While completing my internship in Berlin, I learned quite a bit about the IBA (Internationale Bauausstellungen) (link in german), a German program of urban regeneration that took place in Berlin from 1979 until 1987. What I didn’t know at the time is that this particular venture in Berlin was neither the first nor the last of its kind in Germany. The first was in 1901 (!). One of the latest, and the subject of an exhibition at La Cité de l’Architecture et du Patrimoine, in Paris, was the IBA Emscher Park in the Ruhr area. Dating from 1999, the objective of this particular IBA was to reconvert a previously industrial dominated region into a mixed use residential area. Although the project seemed very interesting, and the difficulties affronted in its completion must have been numerous, I was very disappointed with the way in which it was displayed in this exhibit. I went down expecting to learn a little bit about the urbanism itself and ended up leaving after 15 minutes of flashing images and weird noises.
The display itself is very small and consists simply of a few projectors flashing random images of people, flowers, dancers, and occasional building. The “music” playing in the background can be best described as “canaries chirping on a construction site while hippies play drums”. Maybe I’m being to close minded about this thing, or I’m not artistic enough, but I simply don’t get it. I don’t understand what 95% of the sounds and images had to do with the project itself. I think this museum is frequented by many architecture students and professionals; I would love to hear what their take is on these types of shows. Does anyone else find that much of architecture is way too “artsy”? What ever happened to form following function? The reason I got into urban planning in the first place was because I felt that the environment people live in has an effect on their quality of life. I deal with tangible things like residential areas, pedestrian malls, mixed use parks and urban mixity. I even deal with social problems like drug abuse, urban violence and low cost housing. But I don’t really care if an architect used “hollow aluminum columns to represent the missing soul in today’s urban environments” (that is the most random idea I could come up with, and I’m sure I’ll see it in some building down the road)
I’m really not trying to be pessimistic about the profession; I just want to know if architects feel the same way about “everything having to have a meaning”. Can’t a building just be a building, a façade just be a façade and a column just be a column?
PS: In the back corner of the exhibit was a computer with the IBA Emscher website on it, it was by far the best part of this display. I just saved you 5 euros.
The IBA EMSCHER PARK is a example of industrial renewal taken as a pilot project by many urban planners all over Europe. I have been witnessing to the organization of a tour for the “Rotterdam Port Authority” to that area in order to replicate the model of redevelopment. The accommodation of creative activities represents an interesting and sometimes suitable receipt for the renewal of derelict industrial sites but, as you argued in your post, there are many more concrete and tangible needs that our urban areas display. It would be interesting to write an article with this argument for the first issue (the subject is industrial renewal) of the magazine we are trying to set…
Thank you very much for your explanation and please write me back
Francesca