Glauser Vertical Europe

The Sociology of High-rise Construction
1. Auflage 2019
ISBN: 978-3-593-44087-3
Verlag: Campus
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Deutsch, Englisch, 300 Seiten

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.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Glauser, Andrea

Leseproben

IITheoretical points of reference

1Simmel’s concept of “spatial form” as a starting point

The idea of exploring the interplay of globalization and localization processes in the analysis of a spatial-architectural subject was motivated largely by Georg Simmel’s deliberations on the sociology of space. For Simmel, spatial issues are not just one of many points of interest. His work on space is based on the conviction that studying spatial orders can provide insights into social life that would be almost impossible to acquire in any other way (Simmel [1908] 2009, 544). In connection with this, it is his concept of “spatial form” that is most interesting here.1 Simmel interprets space as a form of condition and possibility distinguished by certain “foundational qualities […] with which forms of social life must reckon” (Simmel [1908] 2009, 545). In the possibility of merging with a “certain expanse of ground” (1), of dividing up and delimiting portions of space (2), of spatial fixation (3), of “perceptible nearness or distance” (4), and of changing places or moving (5), he identifies five spatial dimensions that are potentially relevant to social life and are used selectively (Simmel [1908] 2009, 546–600). Based on numerous examples, including the state and the Catholic Church, he discusses how different social interrelations position themselves with respect to these spatial qualities, which concrete spatial constructs arise from this, and how they influence social life in return. According to Simmel, certain forms of social interrelations cannot come into being in the first place without the corresponding spatial orders. For example, the social construct of the state is inconceivable without the possibility of merging with a given expanse of ground (“exclusivity of space,” Simmel [1908] 2009, 545). The key factor here is that Simmel does not attribute a direct effect to these foundational qualities of spatial form. Instead, as he sees it, socially constructed spatial orders are what shape social life. In this respect, he clearly gives primacy to the social.

Observing the social uses of these spatial foundational qualities functions as a kind of epistemological trick for revealing relevant social differences. In sociology, according to Simmel, spatiality is primarily a problem of the comparative reconstruction of spatial relevancies, which manifest themselves in different selections and syntheses, the social preconditions and consequences of which must be explored. Simmel’s deliberations on the sociology of space are a fruitful starting point for studying high-rise construction. Simmel never explicitly mentions the possibility of stacking space or of vertical construction, but this dimension—like the other qualities mentioned—can be used to observe and investigate social mechanisms and interrelations. My primary focus is on different cities and how they refer to and justify the possibility of vertical construction. I am interested in the selectivity with which this possibility is approached and how this can be explained. My study starts from the assumption that, in order to understand the points of convergence and divergence in how cities handle high-rises, global observation and communication contexts are just as critical as local, city-specific constellations, with path dependences relating to built structures potentially carrying particular weight here (Bourdieu 1999; Schmid 2015).

Although the phenomenon of the high-rise is a fairly marginal topic in sociological discussions, there has generally been a lively debate about the relationship between architecture, cities, and society, one which also touches on questions of vertical construction. In particular, the trend toward spectacular, monumental architecture has frequently been the subject of sociological interpretation. Revisiting some of these ongoing debates should reveal the models that currently dominate the thematic discussion of cities and (high-rise) architecture and how the study at hand relates to them. Because the number of highly differentiated discussions of urbanity and the built environment has grown to unwieldy proportions, this foray is inevitably selective; it deliberately highlights certain themes that are especially significant to the high-rise issue and its conception in this context.

2Tracing urban specificity

Max Weber’s famous text on “The City,” which was first published in 1921 in the (Archive for Social Science and Social Policy), tellingly begins with the terse observation that “the notion of the ‘city’ can be defined in many different ways” (Weber [1921] 1978, 1212). In fact, social scientists have tried—and continue to pursue—a variety of approaches, each of which highlights different dimensions of the city depending on its perspective. In “classic” works—first and foremost, Georg Simmel’s essay “The Metropolis and Mental Life” ([1903] 1997)—the defining characteristics of the big city are sounded out primarily in terms of how they differ from life in the country, in a village, or in a small town. More recently, however, this type of contrast has become less prominent. On the one hand, researchers have called for better and more precise analyses of how metropolises are intertwined with their supposed opposites. These authors draw attention to the complex relationships between city and countryside—between metropolises and small towns, suburbs, or villages—and argue that urbanity cannot be identified solely with city life.2 This perspective was championed early on by Louis Wirth in “Urbanism as a Way of Life” (1938) and Henri Lefebvre in ([1970] 2003). Based on his diagnosis of the “urban society,” Lefebvre ([1970] 2003, 1ff.) said it was important to take account not of the city in the strictest sense but rather of the “urban fabric”: “This expression, ‘urban fabric,’ does not narrowly define the built world of cities but all manifestations of the dominance of the city over the country. In this sense, a vacation home, a highway, a supermarket in the countryside are all part of the urban fabric.” His appeal to not stop abruptly at the (political) borders of a city when thinking about urbanization has lost none of its urgency.

On the other hand, the weight given to city/country contrasts has been counterbalanced in recent years as attention has increasingly turned to the differences cities. This interest in different varieties of city is certainly not new—it characterizes the analyses of Max Weber ([1921] 1978), for example—but such analyses have received an unprecedented boost in the context of debates about globalization. Not least as a reaction to assessments that link globalization primarily to urban conformity and the loss of “authentic” urban structures,3 many writers in recent years have drawn attention to opposing trends and insisted that globalization leads to remarkable differentiation in urban realities (cf. Soja and Kanai 2007; Schmid 2015).4 The relevant diagnosis here, to put it briefly, is that “globalization has not ironed out differences; on the contrary it has heightened them” (Herzog 2015, 9).

This increased interest in differences between cities and their specific contours touches on fundamental questions about the object of sociological urban research which are central to this study. Opinions are sharply divided as to whether or to what extent the unique aspects of individual cities are sociologically relevant at all. Some researchers clearly downplay the social-scientific importance of urban uniqueness and believe that the “actual” mission of urban sociology is to analyze different types of cities and/or typical urban phenomena. But a growing number of researchers have recently dedicated themselves to the study of the specific traits of individual cities, arguing that important aspects will otherwise be overlooked. The purpose and possibility of categorizing different types of cities is rarely fundamentally called into question, but these scholars urge that such categorizations should be approached not in terms of the logic of subsumption, but rather on the basis of wider engagement with specific urban constellations. In conjunction with this demand, programmatic...

Über Autor(innen)

Andrea Glauser ist Privatdozentin am Soziologischen Seminar der Universität Luzern und lehrt qualitative Forschungsmethoden an der Hochschule Luzern.