When it came to the question of a council decision for high-rise buildings, the CSU made a much-noticed turn and is now pushing ahead with a citizens’ vote with the Greens – but basically the largest opposition party in the coalition is giving a miserable testimony when it comes to urban design. Despondent, conservative, from above, this picture draws parliamentary group leader Manuel Pretzl from Green-Red.
There will therefore be no further agreement on the city’s largest new settlement projects, and the CSU will continue on its confrontational course. Pretzl considers the planning tool of the urban development measure (SEM), the sharpest tool that a municipality has, to be completely unsuitable for both the area in the north and the north-east. “This is the opposite of citizen participation, a dictate from the city administration.” The result from the point of view of the CSU parliamentary group: “Nothing is progressing.” Instead, the city should have sat down with landowners and pushed ahead with large development plans to create housing quickly. The two SEM are “stillborn”.
The CSU also sees an urgent need for action in the design of existing districts. With an initiative, she wants to ensure that neighborhoods keep or get their own identity. For Pretzl, this starts with things as simple as street lamps or park benches – right through to the design of public spaces. When it comes to street furniture, he notes a “uniformity”; new squares are often planned without considering people’s needs. As an example, he cites Walter-Sedlmayr-Platz in Feldmoching and Willy-Brandt-Platz in Riem, places “without a soul”.
The CSU has been complaining for a long time that architects have shaped the image of Munich without considering the interests of the citizens. Pretzl and his comrades-in-arms were particularly annoyed that the large competitions held always produced the same winners and expected designs. “There are other forms of competitions that we should try,” says Pretzl. Here, too, his group wants to make suggestions quickly. He summarizes the character of the recently victorious plans as follows: “It’s okay.” But almost never: “Wow, great.” As the latest suitable example, he cites the competition for the former Hertie department store between the train station and Stachus.
“We experience that in many places in the city,” says Pretzl. For example, with the plans for the so-called Candidtor, a new defining building on that very square. Instead of exciting architecture, Pretzl thinks there is always “small-minded moaning”. When it comes to bold architectural designs, one always hears from those responsible: “Basically good, but not in this place.”
The regular appointment of new members to the Urban Design Commission also proved to be of little help. This assesses the major architectural projects in the city and thus has a direct influence on the face of Munich. But here the conclusion is the same as for urban planning as a whole: “Conservative, again very despondent. That didn’t meet expectations.”