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 yor286 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