© Forian Spring
Shaping social participation
How can urban spaces and the built environment be designed in such a way that they include everyone, enable participation and appropriation, and promote fair economic conditions?
Far beyond DIN standards for accessibility or open-use design approaches, inclusion is a multi-layered task. At the end of November in Vienna, the third edition of the “Rethink” event series focused on examining the causes and forms of exclusionary architecture and urban planning, raising awareness of the numerous possibilities for inclusive design, and, above all, looking at inspiring examples.
Inclusion is not a goal that can be achieved at some point in the future, says Vienna site manager Maria Megina at the beginning of the evening. “For us, inclusion is a process.” Bregenz architect Cemile Stadelmann, who launched the event series together with Laura Untertrifaller, adds in her introduction: “The built environment shapes the lived environment.” With this event format, they want to network the expertise of the locations and bring external impulses into their own practice.
Photo: Alejandro Gálvez Alvarez
Liveable city
Three external perspectives found their way into Dietrich Untertrifaller's architecture office on Flachgasse in Vienna's 15th district – in front of numerous employees, invited guests, and colleagues connected digitally from all over Europe. Viennese sociologist and cultural scientist Cornelia Dlabaja opened the lecture series with an urbanistic-theoretical classification. As professor of sustainable urban and tourism development at FHWien der WKW, University of Applied Sciences for Management and Communication, she can now look back on 15 years of research work at a district and neighborhood level.
She presents the various aspects of inclusion using examples from Vienna, other countries, and Germany, where the “image of the city” has recently been distorted into a political instrument. According to Kevin Lynch's 1960 definition, “the image of the city [...] contains elements that give us orientation, that ensure that cities are inclusive and livable,” says Djabala. Using definitions of terms, she allows for a differentiated view of the city – away from the obligation of those integrating to a “fundamental right of every human being to be part of the city.” In her informative lecture, Djabala illustrates the sociological backgrounds and modern urban concepts that promoted integration.
Her input is complemented by her view of the various levels of urban space, current challenges, the time factor, and the necessary actors and resources. She identifies which social infrastructures are necessary, which negative examples of disintegration exist in Europe, and what low-threshold access can look like in practice. Built space must be oriented toward the needs of social space and thus at the neighborhood level. “This is not the task of architects alone, but a task for society as a whole,” she states. Her conclusion: “We need location-based work and the knowledge of the many.”
Participation as work of a lifetime
Alexander Hagner is a planner who has always treated all people as equals, who has been committed to inclusion from the very beginning, and has already filled this with many facets. Together with Ulrike Schartner, he founded the gaupenraub +/- office in Vienna in 1999. He is currently also an endowed professor for social construction at the Carinthia University of Applied Sciences. As a “very small architecture firm” that “does everything except open competitions,” he first presents his work, which has now received some not-so-tiny recognition. For the VinziRast am Land project, gaupenraub +/- recently received the international Ammodo Architecture Award 2025, which honors socially and environmentally responsible projects. He illustrates the difference between exclusionary and inclusive design right at the outset. “When we talk about so-called marginalized groups or people who are disadvantaged in some way, then more is needed, not less.” What that “more” might look like becomes abundantly clear when looking at references from past projects and campaigns.
Hagner recounts the beginnings of the VinziDorf concept in Graz in 1993 by Pastor Wolfgang Pucher. A VinziDorf was intended to provide a dignified living environment for homeless people who were no longer accepted in institutions or did not want to go there. The first implementation in Vienna took a full 16 years from the idea to the opening, he reports. Not because people work so slowly, but because people don't want something like this in their neighborhood. Hagner uses many pictures and vivid descriptions to show the circumstances that led to the VinziRast project in the 9th district, where students and homeless people live and work together, what lessons those involved have learned from the processes, what role communication plays, especially in relation to marginalized groups, and how to work with the “obvious,” both socially and in terms of construction. “We don't have money, but we have people,” he says, implicitly adjusting the definition of what is truly valuable.
The VinziRast am Land project in Mayerling near Alland, south of Vienna, is a prime example of a collaboratively developed architectural collage that has grown out of existing resources and been put together with intelligent design. The rural project has been implemented and is operated in a truly participatory manner. Building mass accommodation for homeless people is certainly not the solution, Hagner explains. Instead, we should treat people with openness, involve them rather than imposing help on them, and thereby show them that they are part of society. Hagner manages to incorporate a wealth of aspects into his keynote speech, which can be described as an eye-opener. In response to a question from the audience, he describes his early motivation retrospectively: “When I'm a great architect, I'll build a village for homeless people.” Now he knows: “It's hard to believe that so few people can make such a big difference.”
Potential of a conversion site
The lecture block ends with the general manager of Otto Wagner Revitalisierung GmbH from Vienna. Markus Zoller discusses the project to transform a former hospital site in the 14th district, including its listed buildings, into a versatile urban space. In line with the guidelines of the New European Bauhaus (NEB), the aim is to develop a district for science, education, art and culture, social affairs, health, and tourism.
The Otto Wagner site, which covers more than 27 hectares, was completed in 1907, has 60 percent green space, and offers enormous potential for urban development. The extensive preliminary planning work for the most careful conversion possible is also the subject of public debate. The project is still in its early stages, and its gradual development – and perhaps also inspiration from events such as these – seem to leave room for maneuver in terms of finding uses for the site. There is already potential here: “Temporary uses are one of the main keys to success,” says Zoller. The interim uses range from cultural to social, including a charitable winter emergency shelter and low-threshold offerings that are also open to the wider neighborhood and open up possible partnerships. The reactions from the Viennese audience show that the area's potential for inclusion is still great and very much desired.
Photo: Alejandro Gálvez Alvarez
Does inclusion need to be structured? Does it need rules? In the discussion, Alexander Hagner emphasizes that above all, it needs empathy. "What do I do with people who are not the way I would like them to be? How do we deal with things we don't know? Experience has taught me to confront myself every now and then with things I would definitely reject. What follows is an incredible broadening of my horizon, the realization that 99 percent are prejudices, stigmas, or voids in my head." A look at the political map would show that we humans fill this void with the worst possible ideas. And this is usually done by those who have the least contact with problem areas, he adds
Many aspects and perspectives presented this evening read like a collective plea for openness, understanding, and a change of perspective toward all people and environments. “Non-inclusion is not an option” – guests and hosts agree on this.
Text: Sabina Strambu
