Vertical Europe: The Sociology of High-rise Construction - Softcover

Glauser, Andrea

 
9783593510163: Vertical Europe: The Sociology of High-rise Construction
Softcover
ISBN 10: 3593510162 ISBN 13: 9783593510163
Verlag: Campus Verlag, 2019

Inhaltsangabe

In den letzten zwei Jahrzehnten sind weltweit so viele Hochhäuser gebaut worden wie nie zuvor. Auch in Europa, wo lange Zeit vor allem Kirchtürme und Schornsteine vertikale Akzente setzten, prägen sie vermehrt das Gesicht der Städte. Die neuere monumentale Architektur ist mit vielfältigen Versprechen, Begehrlichkeiten und Befürchtungen verknüpft. Am Beispiel von Paris, London und Wien diskutiert diese Studie, welche Vorstellungen von Urbanität dabei im Spiel sind. Sie verortet das vertikale Bauen im Spannungsfeld von globalisierten Vergleichshorizonten und städtischem Eigensinn.

More high-rises have been built worldwide over the past two decades than ever before. Even in Europe, where vertical accents have traditionally been placed by steeples and chimneys, towering buildings are increasingly shaping the face of cities. This new monumental architecture is associated with a variety of promises, desires and fears. Based on the examples of Paris, London and Vienna, this study discusses the concepts of urbanity that come into play here. It contextualizes vertical construction in the field of tension between globalized horizons of comparison on the one hand and urban specificity on the other.

Die Inhaltsangabe kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.

Über die Autorin bzw. den Autor

Andrea Glauser ist Professorin für Kulturwissenschaft am Institut für Kulturmanagement und Gender Studies an der Universität für Musik und darstellende Kunst Wien.

Auszug. © Genehmigter Nachdruck. Alle Rechte vorbehalten.

I Introduction
1 Point of departure, research question
“Skyscrapers are in again” proclaimed the Neue Zürcher Zeitung newspaper in 2009, reporting on The Invention of the European Tower, an exhibition at the Pavillon de l’Arsenal in Paris (Zitzmann 2009). Though its fortunes have changed over the years, the high-rise plays a prominent role in current debates about urbanity, urban development, and architecture, and it is a conspicuous feature of the modern cityscape. More high-rises have been built worldwide over roughly the past twenty years than ever before (Museum für Gestaltung Zürich and Janser 2011; Matzig 2017; Wood 2010). Particularly in Asia―and especially China and the Gulf region―metropolises are shooting toward the sky. But such projects are multiplying in Europe, too―where, with the exception of Frankfurt, most city centers have long lacked high-rises, with vertical accents being placed mainly by steeples, chimneys, and the towers of town halls. Now even small cities in rural regions are developing high-rise concepts and introducing measures to promote the construction of tall buildings (Ackermann 2011).
This move toward a more verticalized cityscape is highly controversial, however. Opinions are sharply divided as to how high-rise architecture can or should be implemented in European cities. High-rise debates usually revolve not just around individual building projects but, more fundamentally, around questions of “desirable” urbanity and power in urban spaces. Vertical construction involves conflicts of interest and goes hand in hand with a variety of promises and difficulties. When the talk turns to high-rise construction today, references to population growth and the increasing urbanization of social life are usually not far behind. The stacking of space is supposed to generate additional room and put a stop to urban sprawl. Vertical construction is often billed as a strategy for preserving green areas and open spaces―a truly modernist leitmotif (Fromonot 2008, 16). Such discussions focus mainly on office and residential space, but not exclusively. In Brazil and Israel there are high-rise cemeteries, for example, and New York has led the way with the concept of vertical farming in skyscrapers, the techniques of which have been debated and tested for some time (Despommier 2011; Frazier 2017). Calls for “efficient” land use through high-rises are ultimately also tied to questions of financial returns. Wherever building regulations allow for the increased utilization of property through the stacking of space, economic interests have a central bearing on high-rise construction (Willis 1995).1
Vertical construction rouses visual desires as well. Municipal governments and businesses alike rely on striking architecture to send “signals” and display or simulate a sense of prosperous urbanity (Bodenschatz 2000). The projects now being developed for city-center locations are typically prestige buildings par excellence. They represent what is often referred to as a “glamorous” building style, which combines economic and artistic-architectural capital and is usually technically ambitious as well (Foster 2011; Peters 2003, 10; Sklair 2010). There is clearly more to these dazzling monuments than mundane functional concerns. Because they are so conspicuous, however, high-rise buildings are often also perceived as a “disruption” (or imposition), particularly in the context of historical cityscapes (Glauser 2016; Rodenstein 2006).
The idea that high-rises should be located far from historical monuments is certainly not an exclusively European way of thinking. Even in New York, as various sources testify, skyscrapers built near churches were a source of irritation. In The American Scene, for example, Henry James complains that Trinity Church (“poor old Trinity”) had suddenly been surrounded by such buildings, “monsters of the mere market” (James [1907] 2000, 375, 378). High-rises are considered difficult neighbors inasmuch as they literally overshadow their surroundings. They also pose special safety and financial challenges, since the expenses associated with them typically rise disproportionately to the building height (Peters 2003; Zaera-Polo 2007). The building regulations of many European cities strictly limit the possibility of increased property utilization through verticalization. But even experts are divided as to whether these regulations (such as those that prevent land speculation) are appropriate. Finally, the energy consumption of office towers is also a matter of debate. Tall buildings are frequently criticized as being “energy guzzlers” that are impossible to reconcile with the goal of climate protection (Paquot 2008a; Wood 2010).
This book revolves around the question of how European cities are seizing the opportunity for vertical construction and how high-rise buildings are interpreted in this context. What is the logic behind the distinction between desirable and quasi-illegitimate buildings, “possible” and “impossible” locations, and the potential or actual conflicts surrounding them? What does the high-rise represent in each city? How is a high-rise defined in the first place, and what are the (explicit and implicit) rules for dealing with this type of building?2 I am interested in looking at the parallels and differences between urban building practices and discourses, and in contextualizing the various arguments found between globalized models on the one hand and individual city histories―or urban specificity―on the other. I want to pay special attention to urban planning―that is, the actions of the individuals and organizations responsible for developing strategies and for implementing and concretizing legal regulations. Municipal planning offices do not have the same characteristics or carry the same weight in all European countries, but they generally play an important role in European urban history, and they are instrumental in shaping the boundaries and possibilities of the built order (Albers 1997; Altrock and Schubert 2005; Siebel 2004a; Sutcliffe 1981; Weber and Crane 2012). Because the high-rise is more polarizing than almost any other type of building, it is enlightening to explore how vertical construction is approached by these authorities, which are supposed to work on behalf of the city as a whole and, ultimately, in the interest of the common good (Burckhardt [1974] 2012; Burckhardt [1981] 2013; Dröge and Magnin 2010, 105; Häussermann 1997).
This study’s point of departure is the observation that in many cities―particularly European ones―debates about high-rises are usually arguments about a city’s image, meaning the materialized (or reconstructed) history of a place. As a result, one of the key reference problems in urban planning is the relationship between the historical cityscape and conspicuous new buildings. Principles of local historic preservation and institutions such as UNESCO also play a significant role in the vertical development of a city. It is important to bear in mind that when the preservation of local heritage is used as an argument against high-rise construction, international organizations are often involved in such positioning. The defense of the “local” against globalized construction models is not exclusively or even primarily the domain of local actors; instead, it is driven largely by globally organized interest groups (Betts and Ross 2015a; Boyer 1994).
While vertical construction has been intensively researched in the fields of architectural history, the history of urban development, and geography, it has so far been only of passing interest to sociologists. The sociological discussion of this phenomenon has been limited to a few isolated studies―such as studies of high-rise life (Beng Huat 1997; Herlyn 1970), skyscrapers in the context of Ground Zero (Jones 2006), and vertical urban development in Europe in the twentieth century (Rodenstein...

„Über diesen Titel“ kann sich auf eine andere Ausgabe dieses Titels beziehen.

Verlag
Campus Verlag
Erscheinungsdatum
2019
Sprache
Englisch
ISBN 10 
3593510162
ISBN 13 
9783593510163
Einband
Taschenbuch
Auflage
1
Anzahl der Seiten
252
Kontakt zum Hersteller
Beltz Verlagsgruppe GmbH & Co. KG
info@campus.de

Werderstr. 10
Weinheim
69469
Deutschland