Post-war Vienna as a public realm misfortune

Vienna with its stunning central city, is somewhat the opposite in the rest of the inner city and the inner suburbs. Why the city appears so grey and dull is somewhat a mystery, but some mistakes are rather obvious.

The inner city housing built by the city after the World War 2 are mostly identical beige with large red lettering and add little joy to the local area. The post-WW2 housing is somewhat similar in color to the pre-WW2 housing, but the latter often has some detailing in the facade, adding a little joy to the buildings.

An illustrative scene showing how modern street installations can add dreariness to the public realm of a square.

Too quickly outdated modern street furniture
The streets and squares in the inner city are maybe a little too functional. It looks as if the city was at loss on how to design post-WW2 streets, and ended up with a strictly functional design stripped of trees, traditional street furniture and detailing in pavements and at junctions.

Squares often suffer the same fate as streets and junctions, where the joy of the public realm is restricted to brutal modern street furniture, more suited for a rural highway than an inner city setting. The many attempts of installing modern street furniture to squares and streets are somewhat a miss, as it too quickly looks outdated.

An scene demonstrating how old and new can be joined together with great success.

Look to Berlin and Paris
Vienna could look to Berlin and Paris to learn a thing or two about public realm. The two cities approach to street furniture and design is somewhat unique in that one 'timeless' standard design is used throughout the entire city, from the outer city limit to the inner heart. The 'timeless' nature of the design is interesting in that one cannot tell when a street has been upgraded, as the design is very robust and does not look damaged or aged. Maintenance standards are high and costs are considerably lower as the same elements are used throughout the city, year in year out. In Paris the same street-bench design has been used for over a hundred year, and it still looks as good as when new.

A modern square capturing all that is bad about public realm in post-WW2 Vienna.

Paris and to a lesser extent Berlin does depart from the standard design in selected high frequented or centrally located streets and squares, but with the clear understanding that this will cost more to maintain, and presumably with a long term will and mean to budget for this increase in maintenance.     

Stuttgart in bleek winter monochrome

I recently had the opportunity to spend 24 hours in Stuttgart and although it is not the prettiest city, I was pleasantly surprised, maybe because my expectations were not so great. And this was mid winter, with only a trace of sun and a little drizzle.

Stuttgart has of course repeated the common mistakes of most post-war European cities, replacing trees with cars, forgetting the bike and bringing motorway architecture into the inner city. The lack of color and texture, when there is little tradition of exposed brick, adds to the bleakness of city, especially where glass and polished stone is allowed to reign.

However, the city is stunningly located in a valley, surrounded by hills in most directions and is fortunate to have many early twentieth century buildings with local stone details. And the center is full of an endless number of shops in a series of pedestrianized streets, concentrating the commercial heart within the center.

I was also fortunate to swim in a beautiful thirties pool and had then the opportunity to walk through the city by night, when the darkness hides the the worst excess of modern architects. The lack of color is less obvious when the city presents itself in monochrome, lit by orange street lights. And the awkward 1950s concert hall appears almost beautiful, with stunning details that looks almost 1970s.

And no, i did not see the Haus am Weinberg, the Mercedes Benz Museum, the Porche Museum, the  Stadtbibliothek or the Neue Messe, all stunningly twenty-first century buildings. But at the University in the middle of the city, it looks almost as if someone forgot to put up half the buildings.

So my advice to urban planners of Europe, is to:
i) Plant more trees, bigger trees, closer together
ii) Add more depth to facades by requiring windows and walls to have different depth
iii) Add more texture to facades by encouraging the use of bricks in part of the facade
iv) Encourage the use of color, avoiding 'soft colors only'

The 7 Million Sustainable Dense City?

Australia has only 23 million inhabitants, but the population is increasing by 1000 people a day. This is maybe not so remarkable in a world where the population is increasing by 100.000 people a day. But for Australia this equals 1.6 % annually, and for the world (only) 0.6 % annually.

But housing 1000 new people a day requires a lot of new homes and rising house prices. New homes requires land, streets, water, power etc, and more people requires more parks, playing fields, shops, cars, transport, wifi etc. But sadly, the cities of Australia are growing as much outwards as they are growing inwards.

20-40 million new inhabitants require a different approach
Sydney and Melbourne as the two largest cities and Brisbane and Perth as the two most growing cities (in terms of proportion), are still partly stuck in a 1950s planning regime, where suburban lifestyle and the car is dominant, despite that household sizes are decreasing, people are growing older and there are fewer children around.

By mid twenty-first century the population of Australia may almost double to 43 million inhabitants and by the end of the century almost tripled to 62 million inhabitants. Then Australia may be the tenth most populous South-Eastern Asian nation. However, in doubling its population, the country may need to double the densities at which people live within its larger cities.

Me observing and reflecting upon the city center life outside the Central Post Office of Brisbane.

My time in Australia is coming to a close. I have thoroughly enjoyed my seven weeks in Sydney and two weeks in Brisbane. I also spent a weekend in the bushland north of Sydney. I have experienced how two large and rather suburban cities function, and observed with joy and horror their approach to a rapid growing population. I've met some very wonderful people, many who were recent immigrants from either Europe or Asia.

During my last three weeks in Sydney, I have spend a lot of time swimming in the sea, half the time next to my house in Double Bay, jogging around my neighbourhood of Bellevue, visiting the beaches at La Perouse twice, Middle Head twice, Watson Bay once, Nielsen Park once, Otford once, travelling on the ferry to Circular Quay and to Watson Bay, swimming at the pool at Woolloomooloo and kayaking half way to Shark Island.

Leaving Australia for Europe makes me somewhat sad and exiting. Sad because I leave Sydney in late summer but before the autumn starts for real. Exiting because I arrive in Europe in early spring, but maybe a little too early as there is still snow in much of northern half of the continent.

2-3 million new inhabitants in one city alone
In Sydney and Melbourne, that may sound like an utopian dream or nightmare, but it may not be so difficult. Thinking back 50 years, there were few high risers, and thinking forward, many parts of the two cities would benefit from more medium high rise living. By doubling the proportion of the two cities with double the average density, the two cities could accommodate half as many people as today, increasing from 4-4.5 million to 7 million inhabitants. And a similar pattern could be applied to Brisbane, Perth and other cities throughout Australia (and elsewhere), with the ratios a little different.

Doubling the proportion of the city with double density may not seem so difficult. But increasing the density in already high density districts may seem a much more daunting task. But by targeting the lower density developments within a designated district and replacing it with double the highest density in the same distinct, densities could substantially increase in the designated district as a whole. In other words, the most important may be do identify the lower density developments close to higher density developments that could be subject to (much) higher densities. The reason for this, is that these areas are the ones that could offer the largest gain. This approach would be in contrast to an approach that would aim to achieve higher densities throughout (the entire) designated district.

Sydney's Hyde Park where residential buildings heights are restricted along west (right) and east sides but less so along south side (left).

Preserving identity and heritage
In terms of identity and heritage, this choice of approach could be more successful, as some of the higher density developments may have qualities that would be valuable to preserve. This could be a high street, historically with higher density. So rather than increasing densities in the high street itself, densities could be increased (substantially) in the side streets, where (historically) densities are lower, preserving the older higher density high street. This should of course not be seen as a blanket ban on increasing densities elsewhere within a designated district, but in areas that already have higher densities, the approach could be more cautious.

Of course this approach would result in the loss of a large part of low density developments adjacent to and within higher density areas, but this may be a long term gain for a wider community, as the concentration of services and functions within the (new and larger) higher density district would increase as a result of many more people living within such a higher density district. This approach does not mean that all the lower density development must be replaced with densities double the highest density development. But it will mean that all the (designated) lower density development must be replaced.