74.12 Stadtgeographie, Siedlungsgeographie
Refine
Document Type
- Article (11)
- Conference Proceeding (11)
- Doctoral Thesis (4)
- Preprint (1)
Institute
- Bauhaus-Institut für Geschichte und Theorie der Architektur und Planung (11)
- Professur Theorie und Geschichte der modernen Architektur (7)
- Institut für Europäische Urbanistik (4)
- Professur Soziologie und Sozialgeschichte der Stadt (2)
- Junior-Professur Computational Architecture (1)
- Professur Raumplanung und Raumforschung (1)
- Universitätsbibliothek (1)
Keywords
- Städtebau (11)
- Bauhaus-Kolloquium (7)
- Weimar (7)
- Stadtentwicklung (4)
- 1996 (3)
- Stadt (3)
- 1999 (2)
- Globalisierung (2)
- Stadtforschung (2)
- 1989 (1)
Urban design played a central role for the European dictatorships during the 20th century, it served to legitimate the regime, to produce agreement, to demonstrate power, efficiency and speed, it communicated the social, as well as design projects, of the dictatorial regimes domestically and internationally, it tied old experts, as well as new, to the regime. Dictatorial urban design also played an important role after the fall of the dictatorships: It became the object of structural and verbal handling strategies: of demolition, of transformation, of reconstruction, of forgetting, of suppressing, of re-interpretation and of glorification. The topic area is, therefore, both historical and relevant to the present day. The discussion of the topic area is, like it or not, always embedded in the present state of societal engagement with dictatorships.
In order to even be able to discuss all of these aspects, different conceptual decisions are necessary. In retrospect, these may seem to many as self-evident, although they are anything but. Our thesis is that there are three methodological imperatives, especially, which allow an expanded approach to the topic area “urban design and dictatorship”. First and above all, the tunnel view, focused on individual dictatorships and neglecting the international dimension, must be overcome. Second, the differences in urban design over the course of a dictatorship, through an appropriate periodisation, should be emphasised. Third, we must strive for an open, flexible, but complex concept of urban design. The main focus lies on the urban design of the most influential dictatorships of the first half of the 20th century: Soviet Union, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, including the urban design of the autarky periods in Portugal and Spain.
After all, urban design is not just a product of specific historic circumstances. It is a form that continues to have long-term effects, which demonstrates its usefulness and adaptability throughout this process. The urban design products undoubtedly still recall the dictatorial rule under which they were created. However, they are more than a memory space. They are also a living space of the present. They can and should be discussed with respect to their spatial and functional utility for today and tomorrow. Such a perspective is a given for the citizens of a city, but also for city marketing, having marvellous consequences. Only when we do not exclude this dimension a priori, even in academic discussions, can we do justice to the products of dictatorships.
And finally, the view of the urban design of dictatorships can and must contribute to the questioning of simplified and naive conceptions of dictatorships. With urban design in mind, we can observe how dictatorships work and how they were able to prevail. In Europe, these questions are of the highest actuality.
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).
Granite on the Ground: Former Nazi Party Rally Grounds, Nuremberg/Germany. A brief introduction
(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).
Wissenschaftliches Kolloquium vom 27. bis 30. Juni 1989 in Weimar an der Hochschule für Architektur und Bauwesen zum Thema: ‚Produktivkraftentwicklung und Umweltgestaltung. Sozialer und wissenschaftlich-technischer Fortschritt in ihren Auswirkungen auf Architektur und industrielle Formgestaltung in unserer Zeit. Zum 100. Geburtstag von Hannes Meyer'
Gentrification und Kultur
(1993)
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).
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).
This thesis examines urban partition in Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, and how its changing roles and shifting perceptions in a post-conflict setting reflect power relations, and their constant renegotiation. Nicosia, the capital of Cyprus, was officially divided in 1974 in the aftermath of an eighteen-year-long conflict between the island’s Turkish- and Greek-Cypriot communities. As a result, a heavily militarized Buffer Zone, established as an emergency measure against perpetuation of intercommunal violence, has been cutting through its historic centre ever since.
This thesis departs from a genuine interest in the material and ideational dimensions of urban partition. How is it constructed, not merely in physical terms but in the minds of the societies affected by conflict? How is it established in official and everyday discourses? What kinds of mechanisms have been developed to maintain it, and make an inseparable part of the urban experience? Moreover, taking into account the consensus in relevant literature pertaining to the imperative for its removal, this thesis is inquiring into the relevance of peace agreements to overcoming urban partition. For this purpose, it also looks at narratives and practices that have attempted to contest it.
The examples examined in this thesis offer pregnant analytical moments to understand Nicosia’s Buffer Zone as a dynamic social construct, accommodating multiple visions of and for the city. Its space ‘in-between’ facilitates encounters between various actors, accommodates new meanings, socio-spatial practices and diverse imaginaries. In this sense, urban partition is explored in this thesis as a phenomenon that transcends scales as well as temporalities, entwining past, present, and future.
Die im Jahr 2020 in Deutschland praktizierte Siedlungs- und Wohnungspolitik erhält in Anbetracht ihrer Auswirkungen auf die soziale und ökologische Lage einen bitteren Beigeschmack. Arm und Reich triften weiter auseinander und einer zielgerichteten ökologischen Transformation der Art und Weise, wie Stadtentwicklung und Wohnungspolitik gestaltet werden,stehen noch immer historisch und systemisch bedingte Pfadabhängigkeiten im Weg. Diese werden nur durch eine integrierte Betrachtung sozialer und ökonomischer Aspekte sichtbar und deuten auf eine der ursprünglichen Fragen linker Gesellschaftsforschung hin: Die Auseinandersetzung mit dem Verhältnis von Eigentum und Gerechtigkeit.
Im Ergebnis stehen drei wesentliche Befunde: Der Diskurs zum Schutz des Klimas und der Biodiversität berührt direkt die Parameter Dichte, Nutzungsmischung und Flächeninanspruchnahme; zweitens steigt letztere relativ mit erhöhtem, individuell verfügbaren Kapital und insbesondere im selbstgenutztem Eigentum gegenüber Mietwohnungen; und drittens wächst der Eigentumsanteil mit fortschreitender Finanzialisierung des Wohnungsmarktes, sodass das Risiko sozialer und ökologischer Krisen sich verschärft.
This project proposes and applies a research strategy to understand types of cities using the case study of Bogotá. This strategy combines a conceptual framework developed around the notion of ‘centrality’ and ‘urban semiotics’ as a method of qualitative enquiry in order to comprehend complex spatial arrangements as significant constituents of cultural geographies. In this sense, this study problematizes current tendencies such as spatial fragmentation and challenges the argument that contemporary urban ensembles in Latin America are either homogenized within globalization trends or illegible entities with no structural coherence.
Bogotá is addressed as an instrumental case study to redraw generalizations developed from different methodological frameworks about the configuration process of spatial structures and their significance within the Latin American geography. Thus the study questions how urban centrality has evolved as an essential socio-cultural phenomenon and in this manner decodes the messages transmitted by main spatial arrangements. As a first step, the study discusses the construction of spatial meaning and its structural interpretation. In addition, the concept of centrality is examined in depth and an urban centrality typology is introduced to enable the analysis of spatial structures in socio-cultural terms. These contents are followed by the discussion of the existing approaches to the topic and their limitations. Subsequently, this research reconstructs the configuration of Bogotá’s spatial structure which is decoded in the last chapter.
The study concludes that the highly fragmented and uneven condition of urban space in Latin America can be read. The case study of Bogotá substantiates that there is a code that paradoxically provides spatial cohesiveness within unstable socio-spatial hierarchies. Such a spatial code is deciphered through the reading of Bogotá’s spatial structure whose super-centre denotes ‘the sacralisation of authoritarianism’. This is a ‘structural meaning’ related to a specific or intrinsic logic of spatial concentration that is useful for the further discussion of socio-spatial patterns and the meanings of Latin American cities. The concluding remarks integrate the main arguments and outline lines of action in spatial planning processes.
Die Arbeit beschäftigt sich mit den diskursiven Konstruktion urbaner Images in Großprojekten. Aufbauend auf einer soziologischen Definition der Begriffe „Raumbild“ und „Ortsbild“ wird am Beispiel des städtebaulichen Großprojekts Paris Rive Gauche untersucht, wie sich ortsspezifische Referenzen in einem Planungsprozess bilden, zu welchen Zwecken sie eingesetzt werden und wie mit Hilfe dieser Referenzen im Planungsprozess diskursiv ein Image für einen entstehenden Stadtteil konstruiert wird.
Zwischen Transformation und Globalisierung - Immobilienmarkt und Stadtentwicklung in Warschau
(2006)
Nach der politischen Wende Ende der 1980er/Anfang der 1990er Jahre entwickelte sich in Warschau innerhalb kurzer Zeit ein hoch dynamischer Immobilienmarkt kapitalistischer Prägung, dessen Mechanismen grundlegende Auswirkungen auf die Stadtentwicklung Warschaus haben. Im folgenden Aufsatz werden die wesentlichen Eigenschaften des Büro- und Wohnungsmarkts aufgezeigt. Es werden für jeden Sektor die Funktionsweise, die wesentlichen Akteure der Nachfrage- und Angebotsseite, die Rolle der Institutionen und die räumlichen Konsequenzen dargestellt.
La prima edizione di questo testo è apparsa, in tedesco, nel volume II.2.: Anthologie zum Städtebau. Das Phänomen Großstadt und die Entstehung der Stadt der Moderne, a cura di Vittorio Magnago Lampugnani, Katia Frey, Eliana Perotti, con il sostegno di Departement Architektur der Eidgenössischen Technischen Hochschule, Zürich (Gebr. Mann Verlag, Berlin 2014, pp. 1307-1390). Previ specifici accordi con l’editore, viene qui presentata la versione originaria, in italiano, dell’intero capitolo: Modernität und Emphase. Städtebau im italienischen Faschismus, e comprendente: i) una capiente saggio introduttivo – in una versione più ampia ed articolata (comprensiva della “Bibliografia sistematica”, di riferimento) del testo in tedesco; ii) la versione in italiano del repertorio antologico di riferimento – e comprensiva di una “Scheda introduttiva”, sull’Autore-Opera, e di una selezione del testo in esame.