Different visions on how to avoid the non-city in an ever increasingly urbanized Europe
During a conference, confrontationally entitled ‘Non-City?’, organized by the European Forum for Architectural Policies (EFAP) and the Urban Intergroup on February 9th2011, the future of European urban development was discussed. The blunt title captured the open spirit of the conference, in which a wide variety of different professionals, ranging from architects to policymakers and even the odd philosopher, expressed their views on the challenges and solutions for European Cities. Do we need European urban policy? How do we avoid depressing suburban areas which nonetheless cost us our nature and rural areas (urban sprawl)? And what are the consequences of the omnipresent theme of greenness for architecture?
Real cities or non-cities?
One of the main topics was the lack of vision and courage in current urban policy and, as a result, architecture. It was pointed out that the reason European cities are admired around the world is that they were built by architects, artists and artisans with boldness and inspiration. Ferdinand Braudel, quoted by the keynote speaker French philosopher Thierry Paquot, said that “the city is a lucky accident of history.” Dutch architect Winny Maas underlined this by stating: “It is now almost forbidden to be visionary. In Europe we always have to build small”. Because of this culture, municipalities consist more and more of unexciting and often identical suburbs. This leads not only to the issue of urban sprawl, the phenomenon in which cities expand inefficiently into rural land, leading to high segregation of uses (e.g. commercial and residential use), but also to the question as to whether such areas are still real cities or rather non-cities.
A more sensual approach to the city
Another subject concerns the currently inevitable, though as observed by architect Jana Revedin not at all new, attention for sustainability and the environment. There is ample attention for the matter, but here too, the conglomerate of architects, policy makers and other stakeholders are often thinking too rigid. Guidelines exist, for example, that no more than 25 percent of a building may consist of glass. This, according to Maas, has led to “insanely ugly buildings and much confusion”. Instead, he suggests, “the demand for green should lead to new architecture”. A first step in such a direction was offered by French architect Jacques Ferrier. He pleaded for a more sensual approach to the city, so that nature and architecture can be integrated and every building will be “its own landscape”.
How should urban planning be organized?
A third major theme was a more organizational one. Should
urban planning and development be left to the regions or should the
European Union direct it? Though opinions differed, one could
conclude that if buildings are the domain of cities and regions,
they should at least involve the users of the buildings in the
process. And if there are to be European guidelines, architects
should unite, to be a more serious and understandable partner
towards the policy makers.