The Sociology of High-rise Construction
Buch, Englisch, 252 Seiten, Format (B × H): 140 mm x 215 mm, Gewicht: 327 g
ISBN: 978-3-593-51016-3
Verlag: Campus
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.
Autoren/Hrsg.
Fachgebiete
Weitere Infos & Material
I Introduction 7
1 Point of departure, research question 7
2 Research design—Methodological approach, empirical material 11
3 Structure of the study 16
II Theoretical points of reference 19
1 Simmel’s concept of “spatial form” as a starting point 19
2 Tracing urban specificity 20
3 City, globalization, fields of observation 34
4 Architecture as “built society” 38
5 Contours of sociological high-rise research 46
III Vertical construction between globalized patterns and local specificity—Case studies of European metropolises 53
1 Formative constellations, translation dynamics 53
2 Paris 62
2.1 A ring road as a picture frame 64
2.2 “Delanoë a plus d’une tour dans son sac” 77
2.3 Opposing voices 84
2.4 Images of Paris and the fixation on beauty 88
2.5 Omnipresent London and distance from the city’s own history 93
3 London 99
3.1 The “patchwork” principle and an extraterritorial, surveilled center 102
3.2 Verticalization as a tour de force—Building practice and justifications 111
3.3 “The skyline of London is out of control”—Unease in the verticalized city 120
3.4 Global city, hierarchical interpretation, and dissociation from “the Continent” 124
4 Vienna 129
4.1 Fragile refortification of the center and the Danube as a social boundary 134
4.2 “Vienna is growing again”—Where high-rises (still) promise modernity 143
4.3 Cat-and-mouse games with UNESCO—Critique of Viennese building practice 154
4.4 Images of the city—Vienna between morbidity and regained centrality 159
4.5 Dominant East-West axis of perspective 163
IV Forms of use and symbolism of tall buildings 167
1 Local production of meaning—High-rises and urban specificity 167
2 The role and perception of “iconic” architects 173
3 “Monsters of the mere market”—High-rises, capitalism, and the logic of one-upmanship 178
4 Conclusion 180
Notes 183
Bibliography 219
Acknowledgments 251
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 2002, 2006).3 What are the arguments for paying more attention to this phenomenon from a sociological perspective instead of leaving such questions to historians, cultural geographers, and architects?
First, precisely because it is contentious, vertical construction is a promising starting point for reconstructing current concepts of urbanity and discussing contemporary issues. In disputes about building projects, viewpoints are articulated regarding the ideals of a city and, ultimately, of society—thus making it possible for researchers to pick up on them. In this respect, European cities—which could be dismissed as rather uninteresting in terms of global building height records—are just as illuminating as metropolises where high-rise construction is pursued enthusiastically and the world’s tallest towers soar toward the sky.
Second, vertical construction is an interesting phenomenon in light of discussions about globalization and world society. Originating with construction practices in the USA, high-rises have spread around the world over the last century or so. But the approach to this building type always has a local slant and is tangent to local problems, conflicts, and discourses (King 2004; Ren 2011; Scharfenort 2009; Taillandier et al. 2009). In this respect, each city tends to have its own unique relationship with high-rise construction (Museum für Gestaltung Zürich and Janser 2011). Examining vertical construction thus promises to reveal insights into the interplay of globalization and localization—or the local reconfiguration of globalized models (Czarniawska [2002] 2010, 7ff.).4 The simultaneous homogenization and heterogenization associated with this has only been intermittently explored with respect to spatial and architectural phenomena (cf. Diener et al. 2015; Jacobs 2006; King 2004).
The study at hand does not reconstruct either the global expansion of the high-rise or the conditions of possibility behind such processes of expansion; the focus of the book would clearly have to be very different to address these issues.5 Instead, the primary interest here is the question of how actors interpret the globalized practice of high-rise construction in specific urban contexts and which forms of meaning production are associated with this. This type of perspective has been promoted in recent years and put to productive use especially by representatives of the approach known as Scandinavian institutionalism. Their studies have shown that globalization (also) involves differentiation and diversification and does not result solely in structural alignment (Alasuutari 2015, 162ff.; Czarniawska [2002] 2010). Such a perspective particularly lends itself to the debate surrounding tall buildings, as the spread of skyscrapers is frequently held up as a prime example of the growing uniformity of the world. The following case studies will reveal that the situation is much more complicated, even in European cities alone. One of the most interesting questions here is how the materiality of built structures affects the reception of high-rises in specific contexts.
2 Research design—Methodological approach, empirical material
The conviction underlying this book is that in order to understand how the meaning of the high-rise is produced (locally), it is especially relevant to look at the level of individual cities. With this in mind, the research design consists primarily of contrasting case studies of three metropolises. The focus is on the high-rise and city image policies of Paris, London, and Vienna, with all their converging and diverging aspects. The places analyzed in this way cannot and should not be considered representative of all European cities; such strategies have rightly been criticized in the past in light of the heterogeneity of European cities (cf. Schubert 2001). Instead, these specific cases have been chosen to shine a light on certain constellations that seem especially interesting in terms of current concepts of urbanity in (Western) Europe and in view of the intersection of globalization and localization. By “especially interesting,” I do not mean particularly spectacular building projects, but rather the lines of conflict here—namely, how old metropolises grapple with new skylines and the paths they take in doing so (Hoff 2009).
With its case studies of Paris, London, and Vienna, this book examines three cities in which vertical construction has been a particular source of unease in recent years. Efforts to open up construction practice to include more tall buildings have proven to be distinctly controversial in various ways. These three cities were also chosen in the context of theoretical sampling because there are revealing contrasts between them. These become all the more pronounced when viewed against the backdrop of certain shared traits. All three cities are not only popular tourist destinations, they are also capitals that dominate their respective national contexts, while additionally functioning as important economic, political, and cultural centers on a global scale—with differing priorities. Their current cityscapes are the result of complex processes of formation stretching over many centuries, making them the product of different phases of construction and the social constellations on which they are founded.
These cities have attracted the attention of urban researchers primarily because, in the second half of the nineteenth century, they became the stage for radical, standard-setting urban transformations (Cohen and Frank 2013; Csendes and Opll 2006; Fehl and Rodríguez-Lores 1995; Frisby 2001; Harvey 2003; Olsen 1988). This is particularly true of Paris, the “Capital of the Nineteenth Century” (Benjamin [1935] 2006). Around 1900, all three cities—with London leading the way—were among the most populous worldwide and the epitome of modern metropolises. London and Paris were the centers of the largest colonial empires at that time, and Vienna, too, was the capital of an empire, though not a colonial one in the strictest sense. Today the architectural heritage of Paris, London, and Vienna has become the focus of (re-)staging efforts and occasionally the object of excessive management. At the same time, municipal actors in all three cities are eagerly striving to create a modern cityscape and taking different paths to achieve this. The characteristic approaches to historical and contemporary architecture in these cities have many idiosyncratic traits that are worth examining more closely with respect to their having “historically developed as they did and not otherwise” (Weber [1904] 2012, 114).
