Von Redaktionsbuero.
Von Redaktionsbuero.
The debate about the future of Europe has erupted in a more impassioned way than ever. The direct rejection of the EU constitution in France and the Netherlands, the deadlock in the budget negotiations and not least of all the impassioned speech by Tony Blair in which he outed himself as a "passionate pro-European" have again focuses attention on the question of Europe's identity.
Blair, the current Council President, impressed primarily by virtue of the way he positioned Europe in a global context. From further west economist Jeremy Rifkin offers the notion of the "European Dream". From his point of view the freedom of the Europeans is not based on autonomy but on being integrated. Blair, too, could never accept a Europe that is "merely an economic market". He believes in, "Europe as a political project", with, "a strong social dimension".
Among all these positive aspects, what Rifkin defines as "being integrated", philosopher Peter Sloterdijk "the procedural unification of this heterogeneous continent" and Blair "backing each other", the future expansion must be "included" as an "extraordinary chance" to create a larger and stronger Union.
Europe must remain a large, strong network, must view its diversity as an opportunity, it must exclude no one and must constantly redefine its values. Europe can only demonstrate its greatness if it does not define itself by its boundaries and if it can prove itself in a global context.
In the magazine "Wired"/"A State of Mind" Mark Leonard writes: "The best way to understand how Europe functions is to look at a globally networked business: Visa. By sharing control widely, and by making it impossible for any single faction or institution to dominate, a networked business can combine its global presence with innovation and diversity to gain the kind of edge normally reserved for smaller entities." This comparison defines this Europe in so far as it both leads out of a regionally determined ideology and yet supports it.
On the basis of an idea initiated originally by Romano Prodi and then taken up by Rem Koolhaas, with the support of the "Haus der Kunst" in Munich architect Koolhaas made the exhibition "The Image of Europe" (11.10.04 to 9.01.05). Remarkable here is not only Koolhaas' sudden interest in Europe but also how enthusiastically he describes this Europe. Koolhaas: "From now on the EU will be bold, explicit, popular …". The exhibition presents European history for the first time as a common history. The presentation of the 80,000 pages of EU legislation could also be seen as ironical, but Koolhaas (and, incidentally, also Mark Leonard in "Wired") sees in this (apparent) bureaucracy the political vision of a Europe that integrates human rights as well as many other social values. Even though the ideology seems to have been lost within it.
Does architect Rem Koolhaas therefore see the "European dream"? Everything seems to point to this although his personal commissions are generally to be found further to the west or to the east. Koolhaas, the pragmatist apparently free from every form of political ideology, places himself in the ranks of the "passionate Europeans". For us this was a hint to take a look at the European production of architecture also from this viewpoint. Which piece in the puzzle of the European Visa network represents architecture?
We have attempted to trace regional tendencies (see the interview with Friedrich Achleitner) as well as European ones (see the essay about Slovene architecture in the European context) and also global directions (see Bart Lootsma: "Intelligent Regions"). And we have made this attempt under Koolhaas' premises: "In fact the creation of a new Europe gives each of us new space to imagine ourselves." What significance does regional architecture have, how does one deal with this as an architect and a European?
It is also clear that many regional developments come from the area of "architecture without architects" (see the picture gallery "Tinseltown" in Romania by Mariana Celac, Iosif Kiraly, Marius Marcu-Lapadat, which shows the formal and real richness of a Roma village) and each comes from a special traditional environment. Precisely this example shows, without any evaluation, an improvement in the quality of life that is documented in order to get to know it. A European notion, very much in line with Tony Blair: "Europe was founded to improve people's lives. And now they are not very convinced. Think about this!"
For some time now architects have not confined themselves to building in their region, nor in their native country and are therefore repeatedly confronted with other, new places. The history of a city or region will always remain specific and unique. And it will preserve its uniqueness.
Naturally, there has also been a "global or European " form for a considerable time, a form that one can find, at a very high quality, in every country. There are also architecture scenes that develop regionally and are subject to specific phenomena (for example Vorarlberg in Austria). In making these analyses, as a "passionate European" one must also be extremely careful. For example Petra Čeferin deplores the fact that western critics often feel like archaeologists or researchers who classify the urban reality of Eastern Europe with the characteristics and the differences they discover. Čeferin calls for the kind of critiques that can be taken seriously, that can liberate themselves from the idea of "country of origin". Perhaps the network of "Young European Architects was founded for this very reason (see the Statements series). It attempts to deal with the problems of young European architects through continuous exchange in a practical and cooperative way.
Architecture has its national characteristics, its historic influences and urban developments, but these influences are no longer as clear as a few decades ago. And just as Europe is a constant complex process, the planning and analysis of regions will demand new strategies, in addition to designs, projects and buildings. Also to ensure that Europe does not define itself purely as an economic market and that architects do not have to commit themselves exclusively to the great client "the Market".
We hope we have succeeded in our approach to this topic and would like to thank our committed authors from Slovakia, Slovenia, Romania and Kosovo for their collaboration.
With best regards
Manuela Hötzl, Antje Mayer ("two passionate pro-Europeans")