You are on page 1of 12
ee sit scission of otc see Gisey 4h ee crcerigte th mse Barer, na, Hanah Ci and Max rea ee Met rable toneyosted spezmet ston 2h Pham Cee basa comeration pla. I Org men tons and ate Prien, hin, 23-261 and CA Stand “eas, Jon ‘cen nd ent nto tee tse sd ew JF ene anon A. 1998 tttonl form nd resistin ei Ib Fr: : ol form an neat Lar 1298, oe om noe ont Pa Sib acrom andthe pub good Walter W. Powel and Ehsbeth Cle Ri Seni re “ Soe noe en ang rosin hing, DC Yun, Jes. 2007, Press The Case of a Controversial Bridge at a World Heritage Site Oliver Berthod Invrodetion CCercation shemes—most nobly the LEED {Leadership a Enepy and Environmental Desig) craton dominate the debe on oe ronmental sutsnaly in conston projec. Thi debate, honey concen isl wih constriction projec whose necessity ho seca ben demonstrate, ln othe words, LEED ass he question “How dace ‘ould green?” and ignores the question “Do we realy have to bell se he fine place?" Donovan Rypkema, deviated advncate at heritage: poses ‘ason and soseainsble eestoraton goes wo far aso transla LEED ao “Lunatic Enviconmeneais Enhusasically Demolihing” Joking rade this provocative starement alludes to a crc sein the ascents debe ‘on corsruction and environmental sustainability: howe do we dersanene wheter bung is necessary a al? ‘The problem behind thi question is that every contraction project Frorides a diferent answer at diferent pois in time. Tals quescon 8 proces and it keeps om evolving, for tackles a parnlox ter may concen any type of construction project, When Wwe docile to bal, tha is aed onthe tenttieation of peice (foe hots, for sew inte Sutures ex. Based om this information, we dvie wo stetifeeporong of aur natural eavironment, or not From then on, gesting the conenen, tions nothing but away of apologizing to the nature by minimising ons ‘impact. Bur how are we sue that the need we identified in theft ace ‘ll remain as solids the concrete solutions that we proposed to holes The rapidity with which our social, economic, instutona, snd sone fal envtonments change constantly challenges the imperative to bed ‘Te decisions behind a contruction proict engages virions sets na | Swanizatons in « poject that ean extend over a vey long pied of time ntl dhe aria (a building, a road) reaches completen, And yor 286 Ohpuer 13 ‘the prt chat had motivated the decision ro build can take a diferent tus than inally expected, and render irelevan che rationales behind the detion to uid in che fireplace. The imperative o build is thos hover a cern. Instead, i is rypically an assumed solution to @ spe tilly related problem, The decision to build often relies onthe capacity ‘of some “issue sellers” to gather a cical mass of pablic suppor and to ‘oss a Intersting his form of cotdimaion is more often deven Ir efectve communiestion and pesuasvestoryellng than by technical, necessity (Theognorron 1992; Sichman 2000: Sandecock 2003), There foce—and quite unsorprisingly—some bave gone so fas to argue that concems for sustainability in urban projets, bowever prominent they tmay be in official discussion, are often supple by mates of prestige, politics, special stress and power behind the curtain (Fhyvbjec, 1998). ‘This perspective proposes mee fagmested and conflting view of the imperative to bul and suggests & mich mesiee understanding of sos tainuble urban development. Sostaiabiy, in this interpretation kes on the clsieness of aa evercvoving se and is subject to coals over Priests, definitions of collective interest, and visions about what an ap- Dropnate future suppose 0 Took ike (inti vei, See Hofman 1999 fn corporate cnviconmentalis Bute 2003 on environmental reforms, te Lounsbary, Ventesca, and Hirsch 2003 on waste management. Hence tre face the following ewe dimensions. On the one hand, we decide 0 Bui with litle certain about the very relevance of the projet inthe Tongs. We bet abou the Fature—aothing more certain than that hat. ‘Andon the other hand, we engage i processes of communication; we sell project like sues and try to define collectively a cerain idea of sustain Bilt for oor cites and ou zation with te surrounding natural ew Tonment sugges that these to dinensions may collie, Kis precisely this tension ehat I propose to llasate in this chap Tpresent cas study to examin the ways in which actors determined, stablzed and defended the imperative to bid fouesane beige across ‘wide meadow within a (ow former) UNESCO Word Heritage Site To oso, wll analy the public debates that took place surrounding te cities of planning nd construction. The case depicts che collision of Competing views ofcllotve intrest and sustainable urkanevoltion. Shine phase, the city administration identified a tefe problem, Ibe Aiscussed diferent conceptions ofa desrale ature i tems of raticand ‘hans, This ested i the domination of one technical solucon (he Soalled Waldschlgchentwdge—enefort WSB) and a division be ‘ren bo movement: the sypporeers andthe opponent. Over the ear | problem, shu creating socially what we commonly el | (Hacking 2000). In his expect, Ds Challenging be bmp so Build 287 thoeethe inal era prob tok suprising or chllegig the ‘ery neesiy 0 Bld. Evenly in 2003, he ty secon pied ‘othe UNESCO-WerldHeveage Ste scclae Thest cnet challenged the very necesito build hat formed the ech soon propose Consequently the supporters entered confit with vaio cenatec ies and yours fasta nance, not eas yh te bade othe UNESCO Convention forthe Poston ofthe Worl Hertage Newt ts thy managed to dled histo lhe same ha posing she

You might also like