Kaye Geipel (architect, critic for the Bauwelt journal, Berlin, Germany):
We are going to look firstly at the connection between city and country, then the connection with housing. Because of something of a conflict in the demand expressed by today's city dwellers – to live in the city or to live in the country – most European cities have halfway areas, neither entirely urban, nor entirely countryside, but unfortunately often of mediocre spatial quality, which we have generated ourselves and have accepted almost without question, without coming up with many alternatives to this transitional space. As part of the process of reflecting on public space associated with the 9th session of Europan, we will try to examine this intermediate zone, its ambiguous character, and to find ways of developing new quality that raises the question of densification.
City and country are fundamental polarities. People want to live in a city that is rich in public spaces and services, but they also want to fulfil a need for individuality which requires setting boundaries around their private space.
Two pilot projects around these topics will be used to introduce the debate with the Europan 9 partner towns and experts. They are situated in typical modern city environments, though very difficult ones, as Europan sites can be. The first example, at Olten SüdWest in Switzerland, consists of quarries that have been in operation until recently and which will be used for the creation of a new district, to include housing. The Austrian example, the construction following the Europan 4 competition in Innsbruck, concerns the reuse and refurbishment of the 1960s Olympic village, which might be described as a big housing estate. 

OLTEN SUDWEST (SWITZERLAND)

Maresa Schumacher (architect, teacher, Büro Z, Zurich, Switzerland):

Oliver Bormann from Berlin's Büro Process Yellow and I are working on the SüdWest project in a former gravel quarry to be converted to an urban district in the Swiss town of Olten, which, though relatively small in size, is the nucleus of a large conurbation. A former mainline railway junction, this site now suffers from the removal of the railways; currently only high-speed trains pass near the town, which therefore needs to reposition itself. It can exploit its role as a crossroads, half an hour by train from Switzerland's main stations, Basel, Bern, Zurich or Luzern.
On the Swiss scale, Olten, with its 17,000 population, is seen as a medium-sized town. The River Aare runs through it to the south, and it has a nucleus of mediaeval districts in the town centre.

The site is essentially a big open-air quarry in the southwestern outskirts of Olten. The old cement works have been demolished since, but gravel extraction is still going on. Preparations for the development of the site have already begun.
The site's topography is very distinctive and strongly influenced the design of the project. The site is bounded on one side by the excavations and on the other by a service road which will be a significant factor in the opening up of the area. However, the railway line and river constitute a dual barrier to be crossed. The site is extremely shut-in, although situated near the town centre, and can be seen as a suburban space.
Our operation affects both the urban structure and the integration of the landscape and the town. The essence of the design is an urban structure based on the remnants of the quarry, and our intention is to use the different structures to create a landscape that connects with the original landscape.
The strategy employed is a staged urban development, which benefits from the lack of urgency, since at present there is no land pressure. This allows us to plan not only in terms of a final picture but also in relation to the various intermediate phases, which can each, where applicable, be seen as an intermediate step, and which develop from this perspective.
The first phase, called phase zero, is to create a sort of event, a sequence of low-cost operations – a visit by the Swiss National Circus, equestrian sports, flower shows – to start structuring the perimeter using fairly simple methods. The aim is to use this event-based approach to encourage the inhabitants to identify with the quarry, which previously they have never seen as part of the town. In addition, the aim is to achieve a change of image in order to attract investors.  This is underpinned by a landscape development, i.e. a road building or opening up operation, starting with the service road that is currently under construction.

Oliver Bormann (architect, urbanist, Process Yellow, Berlin, Germany):

In Switzerland, unlike China for example, there is no great land pressure and we can afford not to complete an urban project in a single step. This is the factor underlying our strategy. We are proposing pre-structuring measures to make sure that the districts develop on an attractive site.
The title of our project is "locational non-hierarchy", because we are proposing a nonhierarchical structure – unlike many other concentrically structured towns – with no strictly "central" location, but rather a form of decentralised centrality, based around small urban squares. We have established a central axis, the "strip", a sort of structuring main street where certain functions are concentrated.
We have opted for the classic chequerboard layout, with the central strip maintaining a certain tension. This approach to development is very simple and easy to realise, with three major points of connection with the town. The whole development is structured around a network of free spaces, parks and squares. The different locations are equal in spatial quality, avoiding the traditional urban layout of a central square and back streets or peripheral areas. We are aiming to create a high level of fluidity between the unoccupied spaces and future building plots, so that the district will always be easy to move around. The "pocket parks", small areas of greenery, alternate with mineral squares that exploit the rocky character of the location.
On two thirds of the surface area, the construction possibilities allow for buildings of maximum height, whilst a third consists of flexible spaces, with choice as to heights. This gives us great freedom in terms of typology. The buildings rest on podiums, which can be devolved to different functions. The ground floor of the building could be used for shops, or for housing if the basement is slightly elevated. The aim is to achieve a programmatic mix across the whole area, but also within single buildings where possible.
The overall image is very well-defined, but this design permits flexible development within. Any kind of typology can be incorporated without undermining the global unity.

Kaye Geipel:
Thank you. Christian Lichtenwagner will now describe the construction process for his winning project at Innsbruck in Austria for Europan 4.

INNSBRUCK (AUSTRIA), EUROPAN 6 PROJECT

Christian Lichtenwagner (Frötscher & Lichtenwagner, architect, Austria):
Innsbruck is a city of 130,000 people situated in a valley and bounded by two Alpine mountain ranges. It has a historic town centre characterised by gilded roofs, which are something of a symbol of the town.
The town has organised the Winter Olympics twice, in 1964 and 1976, and the project site is in the Olympic village, to the east of the town next to the Inn, the river that runs through Innsbruck. This is a social housing area, with the same symptoms and the same problems encountered everywhere with this type of highly monolithic development. At first sight, the urban landscape is not very attractive nor consonant with the image that most people have of Innsbruck. However, when you look at this area a bit more closely, you find that it has certain poetic qualities.
Our Europan project, a winner in 1996, was called Max, a reference to maximum use of the potential, not of a building area or zone, but of a space, at a time when little use was made of the "interstices" between different buildings. The L-shaped building creates an empty space that we developed up to Schutzenstrasse – the street at the bottom of the right-hand drawing – in order, as it were, to integrate the site into the surrounding area.
Five years passed, during which the city couldn't or wouldn't do anything more to redevelop the district. Following that, we were finally asked to present a new feasibility study on the project. The urban problems in this area had increased, and the city had understood that certain parts needed regeneration as a matter of urgency.
The difference between the study and the initial project is the separation of the housing and public space functions, or at least an arrangement that avoids any mutual interference. So we revised our project, still keeping the L shape. The building changed in height and volume to become a tower block. So the original idea was enhanced in terms of urbanity, with a depth of eighteen metres over the whole L.
The public space in the middle of the building – a mixed-use hall – was not much used. The municipality wanted to avoid building shops, because the existing local shops had all closed following the construction of a big shopping centre nearby. So we went looking for potential new uses and approached the Southern Tyrolese supermarket chain M Price, which uses architecture as a marketing tool and eventually decided to join us in a project. This immediately entailed strict requirements, such as a depth of at least 22 metres. So we increased the depth in order to accommodate the supermarket.
Obviously, this partnership delighted the city of Innsbruck, even though the inclusion of the supermarket slightly increased the quantity of work. It was agreed that the city would act as developer, would build the supermarket premises and would then lease it to the operator.
After completing the study, we presented our project publicly to the local people and worked with the media and the local press. As could be expected, some people were violently opposed to the building of any "skyscraper", and there was general reticence amongst the local people. It was particularly the height of the building that put them off, and the supermarket. They were afraid that it would generate traffic problems and that the building would block the view and create shadow. We were able to counter the second objection by doing a light analysis. The building was thus arranged so that the shadow would only fall on the square and not on the neighbouring buildings.

The public spaces were a central preoccupation. A football stadium was provided for the local youngsters. To the east of the site, a green space acts as a route to the Tchechenstrasse. The upper part of the square was to be separated from the street by a green strip with trees.
As regards the design of the building, our aim was not necessarily to make it an architectural work of art, but primarily to design a modest building that would state its physical presence whilst fitting into the neighbourhood as a whole.
The development opened in July 2006. The square is a big enough public space to gradually become the district's central square. As regards the functions, the tower, with its 108 housing units, was separated into two parts linked by glassed walkways. So people crossing the walkway to get to their apartments can see the mountain range to the North on one side and on the other the Patchakovel, an often snow-topped mountain that is something of a symbol of Innsbruck.
The supermarket provided exactly what we had needed, which is to say people and life, notably through the presence of a small café, a brasserie that enlivens the square.
The supermarket is visibly popular and busy and the operator now has no regrets about his decision. Alongside the supermarket, as part of the marketing concept, the "café-baguette" plays an important role as a public space. People from the area and shoppers from outside use it as a meeting place. 
In addition, another public space, the mixed-use hall, is available to clubs and associations. We thought that it was important to give this hall a more than purely local function. Somewhat against the council's wishes, we designed it hall to be genuinely versatile, usable for festivals, concerts, cultural events of all kinds, lectures, etc.
We felt that a public space like this could only work if there were lots of people. It had to be lively. So one method was to oblige people to cross the square to get to the different places. The other fundamental condition was to offer real quality of life and to make people want to spend time there.

Kaye Geipel:
The two projects offer two different responses to the shortage of public space in residential neighbourhoods.  At Innsbruck, the response is a high degree of concentration and a central square surrounded by various density-creating elements. At Olten, it is dispersal that is seen as a criterion and guarantee of quality. In other words, both projects raise the question of density.
In addition, at different stages of development, they effectively illustrate the effort required to achieve a sustainable mix of functions. Christian Lichtenwagner referred to "social resistance" and the difficulty of getting the project accepted, whereas at Olten a whole series of measures were deployed from the start to promote sustainability and versatility.
Finally, the two projects also illustrate the sometimes conflicting demands of users. People in the suburbs want both privacy and urban life. This contradiction is a challenge that seems to have been successfully met here.

Roger Riewe (architect, Professor, Graz, Austria):
These days, it seems to be taken for granted that people who don't live "in town" are losing out. Two years ago, we passed the point where more than half the world's population lives in cities. Every country, every conurbation is trying to become a city again. In fact, Switzerland has been creative in presenting itself as a single urban space. Yet on the other hand – and this is the paradox you refer to – as soon as people are in the urban environment, they also want intimacy, private space and nature.
Perhaps the quest for "spaces of urbanity" reflects an element of nostalgia, both on the part of architects and urban planners and of city dwellers in general. However, it is an undeniable paradox that in cities, in the era of globalisation and the knowledge society, when we have all become nomads, there is at the same time an aspiration to local identity. Alongside globalisation, people cling to their local roots, which continue to survive and grow stronger.
It is also important to stress that with public spaces, it is not their physical boundaries that determine their role and identity, but their uses. 

Bernd Vlay (architect, Secretary of Europan Austria):
The first images produced by the architects and the model of the Innsbruck tower block generated genuine public discontent, and a real "public relations" campaign was required to push through the idea of a high-rise building. The notion of public space near the tower therefore had to be completely redefined, with urbanity being created by the superimposition of different functional layers – housing, communal space, the supermarket, cafes and also an underground car park – in order to create a positive image for a density-increasing project in a residential district.  This was not just about reinventing a typology but employing a very precise process of transformation to start a dialogue with the existing surroundings, including the public spaces, in order to create a favourable urban environment.
In the Innsbruck project, there is a clear separation between private and public space. The Olten project stresses a very subtle negotiation between nature and buildings, but also between intimacy and public space, which entails the notion of pockets of private greenery.
In the light of this, it should be noted that the common denominator of the two projects is the need for public and private investors to work together. In both cases, the negotiations took a very long time. It is often a very complex task to find common ground between public and private investment. In addition, there is the need for management and accountability. In Olten, the question of non-hierarchical spaces may cause problems. Who takes responsibility for such a space? The issue of co-operation between the private and public sector is a real challenge. Whilst such cooperation may benefit both parties through cross-fertilisation, it can also be very complicated and therefore needs to be structured, not just spatially but operationally. This is a crucial point, which needs to be anticipated.
In fact, public space is only perceived as public when it appears lively, dynamic, and that requires a certain density. In Olten, however, it seems to me that the inhabitants would have opposed any greater density. To what extent should we think in terms of pockets of greenery, intimate or private micro-spaces?

Oliver Bormann:
Indeed, it might seem paradoxical. It is true that density is a very important criterion when thinking of public space, but it can be understood in different ways. I can also easily imagine empty public space. Is not the desert a public space? It may be true that density is defined by how much people use the space, there are also other ways of occupying a square, without necessarily crossing it on foot – for example by subjecting it to social control or simply by visual presence. At Olten, I think that the public space can function with fairly low density, because of the quite loose distribution of the different components that will occupy the public space. The essential criterion is not the number of people present but rather that the public space should be under social control.

Bernd Vlay:
Beyond the mix of functions, your project operates a graduated spatial shift between public and private, starting from a private inner courtyard and moving towards roofs for public use.

Oliver Bormann:
We tried to establish a whole gradation in the use of public space, from traditional uses like the street, to the use of the ground floor. Then there are the internal areas, what are called public and private spaces, accessible to the public but endowed with a certain degree of privacy because of their slightly closed layout. Then, the system of fences and railings divide up the podiums into different uses, establishing private areas that are in close contact with public space. At the top of the ladder, we finally come to entirely public areas, squares, highly animated "pocket parks". Our strategy is therefore a differential and multiple treatment of public and private space by developing a whole range of spaces that are accessible to the public yet privately owned, where the developer is asked to maintain a certain quality.

Hugo Hinsley (architect, Professor, member of the Scientific Committee, UK):
There is a very strong contrast between the two operations in terms of the possibility of achieving critical mass. On one side, you have something that is done in a single step, which is the normal process, whereas at Olten they are trying to proceed stage by stage, leaving things open and simply providing a general framework.
The question is whether the investors and the town feel that there is enough intensity to justify an investment that will generate the critical mass of activity you are talking about?
Also, the two projects prompt us to look more carefully at the very relative concept of density, which varies depending on where you are, the programme implemented, the relations between things, the connections between activities and the intensity of uses. Density is more about how residents think than about strictly technical factors.

DEBATE: URBANITY OF HOUSING, BETWEEN CITY AND NATURE

Kaye Geipel:
It is true that in the Olten project, we can see that there is no pressure. However, eventually we really want to create a neighbourhood that has a certain critical mass, which will ensure the quality imagined for this development. The great flexibility of approach means that we can incorporate the quarry that existed before whilst working on its perimeter, by building at different heights and by playing on the overlap between public, semi-public and private spaces. What we have here are two different conceptions of density, based on the urban context. At Olten, the issue is urban density, whereas at Innsbruck it is more about a form of concentration specific to the interior of the Olympic village.

Selb representative (Germany):
Selb, with its population of 17,000, is comparable with Olten. It seems to me that the presence of podiums determines a certain layout, for example restricting the use of shops. As regards our site, the free spaces created that are not directly handed over to the local authorities for financial reasons, offer the possibility of setting up partnerships, as we have, in fact, already done.
I also wonder how, in such a process, we find people who may be interested in living here and how we advertise the future project. In Germany, construction law is extremely rigid and requires that the interested parties should know exactly what is going to happen in the area around. The aim is to avoid structures being subsequently modified against the wishes of the residents.  
At Innsbruck, I would be interested to know how the inhabitants reacted, what they liked and what they didn't like? Are the people with first-floor flats as happy as those on the second floor? And also, could the district itself acts as a catchment zone? 

Christian Lichtenwagner:
Until it was built, our project was extremely controversial and very unpopular with residents of the Olympic district. Then, although of course not everyone is delighted with the result, opinion completely changed. Some points still remain to be settled, such as the public spaces, which often arouse conflict. I would like to specify that the client, initially from the private sector, was not much in favour of creating a square. It took an expression of strong political will on the part of the town's planning officer to build this square, which entails expenditure on maintenance and lighting. Whilst the fear of conflict between minorities was overcome to achieve a mix in this district's residential profile, there are nevertheless other problems such as vandalism, noise or young people "hanging about" the square, which the residents don't like. However, I think that it is illusory to imagine a square as something peaceful. A public space is always a conflictual space. The point is to find ways of resolving these conflicts.
Unlike in Olten, this was a public project completed in a single stage and funded from the public purse, so it was obvious it would be social housing and therefore assigned from the start. The apartments were therefore occupied from the moment the keys were handed over, and there was no need to sell units at different prices.

Oliver Bormann:
As regards the processes of planning dynamic development, I will also turn the question over to the audience. Should a flexible model becomes static when the construction process begins? Building inoccupancy is often connected with the question of the development of public space by the reactivation of certain areas. At Olten, the project is being developed over a 10-year period whilst offering, from the first stage, sufficient quality for the people already living there. I think that the idea of sponsorship, of residents taking a form of responsibility for spaces that are initially not yet used and will subsequently be used in another way, is interesting, provided that it is understood that these spaces will have to be returned later. All these questions are interesting, because they create a dynamic.

Mulhouse representative (France):
Mulhouse is a town of a certain size (110,000 people), and the flexible urban strategy proposed in Olten, although not completely appropriate to our position, raises very interesting questions on the overlap between private and public today. This question is really at the heart of the debates in all urban development projects where the town is involved.
Alongside the site proposed for Europan 9, we have a fairly ambitious urban project designed by  Nicolas Michelin for a long green strip which is not a single public space but rather a succession of gardens. Some of them are public gardens, others private. Some are still to be created, others exist already. The strategy is not so different from the one proposed at Olten, since we are right on the margin between private and public. Behind the actual implementation process, there is the question of uses. For a public space to mean something and achieve an identity, it must have a use. Even though implementing such a process is necessarily tricky, this direction seems relevant today when we are looking for changes in urban projects and the introduction of greenery and quality into towns, on ever smaller sites.
As regards the Innsbruck project, which I find very interesting, the large size of the square in relation to its environment is nevertheless somewhat surprising. Was there discussion about the use of mineral materials and the size of this square, which serves a fairly central amenity?

Christian Lichtenwagner:
Yes indeed, there was discussion on this subject from the start. However, the project for a large square was a response to very specific municipal requirements, such as a weekly market or neighbourhood celebrations, for which the previous intermediate spaces were not big enough.

Roger Riewe:  
It is true that a public space doesn't need to be a single space. There are also partial public spaces, which are so small that they look private.
Moreover, there are always different stages in a construction process. This can be a perilous business for developers, politicians and architects. Firstly, there are electoral factors to consider and the need to sell projects to the public. Secondly, the right balance has to be found between the project's architecture and a certain freedom of manoeuvre. Communicating about levels of uncertainty is both very stimulating and very difficult. You have to be able to say: "Right, we're going to build a crocodile. But it could be that in five years we get rid of the crocodile and put an elephant in its place!"

Essen representative (Germany):
I would like to know how you plan to start the first phase at Olten. Though the differentiation between public, semi-public and private spaces seems clear to me, I am less clear about how you are actually going to go about achieving what you had imagined for the future. Are you relying on public liability? How does that work from a financial and legal perspective? In Germany, we have the example of former steelworks wasteland for which the triggering factor was the Ruhr regional authorities taking them back into public ownership. You referred to negotiations with large investors. But how did things go with the target individuals, i.e. the people who finally decide whether the project goes ahead, for whom you set out the general framework? I think that the first phase of a project like this necessarily involves local government.

Oliver Bormann:
As regards the initial situation, it was private property and the landowner's primary aim was to sell. As he didn't want to do the development himself, he had to co-operate with the town of Olten, which then played a motivating role. The development objectives were set through the application of marketing strategies. The town of Olten's development department looked for potential investors. This very important interaction from the start prevented ill-considered developments.
In terms of design, the prestructuring measures are actually temporary and can be modified by the town in the future. This point was tricky for the investors, so cheap strategies were employed. The aim was – with the minimum resources possible – to create a potential for use by involving local stakeholders. We would even have liked a sort of small board of directors to manage these companies and do the public relations.

Kaye Geipel:
By way of conclusion to our debate, I would say that we are talking about two projects that are situated in that metaphorical zone between "nature" and "town", which use the existing fabric and are founded in the pre-urban context.  It seems possible to reveal traces that had become almost invisible because of previous development on the sites. And I find that in both cases, this has been done in an extremely refined and intelligent way.
Unlike the crocodile that becomes an elephant, in both cases the minimum qualities of the site are being repositioned within a sustainable context. That is something that requires courage from everyone involved, including politicians.