétés 128-129:151–169 Bischof D (2018) Wien behält Weltkulturerbe. In: Wiener Zeitung. 29.07.2018. https:// www.wienerzeitung.at/nachrichten/wien/stadtpolitik/979489_Wien-behaeltWeltkulturerbe.html. Accessed 02 Aug 2018 City of Vienna (2018) Vienna in figures. Population projection Vienna 2018. Summary. Municipal Department 23 (MA 23) Economic Affairs, Labour and Statistics, Vienna City of Vienna (2017) Vienna in figures. Municipal Department 23 (MA 23) Economic Affairs, Labour and Statistics, Vienna City of Vienna (2016) Smart city Wien. Framework strategy. Vienna city administration, Vienna City of Vienna (2014a) High-rise buildings in Vienna. Municipal Department 21 (MA 21) District planning and land use, Vienna City of Vienna (2014b) STEP 2025. Thematic concept. High-rise buildings. Strategies for the planning and evaluation of high-rise projects. Municipal Department 21 (MA 21) District planning and land use, Vienna City of Vienna (2014c) Municipal Department 21 (MA 21) Glacis masterplan. District planning and land use, Vienna City of Vienna (2010) Donau City. The future Vienna. Stadtplanungs Abteilung, Vienna Da Cunha A, Guinand S (2014) Qualité urbaine, durabilité et action collective : éléments de réflexion. In : Da Cunha A, Guinand S (eds) Qualité urbaine, justice spatiale et projet. Editions PPUR, Lausanne, p 35–65 De Frantz M (2005) From cultural regeneration to discursive governance: Museumsquartier Vienna as a plural symbol of change. Int J  Urban Reg Res 29(1):50–66 De Frantz M (2012) Capital City Cultures: Reconstructing Contemporary Europe in Vienna and Berlin. P.I.E.Peter Lang, Brussels Der Standard (2018) “Austro Tower” wird im dritten Bezirk umgesetzt. 4 July 2018. https://derstandard.at/2000082827895/Austro-Tower-wird-im-dritten-Bezirkumgesetzt. Accessed 28 Nov 2018 Franz Y (2011) Gentrification trends in Vienna. In: Szirmai V (ed) Urban sprawl in Europe. Aula Kiadó, Budapest Franz Y, Gruber E (2018) Wohnen “für alle” in Zeiten der Wohnungsmarktkrise? Der sozialeWohnungsbau in Wien zwischen Anspruch und Wirklichkeit. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00548-018-0533-1 Grubbauer M (2013) Global architecture as a contradictory signifier: lessons from Hamburg’s and Vienna’s urban megaprojects. Res Urban Sociol 13:185–209 Hatz G (2008) City profile. Vienna. Cities 25:310–322 Hatz G (2009) Kultur als Instrument der Stadtplannung. In: Fassmann H, Hatz G, Matznetter W (eds) Wien Städtebauliche Strukturen und gesellschaftliche Entwicklungen. Böhlau, Vienna Himmelb(l)au C (2007) Das Gebäude steht in einem produktiven Spannungsverhältnis zu den städtebaulichen, topographischen und kulturellen Akzenten der Stadt. In: Seiss R (ed) Wer baut Wien? Verlag Anton Pustet, Salzburg-München, p 64 Kadi J (2015) Recommodifying housing in formerly “red” Vienna? Hous Theory Soc 32(3):247–265. https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2015.1024885 Karasz D (2008) Questioning the “Evident”. An anthropological perspective as a contribution to the debates on archaeology and the preservation of monuments. The example of a discussion concerning Baroque painting of the World Heritage Site “Historic Center of Vienna”. In: Dezzi Bardeschi C (ed) Archaeology and conservation: theories, methodologies and field practices. Santarcangelo di Romagna: Maggioli Editore, pp 313–325 Le Galès P (2016) Neoliberalism and urban change: stretching a good idea too far? Territ Polit, Gov 4(2):154. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1165143

305

S. Guinand Lipp W (2014) Austria. Attack on the World Heritage Site “Historic Centre of Vienna”. In: ICOMOS (ed) Heritage at risk. World report on monuments and sites in danger, p  27. https://www.icomos.org/images/DOCUMENTS/Publications/HR201113final.pdf. Accessed 28 Nov 2018 Lourenço Caldeira M (2014) Culture as a factor of urban renovation. Extended Abstract. TecnicoLisboa. https://fenix.tecnico.ulisboa.pt/downloadFile/844820067124229/Extended%20Abstract%20Mariana%20Caldeira.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2017 Lynch K (1960) The image of the city. MIT Press, Boston Mercer (2017) https://www.mercer.com/newsroom/2017-quality-of-living-survey.html. Accessed 25 Oct 2017 Mercer (2018) Vienna tops Mercer’s twentieth quality of living ranking. 20 March 2018. New York. https://www.mercer.com/newsroom/2018-quality-of-living-survey.html. Accessed 06 Jun 2018 Paal M (2003) Metropolitan governance and regional planning in Vienna. Metropolitan governance and spatial planning. Spon Press, London Pamer V (2017) MA21, Department of urban district planning and land use, city of Vienna. Pamer V (2018) MA21, Department of urban district planning and land use, city of Vienna. Pličanić M (2012) A society of spectacle and architecture. Gasometer City Vienna. Conference Paper. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/ Maja_Plicanic/publication/235791870_A_SOCIETY_OF_SPECTACLE_AND_ ARCHITECTUREGASOMETER_CITY_VIENNA/links/0912f5138af1ccb 6 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 / A - S O C I E T Y- O F - S P E C TAC L E - A N D - A R C H I T E C T U R E GASOMETER-CITY-VIENNA.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2017 Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture: scenes, actors and spectacles in contemporary cities. Monacelli, New York Putschögl, M. (2018). “Ein Bauträger kann derzeit nichts falsch machen”. der Standard, 1/2 December 2018. Immobilien Standard, p 14 Seiss R (2017) Postfaktische Planungspolitik. Bauwelt. http://www.bauwelt.de/ themen/betrifft/Postfaktische-Planungspolitik-Wien-Hochhaus-UNESCOWeltkulturerbe-2845436.html.Accessed 30 Sept 2017 Sklair L (2006) City iconic architecture and capitalist globalization. City 10(1):21–47 Sklair L (2005) The transnational capitalist class and contemporary architecture in globalizing cities. Int J Urban Reg Res 29(3):485–500 Stone C (1993) Urban regime and the capacity to govern: a political economy approach. J Urban Aff 15(1):1–28 Suitner J (2015) Imagineering cultural Vienna. On the semiotic regulation of Vienna’s culture-led urban transformation. Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld UNESCO (2001) WHC Nomination document. http://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1033.pdf. Accessed 25 Oct 2017 UNESCO (2005) Vienna memorandum on “World Heritage and contemporary architecture -managing the historic urban landscape” and decision 29 COM 5D. Fifteenth general assembly of states parties to the convention concerning the protection of the world cultural and natural heritage, UNESCO Headquarters, Room IV, Paris, 10–11 Oct 2005 UNESCO (2017a) Decisions adopted during the 41st session of the World Heritage committee convention concerning the protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage. Krakow, Poland, 2–12 July 2017 UNESCO (2017b) State of conservation (SOC 2017). Historic centre of Vienna (Austria). https://whc.unesco.org/en/soc/3631. Accessed 25 Oct 2017 Veschambre V (2008) Traces et mémoires urbaines: enjeux sociaux de la patrimonialisation et de la démolition. Presses universitaires de Rennes, Rennes Vienna Tourist Board (2010) Brand Manual “Vienna: now or never”. http://b2b.wien. info/en/brand/brand-manual. Accessed 25.10.2017 Vienna Tourist Board (2016) The Vienna tourist board’s new brand identity. City of Vienna, Vienna Weihsmann H (2009) Red Vienna or “Red Glow on the Horizon”. Architektur des Roten Wien. Walter Zednicek Verlag, Vienna 306

V

CONCLUSIONS

Lessons Learnt and Future Research

18

Nadia Alaily-Mattar, Davide Ponzini, and Alain Thierstein

Abstract

The chapters in this volume offered diverse perspectives on complex urban cases and issues. The investigations regarding the interplays among star architecture, media, urban effects and heritage (as well as the links across them) provide insights that add new knowledge regarding the processes of making exceptional projects and more generally about the ways in which urban transformations occur in cities in Europe. In this concluding chapter, we highlight three important lessons that can be learnt from this volume. First, any scientific investigation of star architecture must acknowledge and differentiate between star architecture as an output and as a process. Mixing up the categories of investigation frequently hinders the scientific grounding of findings and the possible impact in the public debate. Second, the power of stardom must be understood beyond its capacity to brand places to include also its contribution to the political and symbolic legitimisation of contested projects. Third, star architecture can only be explained where and when it takes place; its effects and impacts indeed greatly vary across contexts. We conclude by providing an outlook for future research. Keywords N. Alaily-Mattar (*) A. Thierstein Urban Development, Technische Universität München, Munich, Bayern, Germany e-mail: N.Alaily-Mattar@tum. de; [email protected] D. Ponzini Department of Architecture and Urban Studies Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy e-mail: davide. [email protected]

Star architecture making · Urban transformation · Urban policy

1 Star Architecture as Collective Output and Process The study of star architecture has too often been oversimplified by focusing on specific aspects such as the architect’s fame, the iconicity of buildings, the spectacle of the urban environment or the alleged economic effects of each of the above. Thierstein, Alaily-Mattar and Dreher in Chap. 4 argue that it is necessary to distinguish between star architecture as a process and as an output. In most cases the investigation of the effects of star architecture and the impact on their respective cities is concerned with the process in which certain starting conditions in a city result in the

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_18

309

N. Alaily-Mattar et al.

mobilisation of various resources and inputs, to produce outputs which generate urban effects. In this sense excessive concerns with iconicity, spectacle and signature often derail the acknowledgement that these outputs are just one segment in a complex unfolding process. Together the chapters in this volume cover different aspects and provide a more holistic view of star architecture. Expecting star architecture projects to land as starships in a city and act in isolation from their context is delusionary. Rather they interact with a variety of social, economic and cultural conditions in the city at different scales. Understanding how these projects are conceived, how they work and whether they succeed requires a multidimensional and multi-actor perspective that goes beyond what individual disciplines of architecture and urban studies, geography or sociology can offer alone. Even more so if one is interested in investigating, understanding and explaining relevant effects that are to different extents related to the specificity of star architecture projects. The authors in this volume stated this in many ways: star architecture is a social construct, a socio-material assemblage, a complex and dynamic bundle of offerings; it contributes to a new heritage regime and so on. These and other terms and concepts used in this volume illustrate the different ways in which star architecture becomes a collective making of new buildings, public spaces, urban places and new meanings given to the urban landscape. The process of this making and the product, over time, influence social and power relationships attached to the place and city that host the project. The different perspectives are not equivalent given that the focus of attention is influenced by the biases of the disciplines, yet in many instances they overlap one another. In this complex view about star architecture, as our title suggests, the search for effects seems arduous because of their variety and the potential fuzziness of identifying causal relationships between changes that can be identified in a city and the arrival of such projects. Towards this purpose developing an impact model proved to be a powerful heuristic means for structuring the investigation of individual case studies of projects, in their place, in a given phase when a specific city experiences important transformation and tries to govern them (Alaily-Mattar et al. 2018). The multiple exercises in unbundling star architecture and qualifying and quantifying its effects and impacts in this volume showed that in most cases transformative changes in a city are not concomitant to one star project. Indeed it is difficult to state (if not impossible to prove scientifically) that star architecture alone can generate this altogether. The impact model proved to be useful in unpacking star architecture’s interplays with the city, in understanding complex urban effects and tracing the associated processes. At the same time, it confirmed that it is improbable to have general models to quantify the impacts in all situations and let alone to predict them with reasonable degree of accuracy. Several chapters in this volume address the challenge of defining and operationalising star architecture and of investigating the linkages among iconicity, flagshipness, emblematic architecture, etc. and the city. Most noteworthy perhaps in Chap. 7 by Alaily-Mattar and Thierstein and Chap. 310

18  Lessons Learnt and Future Research

14 by Wenner attempt at operationalising the definition of star architecture by untangling these linkages. It is evident that iconicity is not a necessary aspect of all star architecture projects in a double sense. On one hand, not all star architecture projects exhibit iconic designs and on the other hand not all star architecture projects become iconic. So far addressing this question of the making of iconicity has been monopolised by cultural sociology. In our opinion this question now deserves rigorous empirical research that puts these theories to test. Quantitative and qualitative research of the media effects of star architecture will play an important role in this effort. Much of the research presented in this volume emerged from the necessity to adopt a critical view of star architecture without embracing unfounded assumptions that frequently fall under the label of a ‘neoliberal’ perspective. Going beyond sociological theorisation and testing, these questions through empirical research can be done, as a number of the chapters in this volume do. We are convinced that there is more to be done to corroborate and improve the methods presented in this volume, not only to generate more evidence about star architecture but also to expand our understanding regarding how contemporary cities transform.

2 Understanding the Role of Star Power beyond Branding A number of chapters in this volume argued that the narrative dimension of the Bilbao effect has been important in Europe and more broadly, inasmuch as many other cities in Europe have undertaken similar attempts at restructuring their economic base and repositioning themselves, looking for a strong antecedent to develop similar culture-led projects in waterfronts or other former industrial areas they wanted to convert (refer to Chap. 6 by Ponzini and Akhavan and to Thierstein, Alaily-Mattar and Dreher in Chap. 4). This can be clearly connected to the process of generating a new image and eventually self-perception of the city of Bilbao, the Basque Country and Spain. Star architecture images stick in decision makers’ minds as well as in a tourists’ gaze. Image and media have a relevant role in the circulation of star architecture projects among cities, which the analysis in this volume underscores clearly. Besides the exceptional media exposure of Bilbao, the other examples analysed showed that the city may experience an increase in media exposure, but it might be short lived or mostly related to other aspects than the architectural brand or the spectacular design (as the cases of Graz, Lucerne and Wolfsburg showed in their respective chapters). Star architecture can represent a turn or an evolution in a city’s history, but this does not depend simply on the architectural or urban design and aesthetics. The renaissance of cities like Bilbao depends on complex development processes, on the convergence of economic and social factors with the political vision and cooperation of multiple actors. The investigation of social networks and the media provided a quite direct take on what visitors of star architecture buildings experienced, thought 311

N. Alaily-Mattar et al.

and wrote about them. In many cases, the architect’s name tag was not crucial for their experience. Hence the role attributed to the status of the architect and the exceptionality of the design is inherently ambiguous. It is evident that in many cases certain groups tend to overestimate the importance of the architect, just to legitimise their contribution to and reinforce their claim on profitable and even more generally successful urban changes. The centre of architects’ critiques is not surprising as architects lament the hijacking of their profession to produce outputs that serve political purposes rather than address spatial problems as mandated by their professional ethical codes of practice. In this game of instrumentalisation, star architects are often the main winners, irrespective of the quality of their product and most importantly of the urban effects. The excessive focus on the visual dimension of architecture for the sake of occupying a place in the media challenges the premise that architecture can only be experienced in place. However, in our opinion and despite its justifiable moral grounding, the professional bias of such critique hinders it from objectively addressing how to counter this and other opportunistic approaches in practice. Rather a more rational approach is needed, one that acknowledges the opportunities and risks associated with a new role of architects and architecture in contemporary society without aggrandizing the opportunities and overlooking the risks. In addition it is important to remember that in most cases star architecture projects mark the coming together of different actors motivated by the ambition to be transformative agents of change that is expected to benefit the whole city at a critical moment in its history. In this risky process, the authority of the architect’s status can boost the confidence of less legitimised actors and add credibility to arguments linking intended effects to exceptional architecture. In that sense, developers and politicians become eager sometimes to put the image of the star architect to work. However, this is not always an exploitative undertaking; in many instances stakeholders believe that professional recognition associated with stardom of an architect is a proof of expertise that they can rely on. In the case of the Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern (KKL), an ‘alliance’ of stars included a star architect, star acoustician and star conductor. The city of Lucerne wanted to build an exceptional facility and mobilized professionally recognized experts in this process. This alliance proved to be important to bring financial supporters, stakeholders and political constituency into collaboration in order to finally successfully deliver the ‘star project’. However, despite the effectiveness of relying on star power and legitimisation of exceptional architecture, the cases and examples considered in this volume confirm that the effects generated by the status of the architect are rather limited in scope and temporality. The more collective forms of planning and action tended to frame projects and provide medium- and long-term visions. Thus, urban effects derive from an array of factors and actors. It is important for decision makers then to pay attention to more accurate study and design of relationships to place and society, better competition briefs, stronger links to urban fabric and economies and so on. It 312

18  Lessons Learnt and Future Research

is clear that public debates in individual instances and international scholarly discussions do not consider such interplays between star architecture and the city as crucial for the success of the first and a realistic evolution of the other. This book contributes to these academic and public debates with evidence and arguments for widening the reasoning about European cities when discussing about star architecture projects.

3 Explaining Star Architecture Where It Takes Place The variety of examples and views presented in this volume highlight that there is no merit in generalising about star architecture, rather one must seek to extract lessons that can be learnt from specific projects and processes despite of the specificities of local situatedness and performance. Emphasising local specificity and situatedness implies that ‘star architecture’ cannot be a replicable formula. Research of star architecture, hence, must engage in comparative perspective between dissimilar cases which, as Robinson (2011) argues, is permissible but nevertheless vulnerable. Although research and scholarly work can deepen specific situations in great depth through the study of assemblages (Farías and Bender 2010; Yaneva 2017; Lieto in Chap. 2 of this volume), nevertheless it might go against deriving more general considerations. We are still far from encompassing interpretations of urban transformation that fit well with the different star architecture instances in European cities (for a discussion, refer to Palermo and Ponzini 2015). We are well aware of our positioning as researchers and do not assume European cities, planning or politics as a reference model for other continents. For this reason, we observed the aspects that European cities made clearer, and in some cases even a bit extreme (e.g. the relationship with built heritage and the urban landscape), so as to provide evidence and reflections to other researchers and policymakers. However, we stress that star architecture can only be explained where and when it takes place, its effects and impacts vary across time and space. There are so many ways in which context matters that – we are convinced – anyone, after reading this collection of essays, should be persuaded about giving attention to where star architecture projects take place. In some cases the local planning systems or the care for certain features of the urban landscape limit the presence of certain projects (as seen in Vienna, refer to Chap. 17 by Guinand) or harness certain types and functions in given areas (as in the case of Paris in Chap. 13 by Gravari-Barbas). The urban landscape becomes relevant not so much because of its inherent physical qualities but in the ways in which these and their social meanings are mobilised by the actors involved in the star architecture-making process (Ponzini and Nastasi 2016). Star architects themselves may struggle to find consistent ways to relate to the landscape and image of the city, capturing certain motifs, framing certain views (as in the case of Athens, refer to Chap. 16 by Gravari-Barbas), or they can become catalysers for this to happen (as in Lucerne, refer to 313

N. Alaily-Mattar et al.

Chap. 12 by Held). Local players may use the power of urban heritage and landscape as an argument in favour of, or against certain features of, projects or their entirety. Cases such as Liverpool (refer to Chap. 15 by Cominelli and Jacqout) show how the issue can go global and involve transnational actors as the UNESCO. Nowhere in Europe can the functioning of the planning systems, the sometimes ambiguous and politicised veto points be underestimated when approaching transformative projects. These aspects, again, show how the making of star architecture is situated as a collective practice rather than the gesture of one star or of his/her team. Further work on the relationship between star architecture projects and the evolution of the urban landscape in specific European cities may derive from the explorations in this volume. Cities of different sizes may derive different benefit from adding one star architecture piece to their collection (the chapters of this volume look to a great variety of cities in Europe). Global cities like Paris or London perhaps have a limited marginal impact of one star architecture project in terms of media exposure and visibility, yet they can use the projects as a key element for certain development strategies or for influencing morphological or functional change. Second-tier cities may have higher expectations from one significant project, but the structural conditions for it to succeed in terms of attracting international resources and attention, the capability of managing the planning and implementation process cannot be taken for granted, as we have seen significant differences across Europe. Cities of lower ranks are generally less considered in literature, though the examples provided in this volume tell how important they are in order to isolate certain aspects of star architecture from other factors and trends that touch more intensively big cities. According to city size, also politics of urban development may vary. The different cases in this volume make it clear that is difficult to find common traits across cities internationally of similar political orientation, as leading parties might change over time and local constituencies or powers may be decisive. It is certain that particular urban regimes are more inclined to favour star architecture and expect it to support economic growth, yet it is not possible to identify a consistent neoliberal policy (Sklair 2017) that is pursued in the development of the projects, as discussed in this volume. The case of Louvre-Lens (refer to Chap. 15 by Cominelli and Jacquot) shows the political and economic importance of reconnecting the project to context and to different social and cultural realities. The project by SANAA made the integration in the landscape a central point. The creation of a new museum was part of a broader strategy of economic conversion that levered different synergies with cultural production and local cultural heritage, leading to an even stronger political recognition of the cultural values of the locale. Of course, content matters, and it matters as architecture, in the end, brings functions into place. The case of the KKL (refer to Chap. 12 by Held) is the reminder about the importance of the nesting and functioning of cultural activities in place and over time to sustain the positive effects of a high-profile project in a medium-size city. Not all cities are equipped to manage the pressures, contrasts and complexities 314

18  Lessons Learnt and Future Research

of star architecture processes, just for the sake of transnational elites and without benefiting local interests. Once again, one cannot generalise certain political patterns in relation to the development of star architecture projects in Europe (and, it is suspected, anywhere else).

4 Future Research About Star Architecture and European Cities In Europe, the historic layering of cities and long-term democratic traditions enable a collective process of star architecture making. In other political and geographic contexts this can be different as urban governance and politics more generally do not imply such involvement of citizens and public care for the urban environment. The study of star architecture must take into consideration the conditions out of which the necessity for a star architecture project emerged. This is frequently forgotten after a project sets foot in town and the public debate becomes heated, in many instances the aesthetic discussion of architecture or the fight over one star’s style can overshadow the discussion of the political economy of the project and its intended goals. These intended goals might be publically declared, although some of them might not be. However, because success by definition is the achievement of stated goals, any research of the success or failure of these projects must thoroughly uncover these stated goals first and ask how they contribute to the public good. Only then is it possible to address the question whether and, if so, how these projects are successful. The development of star architecture projects has been accentuated, in the context of inter-city competition in which cities increasingly try to position themselves in relation to other cities. The chapters in this volume discuss numerous such examples. However, the positioning of a city may not, or may not only, follow the logic of international competition among cities. Rather it is often focused on how a city perceives itself and would like to distinguish itself within a field. This is not always a rational process. Effects such as boosting citizen pride, contributing to collective representation and ‘discovering’ a city’s new identity are not quantifiable; any measurable impacts emerging out of these effects can only be long term (the case of Vienna in Chap. 17 by Guinand and the case of Wolfsburg in Chap. 11 by Naegelican be recalled in this sense). Indeed, many policymakers engaged in such projects allude to the long-term impacts. However, the long-term nature of such endeavours should not undermine the rationality of such pursuits. It is convincing that important findings will emerge from longitudinal study of effects, highlighting in particular the intertwinement of effects over time. Star architecture projects and the great emphasis on the expectations of positive impacts tell of the inconsistencies in the typical narrative of inter-­ urban economic competition. It is rare that market discipline alone shape such projects. State efficiency and a mix of public goals blend during the process of planning, design and implementation. The case of Lucerne (in Chap. 12) brings awareness that positive governance a­ rrangements that 315

N. Alaily-Mattar et al.

last and grant long-term economic sustainability can derive more from broad political support rather than managerial zeal alone. The involvement of multiple stakeholders that may (find ways of) benefitting from one future project can enrich the project and help its contextualisation. This is also a way of strengthening its political constituency. Complementing transformative projects within a richer development vision, with concrete interlinkages at the urban and neighbourhood scale, as well as with the meanings attached to the urban landscape, is a question that should, in our opinion, be posed in all situations. Research of the institutional and organisational set-ups can provide important insights about the enablement of the development of star architecture projects and the sustainability of their positive effects. Media and communication evidently are a crucial factor for star architecture. Images are powerful and they drive public attention strongly. Image matters for European cities – as was documented in multiple chapters in this volume and in particular in Chap. 8 by Nastasi. It matters in terms of collective identity building and consolidation, continuity with urban heritage and because the urban environment has become a means of tourism attraction. Architectural and urban icons are capable of catalysing the image of one city, both for such public reasons and for others, leaning toward the private sector  – since companies can gain recognition (even free publicity) by having a successful iconic building. Until recently, most historic cities in Europe used to distinguish their image with reference to their past and recent heritage. Visitors were (and still are) selectively funnelled in certain areas only; paintings, postcards and souvenir photographs synthesised the essence of a place with an icon, whether a spectacular tower, a rich palace or a magnificent square. Of course, the image of a city evolved in history. Europe now has a high number of cities which tend to compete in this image renovation trend, pushing in some cases, a rapid substitution of old icons with new architectural wonders, tall buildings and skylines. On the one hand, cities are in fact carefully crafting, editing and controlling their profile through costly investments in their built environments. They commission star architects to design exceptional architectural projects to petrify their new brand. On the other hand, however, the circulation of images of exceptional architecture projects has become so intensified that these images develop their own momentum; they now sprawl into new media. Indeed, the process of image circulation has pushed the transformation of city image out of public authority’s understanding and control. Indeed this process of circulation of photographs is shifting the power of representation from the producer/supply side of planning authorities/developers to the demand/user side. This constitutes a moment of change in the politics of representation. In addition, as Nastasi explains in Chap. 8, architectural images have themselves a potential for becoming an agency of urban transformation, because they can exert a tremendous influence on policymakers and the public opinion, almost inadvertently. In certain circumstances photographic images and renderings have been supplanting technically informed images such as plans and project documents altogether (Nastasi and Ponzini 2018). 316

18  Lessons Learnt and Future Research

This volume has compiled a set of attempts at mapping and analysing (with quantitative methods and geolocalisation techniques mixed with more qualitative methods), yet the potential field of work is quite vast and unexplored (Ponzini and Manfredini 2017). In addition the high mobility of international designers, investors and tourists, the growing mass circulation of images on the Internet tends to generate a sort of hyperreality detached from particular places (as explained by Leconte in Chap. 3) and from culturally mediated meanings of architectural images. Icons are designed also, or even more so, for this purpose of occupying a virtual site in the media. The latter, in turn, tend to depict iconic buildings in abstract manners devoid of any sign of urban life. Some see this trend as a threat to European cities, risking to lose their identity in this race for iconic recognition. It is now known that this can be part of the (positive as well as detrimental) evolution of the urban landscape of one city. Hence, studying and assessing the media ‘footprint’ of star architecture projects and urban transformations is an urgent issue that is only broached out in this volume, given its complex and multidimensional nature. At its infancy is the possibility of tracing the transnational trajectories of design firms, their projects, the images of renderings and completed projects and of other actors involved in the urban development networks and how this all affects contemporary cities (Guggenheim and Söderström 2010). Further theoretical and interdisciplinary research can help in understanding more clearly the influence of media representations and the processes through which star architecture projects promote an image of a city in the media. Several chapters in the volume tested the power and new possibilities of new data sources and Internet-based methods. Drawing on social networks and media provides much larger yet less targeted data sets than, say, surveys. Big amounts of data are available but they are unstructured; they can help understanding but they need high levels of interpre­ tation capacity in order to become meaningful in research and policymaking. Even in the typical contraposition of pro-growth and conservative powers in cities like Athens, Vienna or Paris, this volume documents in detail the negotiations and incremental agreements that have occurred between preservation and star architects. Several case studies presented in this volume confirm that reaction to new and potentially disruptive projects can vary dramatically in different European contexts, as shown in Chap. 15 by Cominelli and Jacquot. The same arguments and even the same institution and planning tools (e.g. UNESCO and its danger list) have different effects according to circumstances and to the network of actors and interests involved, to the physical, functional and symbolic qualities of the project and its place. UNESCO sometimes works in favour of more restrictive rules, in others as a decompression chamber where most disruptive measures are negotiated and improved for multiple city groups. This promises to be a more urgent topic of research in the future, where possible frictions and synergies between preserving heritage and promoting new iconic buildings will accentuate. The interplay between accentuated competition 317

N. Alaily-Mattar et al.

for international tourism and inflating system of recognition (e.g. European Capital of Culture, UNESCO sites, City of Design, etc.) may be an interesting background to see how star architecture projects are used in order to enhance urban heritage. Finally, despite identifiable positive physical, economic and media effects, most projects analysed in this volume do not lead to a transformative economic repositioning of their respective cities, as intended by the initiators. Nonetheless the legitimisation of architecturally exceptional projects is still often argued on an economic base – supra-local or international competitiveness and city repositioning, tourism increase, jobs, etc. – rather than in the sociocultural and morphological effects involved. Sociocultural and morphological effects are more discernable, however they are open to interpretation and context dependent and less closely linked to the ‘star factor’ both in the public discourse and in reality. There is a potentially fascinating yet untapped angle of research that could deliver promising findings: the investigation of whether there is something specific or a pattern of how star architecture buildings ‘set foot’ and alter the morphology of their respective cities. If one considers all the city maps presented in this volume, each highlighting a specific star architecture project, is it possible to identify some patterns of the interplay between the footprint of the buildings and the grain and fabric of their respective city? Maybe. This requires further attention and dedicated work. Different readers can extract varied elements from the chapters of this volume. Overall it is expected that practitioners can learn from the cases presented in this volume, and it can be reasoned that it is quite unlikely that experts can go as far as giving guidelines for such complex matters as transforming cities through star architecture. For this reason, the discussion is limited to reflecting on European cities, in the hope that others can learn from what has been documented and discussed and they can, in this way, promote more informed understanding and public action in European cities and beyond.

References Alaily-Mattar N, Dreher J, Thierstein A (2018) Repositioning cities through star architecture: how does it work? J Urban Des 23(2):169–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/13 574809.2017.1408401 Farías I, Bender T (2010) Urban assemblages: how actor-network theory changes urban studies. Routledge, London Guggenheim M, Söderström O (2010) Re-shaping cities: how global mobility transforms architecture and urban form. Routledge, London Nastasi M, Ponzini D (2018) Towards a photographic urbanism? Images iconizing cities and swaying urban transformation. In: Lindner C, Meissner M (eds) The Routledge companion to urban imaginaries. Routledge, London, pp 217–231 Palermo PC, Ponzini D (2015) Place-making and urban development: new challenges for contemporary planning and design. Routledge, London Ponzini D, Manfredini F (2017) New methods for studying transnational architecture and urbanism: a primer. Territorio, vol 80, pp 97–110

318

18  Lessons Learnt and Future Research Ponzini D, Nastasi M (2016) Starchitecture: scenes, actors and spectacles in contemporary cities. Monacelli Press, New York, New York [second edition] Robinson (2011) Cities in a world of cities: the comparative gesture. Int J Urban Reg Res 35(1):1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00982 Sklair L (2017) The icon project: architecture, cities, and capitalist globalization. Oxford University Press, Oxford Yaneva A (2017) Five ways to make architecture political: an introduction to the politics of design practice. Bloomsbury Publishing, London

319

Commentary: Parallel Realities: Star Architecture and Overtourism in the Age of the Internet

19

Wilfried Wang

Abstract

This commentary deals with the origins and characteristics of star architects and star architectures at the end of the twentieth century. Star architecture and overtourism are two sides of one coin compulsively searching for global attention within the flat and indistinguishable spectrum of the World Wide Web. In the early twenty-first century, the destruction of the urban objects of desire through overtourism is seen as an analogy to the self-exhaustion produced by the search for ever more spectacular star architecture. In this way, parallel realities are constructed locally: star architecture and tourist destinations exist despite quotidian environments. Keywords

Star architect · Star architecture · Overtourism · Self-destructive processes · Self-exhausting processes · Parallel realities

1 Introduction: The Making of Star Architecture

W. Wang (*) The University of Texas at Austin, School of Architecture, Austin, TX, USA e-mail: wilfried. [email protected]

The cult of the star and by extension the cult of star architecture had its origins in antiquity. The Greek notion of the ‘η´ρως – heroes – defined an individual who combats adversity in search of glory. Classical literature recounted the struggles by heroines and heroes from their point of view, omitting or marginalising the contribution of others. The heroines’ and heroes’ achievements were celebrated as idealised goals to which society should strive. At the same time, however, the unlikelihood of mere mortals ever reaching these goals only served to lionise these “stellar” acts. In this insurmountable difference between the heroic imperative and the abject certainty of failure to emulate such heroic acts by a normal person lay the cult of desire for fame. The prerequisite elements for stardom were egocentricity, eloquence, networking and mediocrity (Boltanski and Chiapello 2005, p. 355 et seq.).

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1_19

321

W. Wang

The first characteristic was the key motivator in a star architect’s career path. Egocentricity, in some cases egomania, cultivated in the character of a wannabe star architect the attitude that she or he was chosen. This led to the belief, in the mind of a star architect, that her or his design concepts were, by definition, unique and unprecedented and not only appropriate to the task but also strokes of genius. A star architect considered uniqueness and the lack of precedents to be the key measures of design quality so as to lift it out of the normal discourse, to elevate it into the realm of the innovative, to catapult it into the stellar orbit for everyone to gaze and gawk at. The star architecture rhetoric presupposed that both a design concept and its realisation were inseparably connected to the person giving birth to it. The catapulting of such an innovative design into the stellar orbit was sensed as being synonymous with the launching of the designer into stardom. Eloquence was necessary to present a project in a convincing manner to a client and the public. Star architects occasionally resorted to delusional eloquence to misrepresent a design idea for something that it was not; the delusion being effective on both sides of the act of communication. As in common advertising or coarse salesmanship, claims were made about a product or a design idea that it patently did not possess. Censure for false representation failed to surface in public consciousness for a variety of reasons, principally due to the inability of expert commentators to make their voices heard at the right time, the gullibility of vociferous professional commentators who fell for the star architect’s dissembling rhetoric. Networking functioned at two levels, firstly as part of a star architect’s branding and secondly as part of the staffing of a star architect’s office. At the first level, financially dependent professional architectural commentators were identified for their multiplying ability. For which media did these individuals work? What was their circulation and who was their audience? How close did these “commentators” adhere to the prepared press material? How did they need to be treated (from complementary hospitality to other enticements)? At the second level, star architects had no qualms about literally exploiting the desire of young architects to gain marketable “experience” by having them work as interns. Truly talented young collaborators were employed up to the point at which they demanded a share in the project credits. It was then that these talents were often “let go”, for they could pose a threat to the dominant personality of the star architect. Mediocrity spread and became widely accepted. If in pre-World Wide Web (WWW) times noteworthiness in architecture was once based on the principle of innovation, be it in conceptual, programmatic, constructional or formal terms, then star architecture would be based on spectacular formal representation, a state of affairs that Guy Debord (1967) had already foreshadowed in 1967. Star architecture reduced the notion of innovation to whether an external appearance of an object had hitherto been shaped in a specific configuration or not. Of little significance was the need that gave rise to a building, its location, its response to prevailing climatic conditions, its contribution to the local culture, its sociocultural intent, its 322

19  Commentary: Parallel Realities: Star Architecture and Overtourism in the Age of the Internet

­ anner of construction or its economic viability. Star architecture thus m became the endpoint of a commercialised l’architecture pour l’architecture; its sole purpose was to be an eye-catcher (Franck 1998), a trademark, an icon, a memorable phenomenon, an object with eidetic power to mark a place on the global map.

2 The Quest for Global Visibility in the Age of the World Wide Web From 1997 onwards, the star architecture-pioneering Bilbao Effect can be seen to have occurred right at the moment when conventional printed mediation and mass media had reached its zenith, while its emulators came “online” a decade later, right in the maturing phase of the WWW. It is important to recall that the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao was only one element in the regional and urban reorganisation plan that lasted over two decades and which involved, amongst others, the construction of a new airport, the relocation of Bilbao’s naval port, the construction of an underground network and the rejuvenation of the inner-city embankment along the Nervion River (Ponzini 2010). The Guggenheim organisation brought its international flair and occasionally its collection to a provincial city that was desperately seeking a new role as a destination for cultural tourism in a post-industrialised era. Decades later, the Bilbao Effect was to include the downside effects of international investments in luxury housing and collateral gentrification processes (Dickson 2017). Other provincial cities that sought to simply insert free-standing cultural institutions within a precarious sociocultural context were likely to fail, as can be seen in the case of the MARTa in Herford, Germany (App 2015), or the Cidade da Cultura in Santiago de Compostela, Spain (Peregil 2011). Designed by star architects, their initiation as construction projects and survival as institutions depended on high-level political patronage, who wanted to put their cities “on the map”. The collaboration between egocentric architects and politicians willing to emerge on “iconic” edifices formed ideal symbioses. With the help of a spectacular building designed by a star architect, politicians believed that a city could thus be “put on the map”. The logic was this: the more spectacular the icon the more likely a spike with the power to attract global visibility could be created in the flattened terrain of the Internet. Politicians were motivated to realise star architecture hoping to increase their personal fame by association (photo op). Putting a city on the map by reproducing the Bilbao Effect was motivated by the desire to increase numbers of tourists, as illustrated in the case studies in this book. In the same manner as pre-enlightenment societies elevated individuals to the status of a heroine or hero, with the ancient Greek scholar Eratosthenes of Cyrene interpreting clusters of stars of the celestial sphere as constellations with mythical origins, so every society created foci of collective attention to structure its generative mythologies, codifying individual behaviour and constituting the physical and metaphysical cultural 323

W. Wang

fabric. Before the maturation of the WWW, values such as these were transmitted via the family, religious communities, schools and other educational establishments, and the printed, spoken and televised media. Since the establishment of the WWW in the mid-1990s, the barrier-­ free, ubiquitous and rapid access to a wide and deep communicative information network created an equalising, relativising and simultaneously dampening effect on any society’s ability to generate foci of collective attention. The old loci of learning such as families, religious communities, theatres, books, magazines, movies, radio and television were marginalised. At the same time, while at the end of the twentieth century it was still possible for architects to draw attention to themselves by means of printed publications, in the twenty-first century books, magazines and newspapers lost readers; bookshops and newsagents closed as online book trading and news websites offered cheaper delivery and free access, respectively. However, with the flattening effect of the new dominant medium, the continued quest for fame in the age of the WWW brought forth ever more extreme attempts at creating attention. Within the first two decades of the twenty-first century, the compulsive and obsessive search for attention generated an incomprehensible breadth of star architecture, the indiscriminate productivity thereof undermining the aim of the search for the ever more spectacular with myriads of formal variations making an appearance either as projects or even as realised buildings, thereby supersaturating any curiosity and exhausting any attention span of observers, and thus bringing about the demise of star architecture (refer to Chap. 7 by Alaily-Mattar and Thierstein, Chap. 8 by Nastasi and Chap. 9 by Jacquot and Chareyron in this volume, for comprehensive discussions of the role of the media, respectively, with reference to newspapers, photographic images and social networks). One piece of star architecture looked like other pieces; star architecture had lost its currency. Some countries with a large appetite for construction had enough (Li 2014, 2016; Rybzcynski 2014; Heathcote 2017).

3 The Quest for Identity in the Age of Overtourism The two levelling effects of the WWW’s broad accessibility to information and the steady growth of cheap global air transport for individuals have brought about the movement of large numbers of people wishing to visit famous sites, including cities, nature reserves, landscapes and edifices. Fame, based on historic roots, gave certain tourist destinations a head start; in some cases, such as Machu Picchu (Bekiempis 2008) or Venice (Coffey 2018), it caused an excess of visitor numbers that led to the deterioration of the physical and social fabric. Overtourism (Edensor 2017) and online accommodation agencies accelerated gentrification processes in popular destinations, including hindering low-paid seasonal staff of tourist facilities from finding affordable places to stay. Cities such as Barcelona, Berlin and Amsterdam introduced ordinances prohibiting the short-term rental of apartments; Mallorca set a limit to the number of hotel beds on the island 324

19  Commentary: Parallel Realities: Star Architecture and Overtourism in the Age of the Internet

(Summers 2017). The excessive concentration of tourists on a few sites in certain cities such as Paris, Berlin and Lisbon gave rise to the search for alternative destinations intended to encourage a broader spread of tourists by realising star architecture projects as new attractions (refer to Chap. 13 by Gravari-Barbas in this volume). The construction of star architecture was seen as one way of assisting in this attempt at distributing visitors more widely, besides seeing in star architecture a means of refreshing the image of an already popular destination. Whereas, around the turn of the millennium the award of a UNESCO World Heritage status was regarded by applicants to be an impulse for increased tourism, the euphoria for such a title waned in subsequent decades as particularly politicians began to realise the long-term management implications and the associated development constraints. Thus, for example, politicians in the state of Saxony and in the city of Dresden welcomed the loss of the World Heritage status (Blobel 2010) as it freed them from complying with the onerous conservation and management plans (similar issues are discussed by Guinand and by Cominelli and Jacquot in this volume). The safeguarding of heritage, whether at a local or global level, was a constant source of controversy between proponents of unrestricted constructional development on the one hand and ecologists or conservationists on the other. In the context of globalisation, the principle of protecting local idiosyncrasies as a means of safeguarding distinct identities was often surrendered in favour of supposed economic dynamism and technological progress (Ricoeur 1961/1965). The expansion of dominant Western civilisation not only caused the extinction of species, it also led to the widespread erasure of traditional local cultures and their physical embodiments. While the self-exhaustion of star architecture was also the result of the destructive productivity aided and abetted by digital technology, new forms of bottom-up cultures that had been neglected by the main stream were able to offer alternative forms of local identities (Barragán and Gangotena 2011).

4 Parallel Realities The early twenty-first century was a period in which not only mutually contradictory logics – capitalism and sustainability – were able to coexist in technologically advanced and scientifically aware trading nations, individuals in these societies too lived with fundamental antinomies. While a handful of sociopolitical entities drew the necessary conclusions to prepare the world for a resilient future in the face of climate change, few were able to translate these into effective action. Similarly, with the ideal of cultural identity, not only did globalisation lead to an increase in the quantity and the spectrum of traded goods, it also led to increased migration of people. The freedom to move from one place to another, to visit or live in a place other than the one in which one was born, inevitably brought up the questions about the stability and a­ uthenticity 325

W. Wang

of local cultures in the face of global mobility, a question in the minds of mass migrants – whether tourists or emigrants – and hosts. The more intensively globalised star architecture followed its own autonomous formal developmental logic, often disconnected from local cultural traditions, the greater the demand from global travellers for typical, local and autochthonous culture. The more damaging the effect of overtourism on the sustainability of local cultures the greater the objection by locals against tourism and their rejection of star architecture. At the end of the twentieth century, when there still was a widespread interest in increasing tourism into every part of the world, there was the simultaneous willingness to accept “alien” insertions, as in the case of Graz (refer to the discussion by Dreher in Chap. 11 in this volume) as an albeit reluctantly accepted form of collateral damage, in the hope that such “innovations” would generate sustained sociocultural and economic rejuvenation. In the early twenty-first century, there were grassroots campaigns not only against the applications for the Olympic Games (e.g. Hamburg, Berlin, Calgary, Grisons, Vaud, Paris, etc.) but also against the applications for being the European Capital of Culture (e.g. Nuremberg and Bregenz). The commercial interests behind large sporting and cultural events overstretched the capacity of locals to embrace their effects and caused a backlash. Politicians and commercial corporations promoting phenomena associated with increased tourism or even short-term, one-off events were increasingly leading a life outside the reality of the local inhabitants (as discussed in the case of Athens by Gravari-Barbas in Chap. 13 in this volume). Such parallel realities between otherworldly politicians and people on the ground even came with distinct aesthetic preferences and exacerbated searches for solutions at the extremes: the one that could be compared at the global level and the other that would represent the “true” tradition. Although there were alternatives to these extremes (e.g. WG Clark, TEd’A Arquitectes, Hermann Czech, et  al.), the dominating media promoting the culture of star architecture eclipsed these differentiated architectural approaches. Given the steady decline of journals, newspapers and book publishers on the one hand and the concentration in the televised and online news channels, there were no means of informing a global audience of intelligent, careful and integrative alternatives. While political debates were more likely to be analysed, deconstructed and spun, culture and architecture were served without critique in a fait accompli manner as non-­ essential lifestyle topics. Completed buildings by star architects, regardless of their quality, were overwhelmingly presented by journalists as positive achievements. Even controversial cases such as the Elbphilharmonie in Hamburg (Wang 2017) – delayed by years, five times the original budget and derivative to the extent of attaching even the name of the plagiarised original to its own – were celebrated by most publications until the concert hall’s inherent acoustic failures were acknowledged by musicians themselves (Brug 2019). In general, the label “star architecture” immunised such designated buildings against scrutiny and public debate; indeed, as the case of the 326

19  Commentary: Parallel Realities: Star Architecture and Overtourism in the Age of the Internet

concert hall in Lucerne shows, the replacement of a first prize winner by an architect with greater charisma “rescued” the project (refer to Held’s detailed account in Chap. 9 in this volume), an immunity that was welcomed by commissioning politicians; their reputation was at stake. Once built, star architectures could not be permitted to be evaluated as a failure. The belief that star architectures inherently enriched the cultures of common people, giving them a sense of purpose to their otherwise sparse lives, was perpetuated particularly in political systems in which cultural authenticity had become meaningless. For star architecture could take on any form, its authors’ claims regarding its performance did not have to match the built reality, it did not have to represent anything but its own formal logic, its construction could take as long as necessary and it could cost whatever. The lingering but unarticulated disquiet at such privileged double standards’ treatment of star architecture projects added to the corrosive loss of credibility of the respective political systems. The glamour radiating from star architectures, the twenty-first century version of bread and circuses for the masses, lost its effect. People living in real reality began to see their world as it was: “a tiny planet that is totally dependent with nothing revolving around it”, not even star architecture, “there is no sense in the misery, hunger is just not having eaten, it isn’t a trial of strength; hard work is just stooping and lugging, with nothing to show” (Brecht 1958, pp.  84–85, translation by author). This realisation was to be the beginning of another era.

References App V (2015) Eine Schau für den “Zirkusdirektor” Jan Hoet. Deutschlandfunk Kultur, 6 May 2015. https://www.deutschlandfunkkultur.de/zehn-jahre-museum-marta-herford-eine-schau-fuer-den.1013.de.html?dram:article_id=319157 Barragán D, Gangotena P (2011) Al Borde. Colectivos Arquitectura América Latina, 4 May 2011. https://colectivosarquitecturasa.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/al-borde/ Bekiempis V (2008) Machu Picchu endangered? Deseret News, 2 July 2008. https:// www.deseretnews.com/article/700239769/Machu-Picchu-endangered.html Blobel G (2010) Die Brücke der Schande. Süddeutsche Zeitung, 17 May 2010. https://www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/aussenansicht-waldschloesschenbrueckedie-bruecke-der-schande-1.90964 Boltanski L, Chiapello E (2005) The new spirit of capitalism. Verso, London. First published in French. Éditions Gallimard 1999, Paris Brecht B (1958) Das Leben des Galilei. Aufbau Verlag, Berlin Brug M (2019) In der Philharmonie hört man nichts. Die Welt, 15 January 2019. https:// www.welt.de/kultur/musik/article187138586/Jonas-Kaufmann-Eklat-In-derElbphilharmonie-hoert-man-nichts.html Coffey H (2018) Venice tourists could be fined € 500 for sitting down. Independent, 20 September 2018. https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/venicesitting-ban-fine-tourists-overtourism-sit-mayor-luigi-brugnaro-a8547086.html Debord G (1967) La société du spectacle. Buchet-Chastel, Paris Dickson A (2017) Is the Bilbao effect on urban renewal all it’s cracked up to be? Financial Review, 21 December 2017. https://www.afr.com/news/world/europe/ is-the-bilbao-effect-on-urban-renewal-all-its-cracked-up-to-be-20171211-h02fru Edensor H (2017) What “Overtourism” means for the travel industry. Travel Weekly, 16 August 2017. http://www.travelweekly.com.au/article/what-overtourism-meansfor-the-travel-industry/ 327

W. Wang Franck G (1998) Ökonomie der Aufmerksamkeit. DTV, Munich Heathcote E (2017) Age of the “star architect”. Financial Times, 26 January 2017. https://www.ft.com/content/d064d57c-df01-11e6-86ac-f253db7791c6 Li C (2014) Under Xi, China’s Wave of “Weird Architecture” May Have Peaked. The New  York Times, 19 December 2014. https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes. com/2014/12/19/under-xi-chinas-wave-of-weird-architecture-may-have-peaked/ Li C (2016) China moves to halt “weird architecture”. The New  York Times, 22 February 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/world/asia/china-weirdarchitecture.html Peregil F (2011) Monumento a la incoherencia, El País, 12 November 2011. https:// elpais.com/politica/2011/11/11/actualidad/1321028878_539150.html Ponzini D (2010) Bilbao effects and narrative defects. Cahiers de Recherche du Programme Villes & territoires. http://blogs.sciences-po.fr/recherche-villes/ files/2010/08/Ponzini-Bilbao-Effects-and-Narrative-Defects.pdf Ricoeur P (1965) Universal civilization and national cultures. In: History and truth (first English translation). Northwestern University Press, Evanston. Of: Civilisation universelle et cultures nationales (1961) Esprit29/10 Rybzcynski W (2014) Why “star architects” are ruining skylines. The Bryan Lehrer Show, WNYC, 11 Jun 2014. https://www.wnyc.org/story/call-localarchitectural-talent/ Summers H (2017) Balearic Islands cap number of beds available for tourists. The Guardian, 9 August 2017. https://www.theguardian.com/travel/2017/aug/10/ balearic-islands-caps-number-of-beds-available-for-tourists Wang W (2017) Imitation games. Architecture Today 276:32–40

328

Index

A Acropolis Museum, 18, 267–287 Agbar Tower, 15 Alsop, W., 254, 257 Alto, A., 171, 183, 184 Amsterdam, 74, 75, 90, 239, 324 Amsterdam Centraal, 239 Anecdotal, 197 Anne Lacaton, 257 Antwerp, 142 Antwerp Centraal, 239 Ara Pacis Museum, 15 Archistar, 15 Architectural images, 41, 130, 316, 317 Architecture, 1–18, 23–32, 35–43, 45–52, 55–66, 69–89, 97–112, 115–130, 133–149, 153–167, 169–185, 187–201, 203–223, 227–240, 247–264, 267–287, 291–304, 309–318, 321–327 AREP, 230, 240–242 Arles, 251 Armin Meili, 188 Assemblages, 4, 12, 23–32, 36, 71, 310, 313 Athens, 18, 267–287, 304, 313, 317, 326 Attractiveness, 18, 76, 102, 134, 204, 208, 212, 222, 257, 260, 263, 295 Autostadt Wolfsburg, 102, 111, 172, 174–177, 180, 182–184 B Ban, S., 91, 204, 221 Bankside Power Station, 80, 212 Barcelona, 15, 74, 75, 86, 88, 142, 143, 208, 324 Basel, 74, 90 Batteríid architects, 84 Beijing, 31 Bellini, M., 204 Benthem Crouwel architects, 239, 242 Berger and Anziutti, 204 Berlin, 74, 75, 91, 142, 143, 175, 188, 236, 237, 239, 240, 324, 326 Berlin Hauptbahnhof (Main station), 237 Big data, 134, 137

Bigo, 78 Bilbao, 2, 3, 18, 45, 70, 72, 76, 77, 88–90, 101, 102, 111, 134, 135, 142, 145–148, 153, 159, 170, 205, 207–210, 214, 223, 231, 264, 269, 270, 284, 294, 311 Bilbao effect, 45, 70, 76, 89, 97, 100, 112, 154, 159, 231, 311, 323 Bilbao-like, 70, 88 Borromeo, 300 Branded architecture, 3, 5, 8, 25, 36, 70, 231 Brandscape, 269–271 Brussels, 250 Bruxelles-Midi, 236 Bundestag, 141–144 Bundled effects Burj Khalifa, 31 C Calatrava, S., 91, 228, 231, 237, 239, 241, 242 Capitalism, 26, 38, 39, 56, 58, 205, 325 Cathedral of Perigeux, 250 CCTV building, 31 Centre Pompidou, 183, 216, 221 Cesar Pelli, 3, 255 Cheval Blanc, 251 Chilehaus, 250 Christian de Portzamparc Charles Jencks, 142, 221, 251 Church of St. Charles, 300 The Cloud, 254, 257 Citadeles Moduli, 252 Cité de la Mode et du Design, 204 Cité de la Musique, 217 Cité des Sciences et de l’Industrie, 217 Cologne/Bonn airport station, 239 Commentary, 18, 321–327 Competitiveness, 2, 37, 46, 51, 102, 134, 153, 318 Coop-Himmelb(l)au, 86, 292, 297 Critiques, 2, 12, 24–26, 31, 38, 52, 119–121, 136, 312, 326 Cultural theory, 36, 38–40 Culture led development, 71, 76–78, 88

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 N. Alaily-Mattar et al. (eds.), About Star Architecture, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23925-1

329

330 Index D DC Tower, 18, 140, 292, 293 de Alzua, J., 257 de Gastines, J., 204, 221 de Portzamparc Charles Jencks, C., 259 Direct democracy, 190–192, 195, 200 Donau City, 294 Dubai, 31, 124 E Eiffel Tower, 13, 124, 206, 209 Elbphilharmonie, 118, 120, 121, 326 Emblematic, 120, 142, 205–222, 248, 260, 294, 310 Essen, 251 European Capital of Culture (ECOC), 102, 106, 107, 156, 157, 159, 160, 162, 163, 166 Event architecture, 209, 210, 213, 221 Exceptional architecture, 1, 3, 155, 312, 316 F 20 Fenchurch Street office tower, 15 Fjord City, 82 Flagshipness, 46, 310 Fondation Louis Vuitton, 141, 145, 147, 204, 206, 214, 216 Foster, N., 23, 80, 212, 228 Fourth Grace, 253–255, 262 Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof (Main station), 229 Fuksas, M., 18 G Gehry, F., 2, 3, 18, 46, 71, 101, 102, 141, 147, 148, 153, 204, 210, 214, 223, 251, 284 Genoa, 76, 78–80, 90, 92 Geosymbols, 209 The Gherkin, 15 Glasgow, 90, 92, 208 Global identities, 35–43 Graeme Massie Architects, 84 Grassroots/from below, 326 Graves, M., 142, 272 Graz, 14, 154, 170 Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, 2, 18, 45, 70, 76, 77, 88, 101, 102, 111, 134, 135, 142, 145–148, 153, 170, 205, 207, 208, 210, 214, 269, 270, 294, 323 H Hadid, Z., 15, 91, 92, 102, 104, 109, 110, 141, 148, 170, 180, 185, 210, 212, 222, 228, 231, 238, 239, 241, 257, 292, 294 Halle Pajol ecodistrict Kultur- und Kongresszentrum Luzern (KKL) (Culture and Congress Center Lucerne, 188 Hamburg, 118, 120, 121, 250, 326 Hanseatic Trade Centre, 250 Harpa project, 84

Harpa-Reykjavik Concert Hall and Conference Centre, 84 Henning Larsen Architects, 84, 90–92 Heritage, 4, 35, 135, 209, 247, 268, 291, 310, 325 Heumarkt project, 292, 299, 301, 302 High rise, 250, 292–302, 304 High speed rail (HSR), 14, 227–240 Holl, S., 210, 257, 272 I Iberdrola Tower, 3 Iconic architecture, 24, 30, 98, 100, 116, 134, 135, 141, 161, 162, 166, 204, 205, 213, 222, 248, 253, 254, 292–298, 302, 304 Iconicity, 3, 36, 38, 40, 46, 78, 84, 98–100, 104, 111, 125, 134–136, 139, 141, 147, 148, 161, 268, 270, 284–287, 309, 311 Ieoh Ming Pei, 141 Impact analysis, 48, 155 Impact model, 46–52, 155, 233, 310 Inner-city, 232, 233, 237, 239, 323 Institutionalised, 61, 137 Intercontinental hotel, Vienna, 291 International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), 248, 251, 277, 278, 299, 300, 302, 304 Islamic Arts Department, Louvre, 204 J Jahn, H., 142, 252 Jakob and MacFarlane, 204 Jean-Philippe Vassal, 257 Jourda Architectes, 204 K Kostermark School, 250 Kulturzentrum Wolfsburg, 183 Kunsthaus Graz, 14, 101, 141, 154, 170 Kunst- und Kongresshaus Luzern, 10 L La Samaritaine Department store, 204 La Seine Musicale Tribunal de Grande Instance, 204 Leadenhall building (the Cheese grater), 15 Lefebvre, 26, 42, 204 Le Havre, 250 Leipzig Hauptbahnhof (Main Station), 239 Lens, 13, 127, 253–259, 261–264 Les Bains des Docks, 250 Les Halles Canopy, 204 Libeskind, D., 252, 270, 272 Liège-Guillemins, 231 Liverpool, 90, 249, 253–262, 264, 314 Liverpool, Maritime Mercantile City, 253 Liverpool One, 255 Liverpool Waters, 255, 257, 259, 261, 262 Local identity, 270, 325

Index 331 London, 8, 15, 57, 61–65, 74, 75, 80, 90–92, 118, 135, 180, 204, 205, 209, 212, 213, 222, 229, 239, 242, 271, 314 Louvre-Lens Museum, 253, 255, 257, 259, 260, 262–264 Lucerne, 10, 90, 101, 104, 105, 110, 111, 188–195, 197, 200, 311–313, 315, 327 LUMA Project, 251 Luscher, R., 196, 197 Luxembourg, 141, 145 Lyon, 86–88, 92, 241 Lyon-Saint Exupéry, 231, 234, 237, 241 M Master plans, 7, 62, 63, 76, 78, 84, 88, 200, 250 MAXXI Museum, 15, 141, 210 Media effects, 97–112, 311, 318 Media exposure/circulation, 4, 50, 97, 100, 102, 104, 107–110, 112, 160, 183, 311, 314 Meier, R., 15, 71, 272 Methodology, 27, 137, 206, 228, 233, 234, 261, 262 Metz, 208, 221 Meyer & Van Schooten architects, 239, 242 Millennium Bridge, 80 Miralles Tagliabue EMBT, 74 Moneo, R., 237, 241 Monuments/cathedrals, 15, 24, 25, 99, 124, 141, 142, 144, 145, 147, 170, 183, 212, 228, 248, 250, 271, 273–275, 277, 282, 285–288, 297–301 Multifarious effects, 153–167 Multiplication factors, 193 Multiplicity, 12, 26, 29, 30, 36, 37, 65, 116, 259 Murphy Jahn Architects, 239 Musée d’Art Moderne Grand-Duc Jean (MUDAM), 141, 145 Musée des Confluences, 86–88, 92 Museumsquartier Vienna, 184 MVRDV, 124, 125 N Naples, 115 Napoli Afragola, 231, 232, 238, 239, 241 Neo Bankside, 80 Nervi, P.L., 212 Newspapers, 101, 106, 107, 159, 160, 286, 324, 326 Nordkopf Wolfsburg, 175, 176, 183, 184 Nord-Pas de Calais, 249, 253, 255, 257, 264 Nord-Pas de Calais Mining Basin, 249, 253, 255, 257, 264 Norman Foster, 80 Norwegian National Opera & Ballet, 80–83, 91 Nouvel, J., 15, 86, 90, 91, 102, 104, 105, 142, 188, 191, 195–197, 204, 210, 217, 236, 239, 251, 292, 294 O Off-the-beaten-tracks, 213 OMA, 59, 124, 128, 129 One New Change, 15 Opéra Bastille, 217

Ortner and Ortner, 292, 298 Oslo, 80, 82, 91, 92 Overtourism, 18, 321–327 P Palazzetto dello Sport, 212 Parallel realities, 321–327 Parc de la Villette, 217 Paris, 8, 74, 118, 141, 183, 191, 203, 229, 251, 275, 304, 313, 326 Pelli, C., 3, 255 Periphery, 78, 222, 297 Perrault, D., 18, 90, 285, 292, 293 Phaeno, 102, 105, 109–111, 169–185 Photography, 41, 42, 115–130, 140, 156, 293 Piano, R., 15, 23, 58, 76, 78–80, 90, 92, 119, 141, 204, 212 Piazza delle Feste, 78 Pictures, 14, 31, 48, 50, 55, 58, 70, 88, 111, 112, 116, 117, 120, 123, 125–128, 133, 136–140, 142, 163, 172, 177 Pier Head, 254, 262 Placelessness, 13, 14, 169 Place-making, 56, 58 Porto Antico, 76, 78–80, 90 Presidential Grand Projects, 204 Pritzker Architecture prize, 98, 210, 212, 221 Processes, 1, 24, 36, 45–46, 55, 69, 99, 116, 137, 154, 174, 188, 205, 248, 268, 309–311, 323 Profession/Professional field, 27, 52, 55, 60, 61, 63, 98, 214, 312 Public private partnerships (PPP), 7, 39, 188, 189, 193–195, 200, 201, 254 Public spaces, 1, 7, 12, 55, 58–60, 62, 76, 78, 80, 82, 86, 88, 116, 164, 174, 177, 184, 185, 263, 268, 310 Puerta de Atocha, 237, 241 Q Quai Branly Museum, 91, 251 R Radisson Hotel, Antwerp, 142 Red Dot Design Centre, 251 Reggio Emilia AV Mediopadana, 239, 242 Renaissance Hotel, Barcelona, 142 Renaissance Hotel, Paris, 142 Renderings, 42, 115, 116, 118–121, 191, 208, 238, 316, 317 Representation, 4, 24, 35–43, 51, 99, 112, 116, 119, 121, 124, 129, 142, 161, 166, 190, 294, 299, 315–317, 322 Reykjavik, 84, 92 Ricciotti, R., 204, 221, 257 Riga, 251, 252 Rogers, R., 59, 80, 272 Rogers Stirk Harbour + Partners, 15, 80, 90 Rome, 15, 75, 141, 147, 170, 201, 205, 209, 210, 212, 222 Rotterdam Centraal, 239, 242

332 Index S Saint-Emilion, 251 Saules akmens project, 251 Second tier cities, 26, 74, 293, 314 Sejima And Nishizawa And Associates (SANAA), 9, 91, 204, 257, 259, 260, 314 Self-exhausting processes, 325 Sevilla Santa Justa, 236, 237, 242 The Shard, 15, 119 Signature architecture, 56 Singularisation, 27, 29, 139, 141 Skylines, 115, 118, 126, 127, 204, 257, 259, 262, 270, 297, 300, 302, 304, 316 Snohetta, 80, 82, 91, 92 Social dimensions, 5 Social media, 12, 13, 42, 112, 115, 116, 121–126, 128, 134 SOM, 57, 71, 126–128 Sony Center, 142 South Bank, 80, 212 Spatial events, 4, 204, 205, 207–209 Spatial reconquest, 204 Spectacular infrastructures, 1 Spectacularisation, 78, 129 Star architecture, 1–18, 23–32, 35–43, 45–52, 55–66, 69–89, 97–112, 133–149, 153–167, 169–185, 203–223, 227–240, 247–264, 267–287, 291–304, 309–311, 321–327 Star architecture making, 11, 12, 25, 27–30, 313, 315 Starchitecture, 3, 137, 141, 206, 221 Station architecture, 228, 229, 239 St. Pancras International, 239 St. Paul’s Cathedral, 15 St. Stephen’s Cathedral, 297–301 Studio Libeskind, 90–92 Studio Olafur Eliasson 3XN, 84 Switch House, 80, 92 T Tate Modern, 80, 90, 92, 212, 222 Three Graces, 254, 255, 257 Tools, 31, 36, 38, 42, 46, 47, 51, 122, 129, 173, 204, 205, 207, 213, 232, 254, 261–264, 270, 293, 317 Torre Agbar, 142 Torre Glòries, 142 Tourism, 7, 36, 46, 104, 116, 133, 154, 187, 203, 228, 268, 292, 323 Tour Triangle, 118, 204, 209 Tourism in suburbs Tower Bridge, 15 Town Houses of Victor Horta, 250 Transnational firms, 70, 73, 75, 134 Transnational urbanism, 70 TRIIIPLE towers, 302 Tschumi, B., 18, 268, 272, 275, 279, 284–286 Twin Towers Shinkansen, 229

U UNESCO, 247–264 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), 291, 292, 294, 298–302, 304, 314, 317, 325 Urban challenges, 175 Urban competitiveness, 46, 51 Urban context, 10, 11, 24, 38, 78, 237, 270 Urban design, 3, 8, 13, 14, 45, 55–66, 84, 171, 175, 187, 231, 311 Urban developments, 7, 13, 26, 65, 71, 72, 76, 78, 86, 88, 115, 197, 228, 230, 250–253, 260–262, 292, 300, 314, 317 Urban economics, 4, 208, 247, 315 Urban identities, 36–38, 40, 42 Urban landscapes, 7, 15, 23–25, 41, 60, 65, 115–130, 204, 248, 257, 262, 268, 291–304, 310, 313, 316, 317 Urban policy, 2, 6, 11, 12, 76, 84, 292 Urban regeneration, 5, 7, 45, 58, 134, 153, 155, 159, 166, 247, 253, 255, 257, 259, 261, 262 Urban renewal, 46, 82, 86, 217 Urban transformation, 4, 5, 13, 14, 60, 76, 88–89, 129, 154, 201, 313, 316, 317 User-generated data (analysis), 234, 239 V Value chain, 5 Viaduct of Millau, 142 Vienna, 18, 140, 234, 248, 291, 313 Vienna Insurance Group (Wiener Städtischen Versicherung), 297 Viñoly, R., 15 Visual studies, 116 Volkswagen power station Walkie-Talkie, 180, 181, 183 von Gerkan, M., 252 W Warsaw, 129, 251, 252 Waterfront regeneration, 70–72, 76, 78–88 Webscraping, 134, 137 Weinfeld, I., 291 West 8, 239, 242 Westminster Palace, 15 Winterthur-Haus (House), 292, 302 Wolfsburg, 14, 101, 102, 104, 109–111, 169–185, 311, 315 World heritage, 15, 248–259, 261, 262, 288, 291, 292, 298, 300, 301, 325 World Trade Center Reykjavík, 84 World Wide Web, 18, 323–324 Z Zénith Paris concert arena, 217 Zentrum Paul Klee, 141, 142 Zurich, 57, 141, 190, 200, 242