One rarely sees such images: demonstrating monument conservators who do not stand in front of a building because it is threatened with demolition, but who position themselves in front of a state parliament because they want to prevent a new monument protection law. This just happened in Düsseldorf. “Downfall of monuments instead of protection of monuments” read their protest signs or “protection of monuments as false labeling”.
It was the last attempt after months of appeals petitionwhich received over 24,400 signatures, and the “Düsseldorf Declaration” of the newly founded monument protection alliance NRW, to which thirteen monument protection initiatives have joined together, not to abolish the existing monument protection law, but to postpone the discussion about it. In vain. In the last plenary session of the legislative period, the Düsseldorf state parliament decided with a majority of the Ina Scharrenbach, Minister for Homeland, Municipal Affairs, Building and Equal Opportunities (CDU), introduced the new monument protection law.
The terminological changes in the new law are only minor, but the effects could be serious because they mean a fundamental shift in power: In future, independent monument protection experts in NRW will no longer decide whether and how a historically valuable building should be renovated, converted or demolished can, but employees of a community. They don’t even have to be scientifically trained. This suggests that buildings should be marketed faster and more lucratively. This should often mean their demolition, especially post-war buildings could be affected in times of rising land prices.
Friends of monuments protested against the new monument protection law in North Rhine-Westphalia up to the last minute.
(Photo: ROLAND ROSSNER)
Why Scharrenbach broke the law “over the knee” against all criticism, as the Green MP Johannes Remmel put it? Not clear. In any case, the aim is to achieve a “practice-oriented further development of the North Rhine-Westphalian monument law” and thus to meet “the requirements of a modern and future-oriented monument protection law”. “The concerns of housing construction, the climate, the use of renewable energies and accessibility” should also be taken into account more.
“The best thing that can happen to a monument is use,” says one of the few supporters of the new law, CDU spokesman for building policy Fabian Shrink. But if you take a closer look at the law and talk to monument protection experts, you can guess who could benefit from the new law. To get straight to the point: the monuments are not.
In fact, there was no need to change the 42-year-old Monument Protection Act in North Rhine-Westphalia. This was the result of an evaluation beforehand. “Actually, everyone is satisfied with the process,” says Steffen Skudelny, head of the German Foundation for Monument Protection. So far, this has been the case: if a monument is to be renovated, converted or demolished, the owner contacts the lower monument protection authority, which is based in the municipality. This then gets advice from one of the two state monument offices. Because unlike in the State Monuments Office, where a team of experts works, things look different at the municipal level. “Only very rarely does someone from the field sit there,” says Skudelny. In smaller communities, the registry office officer sometimes has to deal with monument protection.
The Kohlfurter Bridge in Wuppertal was supposed to be demolished, but preservationists prevented that.
(Photo: Annette Liebeskind)
According to the law, which will come into force on June 1, the municipal monument protection authority should only “listen” to the arguments of the monument authority instead of making the decision “in consultation”. In 2021, Milena Karabaic, head of the cultural department of the Rhineland Regional Council, said what that means: “By weakening the experts, you weaken the protection of the monument.” Especially since a mayor could then decide at the municipal level whether the listed building of a party friend may be demolished.
Housing, climate and accessibility have long been taken into account
Anyone looking for a quick profit will not find it in monuments. Which does not mean that they would block modern use. “The biggest enemy of the memorial is prejudice,” says Skudelny, who is still shocked by “so much concentrated prejudice and ignorance” among supporters of the new law. “I don’t know of a single example where residential use was impossible due to a monument protection requirement,” he says.
The Naumannsiedlung in Cologne, which was awarded the Cologne Architecture Prize 2021, shows how well it works to meet the requirements of monument protection and the requirements of today’s living standards. The housing estate from the 1920s has not only been extensively renovated, but also densified – instead of 450 there are now 611 apartments – but the character of the quarter has been preserved.
Creating new living space in monuments, including in industrial buildings or in churches, says Skudelny, as long as as many traces of history as possible are preserved. This could help significantly in combating the housing shortage. But what would not work in terms of monument protection: “Investors who think they can only benefit from the monument.” The luxury renovator principle only wants to leave the facade of the old building and market the property at high prices – and should be happy about the change in the law.
A medieval roof truss does not always carry a modern solar system
That the innovation is intended to help the climate is not convincing. Not only because with 1.5 percent listed buildings in NRW there are only a few buildings. But above all because energy-efficient renovation has long been on the monument protection agenda. Many historic buildings can be upgraded so that they use less energy, for example with a new layer of clay plaster. Of course, a medieval roof truss does not necessarily have a solar system. Sometimes the orientation of the roof speaks against it. But that doesn’t mean that old buildings are bad for the climate. On the contrary. Their energy balance is usually even better than that of new buildings if you include the energy used to construct and dispose of the building. “If you tear down and build new, it takes 125 years for a new building to pay for itself,” says Skudelny.
Curiously, churches also have a special status in the new monument protection law. Possibly also for financial reasons, because especially in North Rhine-Westphalia – the land of church builders like Gottfried Böhm, Rudolf Schwarz and Emil Steffann – churches are struggling with falling membership numbers and income. It is not uncommon for there to be a desire to get rid of buildings and market land. That’s where the new law comes in.
Steffen Skudelny fears chaos for the transitional period because no one knows what applies now and who is responsible. The signal effect is also fatal. Because if the largest German federal state suggests that the technically well-supported monument protection must be abolished, the wrecking ball could be used even more frequently throughout Germany.