ICSU becoming ISC ... Biocluster

BRIGHT LIGHTS, DISEASED CITIES estatements talks to leading Berlin architect, Tobias Nöfer, about how the current global pandemic may change our future cities. Paris’s famed city skyline is legacy of Baron Haussmann who, at the orders of Emperor Napoléon III, demolished medieval neighbourhoods between 1853 and 1870. Deemed overcrowded and unhealthy, they were replaced by wide avenues, parks and squares, fountains, aqueducts and, importantly, sewers. But was the primary driver health concerns of ones of military concern? As the immediate shock of the COVID-19 crisis subsides, the real estate industry is gradually turning its thoughts towards the future. What will the post COVID-19 urban landscape look like? How will the pandemic shape tomorrow’s cities? And what are the repercussions for building design? Tobias Nöfer, managing partner of Berlin architect firm, Nöfer Architekten, is better qualified than most to answer these questions. Nöfer was head of the “Planwerk Innenstadt” project for the redesign of Berlin’s historical centre. After studying architecture at the RWTH in Aachen and the ETH in Zurich, he worked in the offices of famous architects, such as Oswald Mathias Ungers and Hans Kollhof before starting his own firm in 1998 to work on urban design, architecture concepts and projects. Tobis is also the chairman of the board of the Architects and Engineers Association of Berlin (AIV). Here he talks to estatements about how he foresees COVID-19’s impact on our cities’ future. Hobrecht plans for Berlin also gave rise to crowded Mietkaserne, tenement blocks with backyard courtyards where little sunlight penetrated and where the scene of much of the city’s industry until the 1920s. Today, such courtyards are often the scene of trendy cafes, galleries and startups, such as at the Hackesche Hofe. Q: Disease and fear of disease have long since influenced the shape our cities. Famous examples include the changes Baron Haussmann made to Paris in the 1880s that remoulded its skyline and introduced sewers underneath its streets in response to cholera outbreaks. Similarly, London’s Victoria Embankment, the quintessential English promenade, was created by Sir Joseph William Bazalgette as part of a new and ambitious sanitation system after successive waves of dysentery, typhoid, and cholera had stricken the city, including one that claimed 10,000 lives. Do similar examples of cities that have been shaped by disease exist in Germany? James Hobrecht (1825-1902) remodeled Berlin based on a plan of 1862. Introducing sewerage to improve public health, his plans also saw vast sections of the city redeveloped to accommodate a projected size of 1.5 to 2 million inhabitants. Nöfer: It can’t be said that cities have been significantly shaped by disease – there have always been other major factors moulding cities. For example, during the Baroque period in Berlin, military issues were the main motivation behind building large city squares, such as Pariser Platz, Leipziger Platz, and Mehringplatz on the edge of the last tariff wall. But of course, the desire for a healthy city has always played a major role and led to innovation. In the second half of the 19th century, Berlin was significantly shaped by the plans of James Hobrecht, who, like Bazalgette in London, was primarily a hydraulic engineer focused on urban technology. The side effect of his efforts was the network of streets, squares and parks, which we still appreciate as part of a well-functioning city today. Hobrecht’s development also resulted in massive densification that led to the problem of dark rear courtyards, and as a result the modernity of the 1920s had to bid farewell to the centuries-old tradition of separating public from private spheres. Light, air and sun became the central themes of the modern city, although nowadays we find this anti-urban character problematic. “IT CAN’T BE SAID THAT CITIES HAVE BEEN SIGNIFICANTLY SHAPED BY DISEASE – THERE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN OTHER MAJOR FACTORS MOULDING CITIES.” Q: How is COVID-19 likely to change our cities? One would assume that the changes will not be as dramatic as a reshaping of the city skyline à la Haussmann or Bazalgette, but they could still be significant. How do you expect our cities to change in response? Nöfer: Historically, cities have only ever undergone slow change. The corona crisis may be prominent today, but it may only take two years before a vaccine is discovered, and that isn’t a long time. The backyard misery of the 19th century transformed our concept of cities far more than the Spanish flu in the 1920s. The spread of that virus had far less influence on urban planning than, for example, the rampant cases of rickets in 19th century Berlin caused by a lack of sunlight. Of course, the lockdown is changing our way of life in the short term because it makes us focus on our direct surroundings, which increases our awareness of our immediate living conditions. This is possibly a positive side effect of this collective hiatus, as urban space deserves more attention. This closer look at specific living conditions could have a significant impact on our approach to mobility, for example, which I find positive as all this flying back and forth couldn’t continue anyhow. In view of climate change, we can almost view this as a welcome moment – society certainly needed a kick in the pants to shake its apathy towards the looming climate catastrophe. “THE BACKYARD MISERY OF THE 19TH CENTURY TRANSFORMED OUR CONCEPT OF CITIES FAR MORE THAN THE SPANISH FLU IN THE 1920S.” Q. What challenges do architects face as a result of COVID-19, and how are they responding, if at all, at this point? I have seen that new design theories are emerging, and, according to Architectural Digest, many designers and architects anticipate the broad implementation of technologies such as voice-activated elevators, hands-free light switches, and entry to hotel rooms by means of mobile phones. Nöfer: Architects are obsessed by anything new and come up with a new theory for every event. The widespread introduction of new technology was already in full swing, irrespective of COVID-19. As I said, architecture and urban planning can’t undergo fundamental change within a few months or even years. Their development is based on human physiognomy and basic human behaviour, which only changes at an evolutionary rate – in other words, very slowly. On the other hand, fashion and design, for example, can change far faster. New items of clothing, such as masks, or social distancing requirements against the spread of COVID-19 will also trigger change. Q: What impact will COVID-19 and social distancing – as far as it is possible to tell at this point – have on the open-plan offices? What are the ramifications for building design, particularly in terms of building heights and skyscrapers? Nöfer: Even before the crisis, there were differing needs for office workplaces. Some employees needed separate offices to concentrate on their work and make confidential telephone calls, some needed group workspaces to collaborate as a team, while call centres and the like needed small cubicles with minimal space requirements. After two months of crisis, normality has mostly returned to the former two in Berlin because people are respecting social distancing and masks minimise the virus’s transmission. There has been a big shift towards working from home, although I think this is only a short-term trend. Many inner-city dwellers’ living rooms simply aren’t designed to be turned into an office. And many employees are getting cabin fever and want to return to their sociable workplaces. Despite all the digital possibilities on offer, misunderstandings arise all too easily, and many people still miss having a face-to-face conversation in the same room as someone else. The short-term nature of the current emergency and the contradictory trends we’re now seeing makes it impossible to predict the concrete impact on architecture and urban planning – anything else would be pure speculation. “SOCIETY CERTAINLY NEEDED A KICK IN THE PANTS TO SHAKE ITS APATHY TOWARDS THE LOOMING CLIMATE CATASTROPHE.” Q: The nature of work itself could undergo radical transformation. With the arrival of COVID-19 and enforced stay-at-home rules, companies have realised that it is possible for employees to work away from the office and remain productive for long periods of time. Is this likely to cause a huge shift, or will it be business as usual once restrictions are eased? Nöfer: COVID-19 significantly accelerated flexibility in the world of work. This change is not just a casual result of the crisis, but an acceleration of a process that was already underway. Even before the crisis, our employees were able to work from home, which helped us a lot when almost everyone was at home anyway. We’ve learned how to deal with constant video conferencing, but also recognised the advantages and the disadvantages of face-to-face conversation. By the time the crisis is over, we’ll have learned a lot that we would have otherwise only recognised later. Q: Would this be a good time to initiate a shift to second-tier cities, given that they have all the amenities of larger urban conglomerations without the density and hassle, and modern communications can enable professionals to work from home and quickly travel to office centres should this prove necessary? Nöfer: You could assume that is indeed the case. It’s also a nice idea, and the resulting decentralization and decrease in physical mobility would certainly be very welcome. But I don’t believe it will happen. Smaller cities can’t compete with the lure of big cities and their inordinately large number of attractions. It’s important to note that urban living has lost none of its appeal. The question of living in the “place to be” will remain an important factor. Back to Contents