Refine
Document Type
- Article (18)
- Conference Proceeding (12)
- Doctoral Thesis (5)
- Report (3)
- Habilitation (1)
- Master's Thesis (1)
- Review (1)
Institute
- Professur Theorie und Geschichte der modernen Architektur (18)
- Bauhaus-Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur und Planung (11)
- Junior-Professur Computational Architecture (5)
- Institut für Europäische Urbanistik (3)
- Professur Denkmalpflege und Baugeschichte (1)
- Professur Entwerfen und Städtebau I (1)
- Professur Informatik in der Architektur (1)
- Professur Raumplanung und Raumforschung (1)
- Professur Sozialwissenschaftliche Stadtforschung (1)
- Professur Soziologie und Sozialgeschichte der Stadt (1)
Keywords
- Städtebau (41) (remove)
Die Zukunft war jetzt
(2021)
Die US-amerikanische Kulturanthropologin Christina Schwenkel legt mit Building socialism eine quellengesättigte ethnografische Studie über Zerstörung, Wiederaufbau und Nutzungsperspektiven der vietnamesischen Stadt Vinh vor. Ein besonderes Augenmerk liegt auf den agencies der Beteiligten. Im Zentrum der Untersuchung steht ein Quartier, dessen Wohnblocks mit materieller und ideeller Unterstützung der DDR errichtet wurden. Nicht nur sind die methodischen Zugänge der Untersuchung vielversprechend und gewinnbringend – angesichts des drohenden Stadtumbaus, der für die Bewohner:innen des Quartiers Quang Trung Abriss und Verdrängung bedeuten würde, gewinnt ihre städtebauhistorische Ethnografie auch an politischer Relevanz.
Das Buch greift die enge Verknüpfung von Industrialisierung und Urbanisierung auf, die in den letzten gut 250 Jahren Europas Städte und ihre Stadtbaugeschichte maßgeblich geprägt hat. Damit stellen sich auch vielfältige Fragen und Aufgaben für die Denkmalpflege.
Die Habilitationsschrift leistet einen Beitrag, um die stadtbaugeschichtlichen und stadtbildprägenden Werte historischer Industriekomplexe zu erkennen und zu erhalten. Wie können wir die industriellen Stadtlandschaften erfassen? Wie gestalten wir Umnutzungen und Konversionen denkmalgerecht und beziehen im Rahmen eines Heritage-Managements Aspekte der nachhaltigen Stadtentwicklung ein?
Großsiedlungen sind nicht nur ein Erbe der Moderne, sondern seit über drei Jahrzehnten Gegenstand der Stadterneuerung. Dieses Buch erörtert, was eine heute „normale“ Großsiedlung stadtplanerisch benötigt und welche stadtentwicklungs- als auch wohnungspolitisch gesteuerten Ressourcen in einer integrierten Planungssteuerung gebündelt werden sollten. Dabei wird das grundsätzliche Planungsinstrument des Quartiersmanagements aktualisiert – über den Gegenstand Großsiedlungen hinaus.
The Garden Suburbs of Cairo. A morphological urban analysis of Zamālik, Ma‘ādī, and Heliopolis
(2019)
During the British occupation of Egypt in the beginning of the 20th century, several suburban developments were established on the periphery of the city of Cairo. These initially attracted the small British community and later foreigners and Egyptians, mainly from the elite community. These suburban developments, including Ma‘ādī, Zamālik, Heliopolis, Qubbah-Gardens, and Garden City, became the fashionable residential quarters of Cairo. Until now, some of these areas still represent the distinguishable residential settlements of the city. Ma‘ādī, Zamālik, and Heliopolis specifically are nostalgically appropriated in the design of recent suburban developments around Greater Cairo.
Some of the 20th century suburban developments around Cairo are labeled or described as “garden cities.” During the early 20th century, two thriving British town planning movements emerged, namely, the garden city movement and the garden suburb movement. This study investigates the hypothesis that these suburban developments, are indeed “garden suburbs” like the British movement, despite that few are labeled or described as “garden cities,”. Although several studies have examined the historical development of such settlements, their relation, however, to the British planning movements and their transfer process received little attention from planning historians. Few studies also analyze the urban design aspects that made these suburban developments distinguishable since their foundation and until today.
To guide the validity of this study’s hypothesis, a set of research questions are formulated: (1) What is the difference between the garden city and the garden suburb movements? (2) How were the British planning movements transferred to Egypt? (3) What are the urban design aspects that makes these suburban developments distinguishable as garden suburbs? To answer these research questions, a historical morphological urban analysis is conducted through case studies.
The study first studies the difference between the garden city and the garden suburb movements, mainly in Britain, through the analysis of publications on the promoter of both movements: for the garden city, E. Howards’ book “The Garden City of Tomorrow,” published in 1902, and for the garden suburb, R. Unwin’s books “Town Planning in Practice,” published in 1909, and “Nothing Gained from Overcrowding,” published in 1912. Then a morphological urban analysis of Letchworth Garden City and Brentham Garden Suburb, considered the first examples of each movement, is conducted. In order to analyze the transfer process, the study adopts M. Volait and J. Nasr’s theory on transporting planning, through investigating the authority in power responsible for the establishment of these suburban developments. This is followed by the morphological urban analysis of three suburban developments around Cairo, namely, Zamālik, Ma‘ādī, and Heliopolis. The morphological analysis focuses on the background of their establishment, authority in power responsible for the development, design principles, urban context, street typology, residential block typology, social infrastructure, and social target group.
Finally, the study compares between Brentham, Letchworth, Zamālik, Ma‘ādī, and Heliopolis. The comparative analysis aims to highlight the differences between the studied cases of Cairo and how they are different from or alike the British movements. This study concludes that the suburban developments around Cairo during the British occupation, are in fact garden suburbs, despite that some are being described or labeled as garden city. This movement was exported via urban land development companies with foreign European capital, rather than via colonial dominance. It finally highlights a set of urban design aspects that distinguish them as garden suburbs of Cairo. This study hopes to support future conservation plan of these areas and the design of future suburban developments.
For decades in Germany, historical research on dictatorial urban design in the first half of the 20th century focused on the National Socialist period. Studies on the urban design practices of other dictatorships remained an exception. This has changed. Meanwhile, the urban production practices of the Mussolini, Stalin, Salazar, Hitler and Franco dictatorships have become the subject of comprehensive research projects. Recently, a research group that studies dictatorial urban design in 20th century Europe has emerged at the Bauhaus-Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur und der Planung. The group is already able to refer to various research results.
Part of the research group’s self-conception is the assumption that the urban design practices of the named dictatorships can only be properly understood from a European perspective. The dictatorships influenced one another substantially. Furthermore, the specificities of the practices of each dictatorship can only be discerned if one can compare them to those of the other dictatorships. This approach requires strict adherence to the research methods of planning history and urban design theory. Meanwhile, these methods must be opened
to include those of general historical studies.
With this symposium, the research group aims to further qualify this European perspective. The aim is to pursue an inventory of the various national historiographies on the topic of “urban design and dictatorship”. This inventory should offer an overview on the general national level of historical research on urban design as well as on the level of particular urban design projects, persons or topics.
The symposium took place in Weimar, November 21-22, 2013. It was organized by Harald Bodenschatz, Piero Sassi and Max Welch Guerra and funded by the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service).
Restelo Neighbourhood: Expanding the Capital of the Empire with the First Portuguese Urban Planner
(2015)
For decades in Germany, historical research on dictatorial urban design in the first half of the 20th century focused on the National Socialist period. Studies on the urban design practices of other dictatorships remained an exception. This has changed. Meanwhile, the urban production practices of the Mussolini, Stalin, Salazar, Hitler and Franco dictatorships have become the subject of comprehensive research projects. Recently, a research group that studies dictatorial urban design in 20th century Europe has emerged at the Bauhaus-Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur und der Planung. The group is already able to refer to various research results.
Part of the research group’s self-conception is the assumption that the urban design practices of the named dictatorships can only be properly understood from a European perspective. The dictatorships influenced one another substantially. Furthermore, the specificities of the practices of each dictatorship can only be discerned if one can compare them to those of the other dictatorships. This approach requires strict adherence to the research methods of planning history and urban design theory. Meanwhile, these methods must be opened
to include those of general historical studies.
With this symposium, the research group aims to further qualify this European perspective. The aim is to pursue an inventory of the various national historiographies on the topic of “urban design and dictatorship”. This inventory should offer an overview on the general national level of historical research on urban design as well as on the level of particular urban design projects, persons or topics.
The symposium took place in Weimar, November 21-22, 2013. It was organized by Harald Bodenschatz, Piero Sassi and Max Welch Guerra and funded by the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service).
For decades in Germany, historical research on dictatorial urban design in the first half of the 20th century focused on the National Socialist period. Studies on the urban design practices of other dictatorships remained an exception. This has changed. Meanwhile, the urban production practices of the Mussolini, Stalin, Salazar, Hitler and Franco dictatorships have become the subject of comprehensive research projects. Recently, a research group that studies dictatorial urban design in 20th century Europe has emerged at the Bauhaus-Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur und der Planung. The group is already able to refer to various research results.
Part of the research group’s self-conception is the assumption that the urban design practices of the named dictatorships can only be properly understood from a European perspective. The dictatorships influenced one another substantially. Furthermore, the specificities of the practices of each dictatorship can only be discerned if one can compare them to those of the other dictatorships. This approach requires strict adherence to the research methods of planning history and urban design theory. Meanwhile, these methods must be opened
to include those of general historical studies.
With this symposium, the research group aims to further qualify this European perspective. The aim is to pursue an inventory of the various national historiographies on the topic of “urban design and dictatorship”. This inventory should offer an overview on the general national level of historical research on urban design as well as on the level of particular urban design projects, persons or topics.
The symposium took place in Weimar, November 21-22, 2013. It was organized by Harald Bodenschatz, Piero Sassi and Max Welch Guerra and funded by the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service).
For decades in Germany, historical research on dictatorial urban design in the first half of the 20th century focused on the National Socialist period. Studies on the urban design practices of other dictatorships remained an exception. This has changed. Meanwhile, the urban production practices of the Mussolini, Stalin, Salazar, Hitler and Franco dictatorships have become the subject of comprehensive research projects. Recently, a research group that studies dictatorial urban design in 20th century Europe has emerged at the Bauhaus-Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur und der Planung. The group is already able to refer to various research results.
Part of the research group’s self-conception is the assumption that the urban design practices of the named dictatorships can only be properly understood from a European perspective. The dictatorships influenced one another substantially. Furthermore, the specificities of the practices of each dictatorship can only be discerned if one can compare them to those of the other dictatorships. This approach requires strict adherence to the research methods of planning history and urban design theory. Meanwhile, these methods must be opened
to include those of general historical studies.
With this symposium, the research group aims to further qualify this European perspective. The aim is to pursue an inventory of the various national historiographies on the topic of “urban design and dictatorship”. This inventory should offer an overview on the general national level of historical research on urban design as well as on the level of particular urban design projects, persons or topics.
The symposium took place in Weimar, November 21-22, 2013. It was organized by Harald Bodenschatz, Piero Sassi and Max Welch Guerra and funded by the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service).
For decades in Germany, historical research on dictatorial urban design in the first half of the 20th century focused on the National Socialist period. Studies on the urban design practices of other dictatorships remained an exception. This has changed. Meanwhile, the urban production practices of the Mussolini, Stalin, Salazar, Hitler and Franco dictatorships have become the subject of comprehensive research projects. Recently, a research group that studies dictatorial urban design in 20th century Europe has emerged at the Bauhaus-Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur und der Planung. The group is already able to refer to various research results.
Part of the research group’s self-conception is the assumption that the urban design practices of the named dictatorships can only be properly understood from a European perspective. The dictatorships influenced one another substantially. Furthermore, the specificities of the practices of each dictatorship can only be discerned if one can compare them to those of the other dictatorships. This approach requires strict adherence to the research methods of planning history and urban design theory. Meanwhile, these methods must be opened
to include those of general historical studies.
With this symposium, the research group aims to further qualify this European perspective. The aim is to pursue an inventory of the various national historiographies on the topic of “urban design and dictatorship”. This inventory should offer an overview on the general national level of historical research on urban design as well as on the level of particular urban design projects, persons or topics.
The symposium took place in Weimar, November 21-22, 2013. It was organized by Harald Bodenschatz, Piero Sassi and Max Welch Guerra and funded by the DAAD (German Academic Exchange Service).