Page 1

Sus­ tainable Urban Planning Vibrant Neighbourhoods Smart Cities Resilience


Editors and Authors Helmut Bott, Gregor C. Grassl, Stephan Anders

Co-Authors Martin Altmann, Jürgen Baumüller, Julia Böttge, Sigrid Busch, Dominic Church, Thorsten Erl, Manal M. F. El-Shahat, Johannes Gantner, Philipp Groß, Tilman Harlander, Gerhard Hauber, Thomas Haun, Dietrich Henckel, Olaf Hildebrandt, Jürgen Laukemper, Rolf Messerschmidt, Peter Mösle, Marcel Özer, Christopher Vagn Philipsen, Waltraud Pustal, Christina Sager-Klauß, Daniela Schneider, Mario Schneider, Antonella Sgobba, Guido Spars, Stefan Siedentop, Antje Stokman, Alyssa Weskamp, Bastian Wittstock, Andreas von Zadow Collaborators (first German edition) Alexander Sailer, Isabelle Willnauer

Publishers Project management: Steffi Lenzen Editing and layout: Eva Schönbrunner

© 2019 English translation of the second reviewed and updated German edition “Nachhaltige Stadtplanung – Lebendige Quartiere, Smart Cities, Resilienz” (ISBN 978-3-95553-430-1) by DETAIL Business Information GmbH, Munich ISBN: 978-3-95553-462-2 (Print) ISBN: 978-3-95553-463-9 (E-Book)

The sections “Well-being and a healthy indoor ­climate” (pp. 138 – 139) and “Energy- and resourceefficient building design” (pp. 139 – 140) are part of the publication “Green Building. Leitfaden für nachhaltiges Bauen” by Michael Bauer, Peter Mösle, Michael Schwarz (Berlin 2013). Courtesy of Springer Science + Business Media.

CO2 emissions from paper production, printing, ­ inding and transport for this publication were b ­offset 100 % by first climate certificates issued by the climate initiative of the German Printing and Media Industries Federation (Bundesverband Druck und Medien e. V.).

Illustrations: Ralph Donhauser Translation into English: Dominic Church, Brugg Proofreading (English edition): Stefan Widdess, Berlin Production / DTP: Roswitha Siegler, Simone Soesters Cover and design: Maria Fischer and Christoph Kienzle Rose Pistola GmbH, Munich Reproduction: ludwig:media, Zell am See Printing and binding: Grafisches Centrum Cuno GmbH & Co. KG, Calbe This work is protected by copyright. The rights based therein, in particular those of translation, reprint, lecture, use of illustrations and tables or duplication by other means and the storage in data processing plants, remain reserved, even for use in part. Even in individual cases, reproduction of this work or parts thereof is permit-ted only within the limits of the statutory provisions of the Copyright Act in the relevant current edition. It is generally conditional on remuner­ ation. Violations are subject to the penal provisions of copyright law. The German National Library lists this publication in the German National Bibliography; detailed biblio­ graphic data can be accessed online at: DETAIL Business Information GmbH, Munich

ID-No. 1978673

FSC-certified paper used in this book is produced from fibres proven to originate from environmentally and socially responsible sources.


Editors’ preface to the 2nd Edition  6

CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION  10 What the term sustainability means and how it is used in urban and neighbourhood planning

1.1 Aims and Objectives of this Book  11 1.2 Sustainability and Resilience  13 1.3 The Neighbourhood  21 1.4 Smart City  25 1.5 Added Value of Sustainable Urban ­Neighbourhoods  28

CHAPTER 3 — IMPLEMENTATION ­STRATEGIES  168 General principles to consider in planning and ­strategies to implement the illustrated solutions across all ­action areas in the development process

3.1 Developing Holistic Concepts  169 3.2 Stakeholders, Visions and Tools  179 3.3 Local Government Implementation ­Strategies  188 3.4 Project-specific Implementation ­Strategies  195

CHAPTER 4 — TOOLS  200 CHAPTER 2 — CHALLENGES AND ACTION AREAS  32 Issues relevant to sustainable city and neighbourhood design and specific problem-solving approaches

2.1 Regional, Urban and Neighbourhood ­Development Challenges 33 Action Areas  42 2.2 Processes and Participation Challenges 51 Action Areas  54 2.3 Communities and Sociocultural Issues • Social Fabric Challenges  61 Action Areas  66 • Lifestyle and Behaviour Challenges 73 Action Areas  77 2.4 Ecology • Protecting Species and Habitats Challenges  83 •  Open Space and Urban Climate Challenges 85 Action Areas  88 • Protecting Water and Soil Challenges 96 Action Areas  99 • Material Flows Challenges 106 Action Areas  108 • Mobility and Transport Challenges 114 Action Areas  117 • Energy Challenges 126 Action Areas  130 • Emissions Challenges 142 Action Areas  146 2.5 Economics Challenges  153 Action Areas  158

Overview of methods and tools for planning and delivering sustainable neighbourhoods

4.1 Computer-aided Design Tools  201 4.2 Simulation  206 4.3 Visualisation  214 4.4 Certification and Evaluation Systems  218

CHAPTER 5 — CASE STUDIES  224 International selection of sustainable neighbourhoods with specific strengths

Introduction  225 Overview  226 Potsdamer Platz  228 Carlsberg City District  232 ecoQuartier Pfaffenhofen  234 Bo 01 – Western Harbour  238 Dockside Green  240 Neckarbogen  242 Hammarby Sjöstad  244 Möckernkiez  246 NEST – New Ethiopian Sustainable Town  248 GWL-Terrein  250 Barangaroo  252 NDSM Wharf  254 Berlin TXL  256 Viertel Zwei  260 Other Projects  262

A PPE N D I X  266 Bibliography  266 Image Credits  275 Authors  278 Case Study Collaborators  280


Editors’ Preface to the 2nd Edition

Editors’ Preface to the 2nd Edition

Sustainability – an Old Hat?


hen the first edition of this book was published in 2012, the term “sustainability” seemed rather long in the tooth or even overcome. Occasionally, there were comments that the “sustainable city” was passé, whereas the “resilient city” was the next big thing, the objective of “resilience” encompassing the topic of sustainability. And indeed, all too frequently, the term “sustainable” was bandied about – often wrongly – in every conceivable and inconceivable context. Nevertheless, there was great demand for the book in all its complexity and it sold out after about three years. The revised and updated second edition is now available. We have restructured the content, added current topics such as urban digit­ alisation, and streamlined the overall volume. During the first half of the decade, much in German society, economy and policy pointed to a paradigm shift towards greater sustainability. After decades of conflict and occasionally fractious dispute, the impact of the Fukushima nuclear catastrophe in 2011 led even conservative polit­ icians to turn away from established energy policy and engage in the so-called “energy turnaround”. Seen from abroad, Germany appeared to take the lead in the field of sustainability, admired or belittled, depending on the point of view. A few years down the line, things look different again. Germany’s nuclear exit has been a major milestone towards environmentally friendly and safe energy production, but it has failed to contribute to an improved CO2 balance. Increasingly, German

cities have had to tackle new challenges, such as extreme precipitation or fine particle pollution from increasing motor traffic. It has become evident that alternative means of energy production (vast photovoltaic plants, enormous windmills, corridors of high-voltage power transmission, retention basins, eco-fuel monocultures etc.) impact heavily on cities and villages, nature and landscape, often giving rise to civic protest. This all bears direct witness to the multi-­ dimensional nature of the sustainability principle and the need to better analyse reciprocity and “side effects”, and work across disciplines to develop holistic planning approaches which go beyond one-dimensional improvements. This book focuses on urban planning. As the key socio-spatial unit of everyday life and the spatial level of intervention in urban development, the neighbourhood lies at the heart of its regard. Given that many aspects cannot be confined to clear spatial sub-entities within the city, the field of view extends from the neighbourhood to the entire city or even the region, whilst also homing in on the building scale in some cases. Irrespective of the outlook and dimension of ana­ lysis – environmental, sociocultural, or economic – the discourse always centres on the sequence of the human habitat’s processes, and the urban or rural space within which they take place. Even in an absence of economic and technological change, humans would age, new generations arrive, buildings and technical systems would wear away, plants would thrive and die in successive sequence. The sustainability of spatial structures can only be defined and evaluated in terms of life cycles, from the procurement and use of construction materials and components, through the use and



Editors’ Preface to the 2nd Edition

maintenance of built structures, to their eventual disposal or re-use. Intelligently meshing all elem­ ents across the most wide-ranging dimensions is key and growing ever more decisive. The city is not a closed system. Evaluating the qualities of this complex, open and dynamic system includes the assessment of its ability to adapt to changing parameters – its resilience. This is all the more true for the fact that economy and society on our spatially confined and resource-limited planet is still geared to continuous growth, apparently the only means of (at least partially) addressing the effects of the principles which hitherto have governed economic distribution. We have long known of the limits to growth, and yet this knowledge has not yet found its place in mainstream economic theory and political strategy. Standard urban development planning pro­cedures and current planning strategies must be questioned and assessed in terms of their effects on resilience and sustainability. The same goes for municipalities’ and other public bodies’ investment strategies. Intelligent technical and social infrastructure is sure to require significant funding: this relates to renewed or restructured new water courses, highways, public transport and energy networks as well as the social infrastructure which has always been a key foundation of the European city. Along with open social interaction between city dwellers, these – rather than the data networks dominated by a small number of global businesses – are the essential and enduring social networks. Clearly, this publication cannot address such a complex topic in all its detail. It is aimed at providing an informed overview which can help promote

a fundamental understanding of the complex correlations and reciprocities. Varied pointers to further reading and exemplar projects give readers the opportunity to further acquaint themselves with the details of the relevant professional disciplines. A team drawn from research, planning practice and business was compiled in order to generate a holistic analysis. The topic is too varied, aspects to be addressed too diverse, to be covered by a small group or even an individual author. The range of authors helps to study the topic of sustainability from very different points of view. The term “sustainability” is understood and put to use in very disparate, even opposing ways from a range of positions within the professional and political discourse. Some follow the adage that “sustainability is nothing new” and hark back to old methods and values; others follow the precept that “sustainability is the vision of a better future” and pursue innovation and technical progress. Many discussions and publications focus on high-tech versus low-tech strategies, from cities of clay houses and sheep wool insulation on the one hand through to smart cities with smartphone-­ controlled, fully automated buildings, service robots and autonomous vehicles on the other. Both approaches are of interest, even though the debate is often very ideologically driven. This clearly demonstrates that the route to sustainable resource management is stony and certainly not without byways or even cul-de-sacs – just think of Desertec. Some technical systems celebrated today will prove to be interim solutions, sooner or later rendered obsolete by new findings, changing political strategies or social developments. Their reversibility will become an import­ ant criterion.

Editors’ Preface to the 2nd Edition

This book aims to contribute to open, objective debate. We assume that a sustainable future will not be possible without technical innovation, but that technical development alone will not be able to solve the major problems of the “anthropocene” era. Technical innovation does not represent a value in and of itself, either with respect to the welfare of society as a whole or in terms of its effects on nature. On the contrary, many of today’s problems stem from the failure to consider or adequately judge the “side effects” of technical systems. Granted, nobody can assume the position of ultimate objectivity in this debate. Our book’s authors present plausible cases for objectives and principles such as social diversity, density and mixed-use. Fundamentally, these views draw on value judgements as well as factual analysis. We trust this will be clear to our readers, who may concur or disagree with the lines of thought presented. Making visions reality requires collecting experi­ ence in practice, learning from it and formu­lating appropriate strategies for delivery. On the one hand, comparatively modest funding has in recent decades secured significant progress in certain fields, such as the move from low-energy housing to the Passivhaus and subsequently to the Plus-energy or Activhaus standard. On the other hand, it is evident that completed projects generally do not follow the holistic approach promoted within this book, and the examples presented in chapter 7 demonstrate as much. Our view is that complex, multidimensional analysis and planning is still in its infancy. The fact that projects meet only some of the dimensions addressed in this book is thus hardly surprising and does not detract from their merit. Any project which helps promote new technological or socio-economic findings is important.

Accordingly, we believe the examples shown serve to promote a number of lessons learnt. Along with the many distinguished authors from the broadest range of disciplines, we confidently present a book which can inform work as a planner or as a decision- maker in policy or business. We would like to take this opportunity to thank all the authors for their great commitment and their kind permission to update their contributions. Our special thanks are due to Drees & Sommer, without whose support this book would not have come about.

Stuttgart, 2018 Helmut Bott, Gregor C. Grassl, Stephan Anders


C H A P TE R 1


1.1 — Aims and Objectives of this Book

1 .1

Aims and Objectives of this Book Ste p han Anders, Helmut Bott, Gregor C . Gras s l


he main aim of this book is to explain the complex, multi-­ dimensional concept of “sustainability” and explore what it means in terms of urban and neighbourhood development. This is why the book is so big, and why so many authors have contributed to writing it. Its many authors can provide more in-depth insight into current research and development in their respective disciplines and areas of expertise than just one author or a small team of authors. The introductory chapter will set out the three pillars of sustainability – economic, social, and environmental – and outline how they apply to urban and neighbourhood development. It will place sustainability in its historical context, and describe its fundamental dimensions and strategic effects. The following chapters will identify key challenges in terms of economic, environmental and social sustainability, and describe them in key facts and figures. This will involve explaining the basic concepts relevant to sustainable urban planning, clari­ fying the relationship between sustainability and resilience, and classifying the Smart City model. Finding successful project solutions is not just about taking the right approach within each discipline; it is always also about adopting an integrated implementation strategy for urban and neighbourhood development. Sustainable planning approaches must always be integrated and avoid promoting one issue above all others – e.g. by pursuing the “energy-efficient” or “carfriendly” city. This is especially important in large and complex projects, such as city and ­neighbourhood developments. We will give read-

ers an overview over tools for sustainable planning and construction, some of which are relatively novel. In conclusion, we will present a range of planned and completed projects which provide inspiration for dealing with specific challenges, and insights into what is currently achievable in terms of sustainable urban planning. Case studies were selected to reflect international practice and pre­ sent a broad spectrum of different concepts, each focusing on a different action area to address the issues at hand. The chapter structure helps readers quickly find information about individual topics. Our overall aim is to explain that sustainability can only be understood as a comprehensive whole, and that this is why it requires a complex planning process. We have sought to approach the topic as broadly as possible by assembling an interdisciplinary team of authors to address the respective issues with the required depth and current state of science and technology. Despite the scope of this task, we imposed a strict limit on the number of pages. Individual chapters can therefore provide an overview, but cannot replace in-depth specialist literature. Accordingly, references to important sources, research and in-depth specialist literature are listed at the end of each chapter. Readers who would like to delve more deeply into topics such as protecting water and soil, processes and participation, or material flows will find valuable information for their work there. This book examines the issue of sustainability from various different perspectives. Contributions shed light on urban design visions, which have to go far beyond the current urban conditions if sustainability targets are to be met, and also look into social policy objectives and issues of social integration or segregation.



Chapter 1 — Introduction

The lack of affordable housing is no longer just a social problem, it has long since become an economic issue. Where are the educators, nurses and skilled workers earning middle incomes we so urgently need in order to further develop our economy to find homes in future, if land and property prices continue rising at the current rate? Shortterm profits are clearly opposed to sustainable urban development and create a social imbalance with incalculable follow-on costs to our social fabric. We also consider investors’ concerns. These are not just hedge funds, looking for a quick return on capital invested anywhere and everywhere on earth, or even “corporate raiders” devouring anything of value before moving on: Investors also include client groups, locally grounded small businesses, co-operatives and housing associations or social housing providers with long-term investment goals and a local sense of responsibility. Their investments must and can be tied into strategic sustainable urban development targets. This leads to an evaluation of the overall economic effects of sustainable practice. Viewed in the medium and long-term context, these macro-­ economic benefits can provide a viable business case for individual measures which appear unprofitable when seen only from a short-term, sectoral point of view. We present an independent German sustainability certificate for urban districts, and we set out the spatial model of the European city as a functioning, administratively autonomous and self-­ reliant political entity planning the future for its citizen’s benefit. How many local governments still fully complete their planning task, planning ahead to cover all points from A as in acquiring development sites to Z as in zoning plans? We also

explore the general economic effects of acting sustainably. Medium and long-term benefits to the whole economy can justify individual measures which may appear unviable when viewed only in their individual, short-term context. On the contrary: neo-liberal policies have driven many cities to fill financial gaps by selling their real estate to investment funds, only to generate major social problems sooner or later which lead to further economic challenges.Whether as taxpayers, insured parties, or landowners, citizens will sooner or later bear the follow-on cost of poor urban and neighbourhood planning. This may be after the next flood or financial crisis, or when a badly planned neighbourhood rapidly becomes an area of social tension. This book aims to highlight ways for the profession to implement sustainable planning and delivery. Readers are offered various methods and tools to deliver project objectives. The showcased projects demonstrate that sustainability goals for urban and neighbourhood development have been delivered, at least in part, during recent years, and thereby illustrate that important contributions to sustainable policy do exist even today. There is no need simply to wait for politics and business to change the rules. Even now, we are experiencing record heatwaves and extreme droughts. Polar ice-caps and glaciers are melting ever more rapidly or have already largely disappeared in the Alps. Nevertheless, some politicians and lobbyists claim that the climate is not changing. Even politicians who recognise the complexity of the problems are reluctant to address them clearly and take appropriate measures, fearing voters’ responses. This makes it all the more necessary to apply current know­ ledge of challenges and action areas to sustainable urban planning.


1.2 — Sustainability and Resilience


Sustainability and Resilience Ste p han Anders, Helmut Bott, Gregor C . Gras s l


ustainable development was first defined in the Brundtland report in 1987 as “development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”.1 This basic approach to sustainable urban development rests on the following two ethical foundations: •• On the one hand, taking responsibility for the future generations is about preserving and protecting human beings’ ability to meet their needs in the long term. •• On the other hand, the effort to share equally is a constant, dynamic effort to prevent conflict and contribute to a stable, better society. This notion is reflected in the common three pillar sustainability model – other concepts include the sustainability triangle, the magic triangle, or the triple bottom line. According to the three pillar model, development can only be sustainable if it gives equal weight to environmental, economic, and social aspects, whereby the three dimensions are both closely connected and mutually inter­ dependent. In short: society will not survive in the long term without protecting the environment and making sustainable use of available resources. Our book is based on this definition. We are fully aware that the addition of further dimensions – such as culture – is often debated in professional circles.  SA

Sustainability and/or resilience? During the first decade of the 21st century, debate, research, and publications about resili­ ence in urban planning increased exponentially in response to discussions about the problematic effects of climate change (increasing storm damage, flooding, periods of heat and drought) and the increase in terrorist attacks. To some, the idea of resilience seemed to replace the principle of sustainability.2 We fundamentally oppose this view. We see resili­ ence as a precondition for sustainability, but do not consider it sufficient in itself.3 Different ways of responding to climate change can illustrate this point. For example, a resort or region could introduce snow cannons or even build air-conditioned indoor ski slopes in order to stay viable as a ski resort even in warmer winters. Undoubtedly, this would make it more “resili­ ent” in dealing with climate change. But if the region depends on tourism and leisure and wishes to remain so, it would be more sustainable to shift the focus to other sports and leisure activities which are less dependent on snow. Or, to cite another example: building flood barriers – ideally removable – makes cities more resilient in responding to more frequent flooding. But the truly sustainable response would be to increase retention throughout the entire river catchment area, for example by reducing sealed surfaces and recreating controlled riverside flood plains to absorb high water peaks.4

1  Hauff 1987, p. 46 2 “In the years ahead, ­resilience will replace the pleasing concept of sustainability. There is an ancient illusion of har­ mony in sustainability.” Horx 2011, p. 309 3  cf. Lukesch 2016, p. 303 4 cf. Fekete /Grinda /Norf, p. 226


Chapter 2 — Challenges

face socially uniform “overstretched” neighbourhoods of large 1960s and 1970s housing estates and unrestored, neglected old building stock. The presence of actual “gated communities”, such as Aachen’s Barbarossapark, is negligible in Germany. Unlike the US, China, South America, South Africa or the eastern European transformation states, extensive closed residential complexes are not compatible with German tradition either in terms of housing culture or planning law, and have so far hardly been in demand. But as in some of its European neighbours, Germany is also seeing an increase in new, often largely socially homogeneous forms of housing which are closed off by means of architecture and urban design (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3

20  von Einem 2016b 21 Herfert  /Osterhage 2012, p. 107 22  BBSR 2011, p. 3 23  Harlander et al. 2007 24  Holm 2016 25  Difu 2017 26  Jung 2012, p. 84 27 Harlander /Kuhn / Wüstenrot Stiftung 2012 28 Kompetenzzentrum Großsiedlungen 2015

Fig. 3  Isolated housing, Rosenpark, Stuttgart-­ Vaihingen (DE) 2006, Leon Wohlhage Wernik Architekten

These new luxury projects are part of a general urban renaissance, for which there is clear empirical evidence.20 Whilst the causes, duration and progression of this paradigm shift are still subject to scientific controversy, urban researchers Günter Herfert and Frank Osterhage sum up the findings from studying 78 German urban regions by stating that “one can speak of a new leading trend in German urban-regional development. Re-urbanisation has replaced suburbanisation as the dominant spatial pattern of the 1990s”.21 Closer inspection, however, reveals that re-urbanisation is by no means a self-starter in urban development policy. The process is in fact highly selective, and the degree to which cities can take part in it varies, depending on their economic strength, regional location and not least, their respective land and housing policies.22 Even though new urban living23 is successful in quantitative terms, the price in social terms seems high in growth centres such as Munich, Hamburg, Frankfurt am Main or Berlin, as it is associated with the fragmentation of urban space and the tendency to displace population groups dependent on low rents.24 Whilst cities in shrinking regions struggle to implement holding strategies aimed

at retaining remaining inhabitants, price increases accompanying the renaissance of urban living, along with gentrification and displacement processes threaten to homogenise social structures in boom regions – with a reversed thrust.25 Raised increasingly in the media in recent years, the new question for social life in cities is: Is living in the city turning into a domain for the rich and super-rich, as it offers no room for the poor, or even traditional middle-class families? “City air makes you poor” wrote the Spiegel in November 2012, stating: “German cities are experiencing an unprecedented real estate boom. Mainly luxury homes are being built, affordable living space is becoming scarce. The shortage is now pushing rents up – and residents out of centres”.26 Achieving a balance in dealing with existing neighbourhoods in fast-growing cities is clearly not easy: the improvement of run-down existing stock is desirable in principle, and it offers opportunities for a new social mix,27 at least with the initial influx of higher-income groups. However, as for example Christian Ude, the former mayor of Munich, has repeatedly emphasised, this must be accompanied by the use of all available protective instruments to at least mitigate undesirable social consequences. Moreover, the challenge is to stabilise and carefully upgrade urban development and infrastructural deficits in socially unbalanced, overstretched neighbourhoods of large housing estates28 often marked by a disproportionate share of migrants, benefit recipients and the unemployed. In 1999, the federal government and the governments of the “Länder” launched the “Social City” programme, which funded 783 programme areas in 441 municipalities until 2016. The programme became the most important urban development instrument in this area, mainly thanks to its socially particularly effective non-investment measures for education, employment, integration and participation.


2.3 — Communities and Sociocultural Issues

Local identity and the public realm One of today’s great challenges is to provide each city and neighbourhood with an unmistakable identity able to provide residents with a “home” of their own.29 This identity includes equal components such as the historical urban layout, urban buildings and spaces, as well as the entire tissue of history, tradition, collective memory, self-image and mentality – all of which has recently been described as “the city’s own logic”.30 This very distinctiveness is currently massively endangered by uniform urban transformation processes which level cultural differences. Similar, part-privatised spaces such as airports, shopping centres and chain-store high streets generate “non-places” without history or identity.31 As part of pursuing a careful sustainable urban development policy and maintaining the urban cityscape, preserving cultural and architectural heritage is about striking the difficult balance between the conservation of heritage buildings and allowing “qualified further development” of the city. Balancing the desire for staging festivals and urban events, and residents’ need for the peace and quiet associated with residential use, is similarly difficult and conflict-prone when planning and designing public spaces, especially in historic town centres.32 This balance of interests between urban over- and potential under-use can only be achieved through dialogue with all those involved – residents, traders and the public sector. The authors of a study on projects and communal strategies for improving public spaces in Baden-Württemberg summed this up as follows: “An appreciation of public space which is accepted and supported by citizens is not possible without participation”.33 Generally, public space is once again attracting significant and increasing interest as a space for the extension of private life, for recreation, and

Fig. 4

for people of all ages to engage and communicate. Awarded the German Urban Development Prize 2012, the redesign of the Georg-Büchner-Platz in Darmstadt is a successful example (Fig. 4). Creating an urban square free of commerce and open to public use made it possible to provide an attract­ ive forecourt to the state theatre, but also helped knit the broken urban fabric back together to connect to the city centre. The traditional rigid segregation of public and private spaces is increasingly becoming obsolete. Zones of transition from inside to outside, between private indoor and public open spaces, such as facades and ground floor areas, but also (semi-) public courtyards or temporarily used vacant lots and brownfields are gaining great importance. Well-functioning social spaces come about whenever there is scope for users to take ownership and creatively lend them their own shape, and where users have been engaged in the design. Open unfettered access to the public realm and the communicative quality it offers undoubtedly play a key role in social cohesion and in building a (communal) sense of neighbourhood identity. It is equally important to develop and safeguard affordable access, especially to education, culture, health, care, leisure and service facilities at neighbourhood level. This enables all resident groups to take an equal share in urban life, even if they cannot provide for themselves adequately through the open market.

Fig. 4  Redesign GeorgBüchner-Platz, Darmstadt (DE) 2010, Lederer +  Ragnarsdóttir + Oei 29  Hassler 2016 30 Löw / Terizakis 2011; re: Häussermann 2011 31  Augé 1994 32  Siebel 2015 33 Kuhn / Dürr / SimonPhilipp 2012, p. 202

Further information

•  Barboza, Amalia (ed) et al.: Räume des ­Ankommens. Bielefeld 2016 •  Brake, Klaus; Herfert, Günter (eds): Reurbani­ sierung. Materialität und Diskurs in Deutschland. Wiesbaden 2012 •  Cachola Schmal, Peter; Elser, Oliver; Scheuer­ mann, Anna (eds): Making Heimat. Germany, Arrival Country. Ostfildern 2016 •  Gehl, Jan: Städte für Menschen. Berlin 2016 •  Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development – OECD: Divided We Stand. Why ­Inequality Keeps Rising. Paris 2011 •  Siebel, Walter: Die Kultur der Stadt. Berlin 2015 •  Wissenschaftlicher Beirat der Bundesregierung Globale Umweltveränderungen – WBGU: Der Umzug der Menschheit: Die transformative Kraft der Städte. Berlin 2016 •  Wehler, Hans-Ulrich: Die neue Umverteilung. Soziale Ungleichheit in Deutschland. München 2013


Chapter 2 — Action Areas

Fig. 5 Fig. 5  High-price housing, Marco Polo Tower, Hamburg (DE) 2010, Behnisch Architekten

33  Weeber 2016 34  GdW 1998 35 Weidemüller/Hunger 2016, p. 5 36  Harlander et al. 2007 37  Wüstenrot Stiftung 2016 38 Roskamm 2011, Stadtbauwelt 12/2016 39  Herzog 2016, p. 61 40 BauNVO/6a.html 41  Wüstenrot Stiftung 2017

Further information

•  Bundesinstitut für Bau-, Stadt- und Raum­ forschung (BBSR). Zehn Jahre Leipzig Charta. Die Bedeutung integrierter Stadtentwicklung in Europa. Bonn 2017 •  BBSR; Jocher, Thomas: Zukunft Bauen. Ready – vorbereitet für altengerechtes Wohnen. Bonn 2014 •  Harlander, Tilman; Kuhn, Gerd; Wüstenrot Stiftung: Soziale Mischung in der Stadt. Stuttgart/ Zurich 2012 •  Städtebau Institut: Stadtquartiere für Jung und Alt. Europäische Fallstudien. Werkstatt: Praxis, Heft 63. Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Bau und Stadtentwicklung (BMVBS) and BBSR. Bonn 2009. •  Weeber, Rotraut et al.: Sozialer Zusammenhalt in der Stadt. Integrierte Ansätze zur Aufwertung benachteiligter Stadtteile in Europa – ein Leit­ faden. Stuttgart/ Berlin 2016 •  Wüstenrot Stiftung: Wohnvielfalt. Gemeinschaft­ lich wohnen – im Quartier vernetzt und sozial ­orientiert (Dürr, Susanne; Kuhn, Gerd (eds)). ­Ludwigsburg 2017

in large housing estates and peripheral innercity l­ ocations.33 Important preparatory work had already been completed through various federal state programmes, and the “Overstretched Neighbourhoods” study by the Federal association of German housing and real estate enterprise registered associations (GdW).34 The programme is funded by the Federal Government, the “Länder” and local governments. The programme is based on the basic idea that only an integrated approach to comprehensive neighbourhood development can counter the dreaded downward spiral, due to the multiplicity of problems such as depopulation, lack of maintenance investments, neglect, and vandalism. This includes both construction and non-investment measures, addressing fields such as language skills, improving school and educational qualifications, supervising young people’s leisure time, and promoting the local economy. Given its particular focus on maintaining lively neighbourhoods and social cohesion, the programme in practice also plays a key role in integration policy. The programme has become the most important instrument for stabilising disadvantaged and socially excluding neighbourhoods in Germany. In 1999, it included 161 areas in 124 local government areas. By the end of 2016, 783 comprehensive packages had been implemented in 441 cities and municipalities. Every two years, model projects throughout Germany are awarded the “Social City” prize. Despite the different issues, all prize winners so far have shared an approach of combining construction with social and economic measures. Thus, their implementation of the objectives of supporting neighbourhood coexistence and a sense of united solidarity, as set out by the instigators, has been exemplary.35

New urban housing Against the backdrop of social and demographic change, urban neighbourhoods are proving to be complex social universes of extraordinarily varied, occasionally diverging and barely compatible social milieus and lifestyles. The traditional housing market supply no longer matches this diversity. Typologically, cities and the housing industry are exploring a wide range of dense urban building types, sometimes rediscovered, sometimes further

developed, as well as some new.36 These cover a broad spectrum, ranging from simple remakes of historical archetypes, stacked maisonettes and other “house-in-house solutions”, to new high-rise and tower housing such as the Marco Polo Tower in Hamburg (Fig. 5). On the other hand, the single-family housing areas of the 1950s to 1970s have occasionally been described as “forgotten spaces of urban development” and can be regarded as increasingly “endangered spaces”.37 The drastic decline in demand for this typology due to demographic trends and changing needs arising from the increased plurality of lifestyles, has led to detached single-family housing becoming less attractive, and the very real threat of vacancies and seriously declining values, especially in peripheral locations and shrinking regions. The search for compact, higher-density designs both for “inward” development and for new urban extensions goes along with a “revaluation” of density itself.38 Increasingly, the merits attributed to density are replacing previously common nega­ tive notions of bad, “unhealthy” density, and “density stress”. As the trade publication “Stadtbauwelt” enthused in 2016, the best cases can achieve something close to “density delight”, such as “Mehr als Wohnen” (More than living) in Zurich’s Hunziker area.39 This reassessment of density was reflected by the introduction of the new “urban area” category (MU) in the BauNVO Land Use Code in 2017. This allows for taller and higher density buildings, and a mix of commercial and housing uses in cities (cf. Regional, Urban and Neighbourhood Development, p. 49).40 The ideal urban housing type – block, terrace, apartment block, townhouse, urban villa, mansion block, loft or high-rise – is, when taken as absolute, an aberration. Urban building is building typo­ logical diversity. As well as its location, basic features of good-quality, attractive urban homes include flexible, neutral floor plans, the best possible equipment and above all, generous, sheltered private open spaces. Typological diversity is not achieved through investor-driven, large-scale urban development, but by mixing different types of developer. Many local governments are ­providing opportunities for new community-­ oriented developer types, such as “Baugruppen” or co­operatives. These provide great identification potential and have proven track records, not only for possible cost savings, but also as instruments of an urban development policy which is socially and environmentally innovative.41


2.3 — Communities and Sociocultural Issues

Challenges Lifestyle and Behaviour Ma r i o Schneider


n all cultures, people interact with nature and change it with varying intensity and with different consequences. This ten­dency has increased exponentially since the industrial revolution, especially through the use of fossil fuels since the invention of the steam engine in the 18th century. Due to the globalised economy, massive consumption of energy, water, food and consumer goods in highly developed countries, and growing demand for housing and mobility, have far-reaching consequences not only in these countries but worldwide. One sixth of the world’s population in high-income countries pursues a very resource- and energy-intensive lifestyle and is thus responsible for almost one third of greenhouse ­gases in the atmosphere.1 For example, consumption in central Europe causes forests and landscapes to be destroyed in South Ame­ rica or Africa for the extraction of raw materials. As a result, consumer habits and lifestyles are increasingly damaging the environment. Despite their generally high level of environmental awareness and knowledge about climate change, this is particularly true for the populations of Western European industrial nations. The interplay between human behaviour, envir­ onment and climate is complex and diverse. It has been proved that climate change is closely linked to the consumption of fossil fuels.2 Global warming subsequently impacts on the availability of other natural resources such as water, and on the production of food. According to some scientists, we are living in the Anthropocene era, a new geological age during which the earth is shaped by anthropogenic, i.e. man-made, influences. Future global population growth will not only require more people to be

provided for, but also increase the number of ­p eople leading resource-intensive lifestyles, already prevalent in today’s industrial nations.3

Impact on environmental footprint The environmental impact of different human behaviour or lifestyles can be illustrated in terms of the so-called “environmental footprint”. This makes it possible to directly compare the supply and demand for biocapacity within a spatial area. Biocapacity denotes the amount of biologically productive land available for extracting resources and for degrading waste and CO2. This biocap­ acity, i.e. the ecological footprint, is expressed in terms of land consumption in global hectares (gha).4 For example, a country’s annual ecological footprint can be determined by comparing the use and consumption of biologically productive land with the relevant country’s actual available biocapacity. In doing so, both the extraction of renewable resources such as agricultural products, and the consumption of biologically productive areas by means of sealing the ground or extracting non-renewable raw materials are taken into account. Ideally, actual available biocapacity should be equal to, or even exceed the ecological footprint. Currently however, the exact opposite is the case. Mankind’s ecological footprint far exceeds avail-

1  World Bank 2010, p. 3 2 Debiel et al. 2010, pp. 262ff. 3 Campbell 2007, p. 78 4 Beyers et al. 2010, pp. 19ff.

C H A P TE R 2

Challenges and Action Areas




2.4 — Ecology

Challenges Protecting Species and Habitats G e rhard Haub er, Wal traud Pus tal


he highly complex topic of biodiversity can be simply defined as “the diversity of life on earth”.1 This term in­ cludes components such as genes, species, populations, ecological systems, and natu­ ral habitats and takes all geo­ graphical scales from the local to the global level into account.2 These are the main foundations for human life, and it is essential for our survival to protect and sustain them. Even though some calculations now prove that this also makes sense in economic terms,3 a quarter of all animal spe­ cies in the EU are nevertheless threatened with extinction. Only 17 % of EU protected habitats and species and 11 % of ecosystems are in good condition; all others are at risk – mainly because of human behaviour (Fig. 1, p. 84).4

Biodiversity Biological diversity is specifically mentioned in Article 1, Section 1 of the German Federal Nature Protection Act 2009 (Bundesnaturschutzgesetz BNatSchG). This covers the diversity of animal and plant species, and includes intraspecific ­diversity, as well as closely related forms of bio­ logical communities and habitats. Species can only survive in the long term if both a minimum number of genetically differentiated populations and the structure of associated ecosystems are preserved. The concept of biodiversity is also part of the Con­ vention on Biological Diversity for the protection of habitats and species (CBD), ratified at the 1992

UN Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro (UNCED). Along with 191 other states, the Federal Republic of Germany is also a signatory. The CBD’s key objectives include: •• conservation of biological diversity (ecosys­ tems, species and genetic diversity) •• the sustainable use of its components •• the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic re­ sources5 In principle, the term biodiversity covers all living organisms, including wild organisms as well as those bred and kept in captivity. However, Article 1 of the Federal Nature Protection Act (BNatSchG) is limited to organisms which are part of nature and landscape.6

Displacement Between 2013 and 2016, around 62 ha were de­ signed for settlement and transport in Germany every day.7 Settlements, roads, industrial areas and car parks destroy animals’ habitats and mi­ gratory routes, and interrupt water cycles. The move to use urban infill sites to make cities more dense is viewed positively in terms of preserving land, but it can also destroy protected natural features.8 Next to the use of land for construction, other major hazards for biodiversity include the input of harmful substances, such as air pollutants, excessive fertilisers, plant protection products (insecticides, fungicides, herbicides etc.), drug residues in soils and water and so on. These cause immense problems and costs, e.g. in treating drinking water.

1 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2005 2  Werner / Zahner 2009 3  Bateman 2012 4 European Commission 2011, Our life insurance, our natural capital, p. 1 5 Schumacher / Fischer-­ Hüftle 2011, Article 1, ­Marginalia 30, 35 6  ibid. margin. 39 7  Statistisches Bundesamt 8  e.g. LUBW 2013


Chapter 2 — Challenges

Challenges Energy Gregor C . Gras s l, Olaf Hildebrandt


he Club of Rome report predicted “The Limits of Growth” as early as 1972.1 In 1980, the German Institute for Applied Ecology (Öko-Institut e. V.) presented an alternative to the Federal Government’s official energy policy, in which it proposed supplying Germany’s energy needs whilst completely rejecting nuclear energy and energy from crude oil (Fig. 1).2 Consistent energy-saving measures and higher efficiency were the central building blocks in this forecast for restructuring to create a demand-­ oriented, decentralised energy industry.3 In the 1990s, energy policy focused on strategies to prevent climate change. Strategies for efficient energy use also played a key role in packages of measures put forward by various German parliament commissions.4

1  Meadows 1972 2  Krause 1980 3 ibid. 4 Enquete Kommission 1990 5  PBL 2012 6 BMU 2010; UBA 2011; UBA 2013

International experts have long agreed that the global atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased significantly since the 18th century, as a result of human activities such as deforestation and the consumption of fossil fuels. Since 1906, the global mean ground-level temperature has risen by about 0.8 K. This warming trend has accelerated significantly over the past decades and is now progressing at 0.15 K per decade (Fig. 2). The effects are well-known, such as the melting of Alpine, Arctic and Antarctic glaciers and snow cover, and the rise in sea levels. International climate policy has set the goal that the global mean temperature should not increase by more than 0.2 K per decade and a maximum of 2 K overall compared to the pre-industrial period. The consequences of global climate change for

humans and ecosystems can be prevented only by consistently reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nonetheless, the global trend runs contrary to these efforts: global CO2 emissions increased by approx. 2.3 percent per year until 2013, and CO2 emissions today are around 62 percent higher than in 1990. Despite economic growth, emissions since 2013 have risen less rapidly, to reach around 36 bn tonnes in 2016. An increase of 0.2 percent is expected for 2017. Due to accelerated economic growth and the relocation of production from the US and Europe to Asia, China is now the main emitter, accounting for 28 percent, followed by the USA (around 15 percent) and the European Union (just under 10 percent). In China, average emissions in 2016 reached 7.2 tonnes per capita (US: 17.57 tonnes). Despite improved efficiency and the increasing use of renewable energies, the overall global trend continues to rise as a result of improved living standards, higher demands on residential and commercial buildings and their infrastructure, and increasing mobility.5 Permissible CO2 emissions per capita would have to be reduced to 2.0 – 2.5 tonnes per annum by the year 2050, in order to achieve climate protection targets in the long term. The German government has set itself the ambitious goal of reducing CO2-emissions in Germany by 40 percent by 2020 and 85 percent by 2050 (Fig. 4). The share of renewable energies in electricity production is to increase to 50 percent by 2030 and to 80 percent by 2050. Switching to renewable heat energy is a legal requirement, and extensive measures for restructuring the energy industry have been decided. This would see annual greenhouse gas emissions fall from around 900 million tonnes to 200 million tonnes by 2050.6 CO2 emissions in Germany have been reduced by around 28 percent between 1990 and


Primary energy demand [M tonnes SKE]

2.4 — Ecology

Natural gas




Wind + Water


Biomass Fig. 1  Primary energy demand and how it might be met in the years to 2030 (excluding non-energetic use), in coal units SKE (1 kg SKE (coal equivalent) = 7.000 kcal = 29.3076 MJ = 8.141 kWh = 0.7 kg ÖE (oil unit)) Fig. 2  Air temperature between 1881 and 2018 and temperature predictions for Germany in the years until 2100 Fig. 3  The EU 20-20-20 goals for 2020 Fig. 4  Greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2017 and German targets for 2050





0 1980






Air temperature [ºC]

Linear trend


Individual value Median value

Range between different climate simulations (A1B scenario) as from 2001


Fig. 1 100

-20 %


13 12


11 40

10 9



+20 %



Lowering CO2 emissions

6 1920







2015. A large part of this resulted from the economic upheaval in former East Germany (“wallfall profits”). Per capita emissions amounted to 9.3 tonnes in 2014, compared with 12.9 tonnes in 1990, and should be reduced to 3 tonnes per person per year by 2050.

Generating energy The sun is the earth’s most important source of energy. Today’s renewable energies such as biomass, wind energy, hydropower and, in the long term, fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas are based directly or indirectly on solar energy. Wind, water, sun, geothermal energy and bioenergy are almost infinitely available energy sources. When humans started using fire, timber was their only direct source of energy. Throughout history, coal, peat, natural oils and, especially since industrialisation in the 19th century, crude oil, natural

+20 % Renewable energies in the energy mix

Fig. 3

gas and electrical energy became more important. Today, we can identify three groups of energy sources: •• Fossil fuels such as coal, oil and natural gas were formed from products of decomposing dead plants and animals in prehistoric geo­logical times. These highly concentrated, dense fuels quickly became the preferred energy source. Today, fossil fuels meet more than 85 percent of global energy demand and just under 80 percent of energy demand in Germany. •• Nuclear energy sources are used to generate electricity through nuclear reactions. In 2016, nuclear fuels were used to generate around 11 percent of global electricity, and around 7 percent of electricity in Germany. •• Renewable energies are climate-friendly and largely environmentally and resource-friendly – unlike crude oil, coal, natural gas and uran­ ium. Renewables ensure greater independence from energy imports and strengthen the domestic economy. Moreover, the use of renewable energies avoids harmful climate emissions associated with considerable consequential damage and costs. This explains


Greenhouse gas emissions [M.t. CO2-equivalents]

1880 1900 Fig. 2

Energy efficiency

Energy Industrial waste Transport Households Business

Agriculture Waste Emissions Total






200 0 1990 2006 2017 2020 2030 2040 2050 Fig. 4

C H A P TE R 4



4.1 — Computer-aided Design Tools

4 .1

Computer-aided Design Tools Ma r t in Al tmann, Ste p han Anders


ome of the numerous available computer-aided planning tools are presented in more detail in this chapter. Basically, the tools differ depending on their intended use, in terms of the functionality and the design scale for which they were developed (Fig. 1, p. 202 ). We will focus first on design and delivery tools, and then move on to simulation, visualisation and decision-making tools as from page 206.

Computer-aided design (CAD) Computer-aided design (CAD1) is now established in almost every architecture and planning practice and is an integral part of everyday working life. CAD offers various specialist extensions for urban planning use, e.g. in implementing labelling standards, automatically generating keys, capturing areas, and calculating urban development data such as footprint ratio, plot ratio, or cubic volume per square metre.2 Today’s CAD programmes also offer various interfaces for teamwork and for exporting drawing data to software for budgeting, scheduling and structural engineering software. Usefulness for planning neighbourhoods: Pure CAD programmes have one major disadvantage in that they do not allow drawings to be linked to relevant calculations, specifications and costs. This means that every minor change must be tracked in all documents, which is very laborious.

This in turn makes planning complex, expensive and prone to errors. On the other hand, CAD programmes – combined with graphics software – can be used to test designs and generate visualisations quickly. This makes them particularly suitable for the early design stages.

Building Information Modelling (BIM) BIM stores building geometries and available building data such as cost, emissions, delivery schedules and components’ tender specifications in a central model. The information is always up to date and can be called up by all members of the planning team at any time (Fig. 2, p. 202 ). Changes to one parameter thus directly impact on quantities, costs and dates. In future, BIM technology will also offer the potential to automatically generate optimum parametric 3D models in terms of cost, emissions and thermal comfort. BIM is set to develop towards mapping building’s diverse sustainability requirements, such as energy efficiency, comfort, biodiversity and accessibility in virtual building models. The “BIM-based Integral Planning” project at KIT in Karlsruhe is one example of this. The project aims to develop normalised interfaces to connect LCA tools with BIM m ­ odels. This should make it possible to automatically generate Life Cycle Assessments (LCA) from BIM models. BIM models may be able to help simulate and evaluate other sustainability requirements automatically in future.

1 Bucerius et al. 2005, Vol. 2, p. 530 2  Pflüger 2000, p. 41

C H A P TE R 5

Case Studies



he preceding chapters outline challenges, action areas and implementation strategies for sustainable urban and neighbourhood planning. Depending on the location and specific context, indi­ vidual approaches need to be developed to address and balance environmental, economic criteria. As a rule, rural neighbourhoods cannot offer the same level of transport connect­ ivity or social infrastructure as metropolitan, inner-city neighbourhoods. On the other hand, rural neighbourhoods offer other potential, such as providing residents with generous green and open spaces which benefit biodiversity and the microclimate. There can thus be no “one-size-fits-all” sustainable neighbourhood. For this reason, the case studies deliberately feature very different neighbourhoods – examples of top-down development, such as the Dockside Green project in Victoria, Canada; as well as bottom-up development, such as Amster­ dam’s NDSM shipyard; from extremely densely populated areas such as Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz to rural projects such as the ecoQuartier in Pfaffen­ hofen; and low-tech projects such as Ethiopia’s NEST (New Ethiopian Sustainable Town) project. We will present a total of 14 case studies, each of which is sustainable in its own way. Our selec­ tion is drawn from a comprehensive study of 140 sustainable neighbourhoods conducted as part of the “Sustainable neighbourhood planning – projects, strategies, approaches” seminar during the 2012/2013 winter semester at the Stuttgart University Urban Development Institute. More detailed information on the case studies exam­ ined during the seminar follows as from page 262. The case studies demonstrate how neighbour­ hoods can be developed in innovative and sustain­ able ways even now. However, it is also apparent

that most projects concentrate on only one aspect of sustainability and that none fully and compre­ hensively lives up to our holistic understanding of sustainability. Whilst many other aspects are also important for a neighbourhood’s success, the 14 case studies deliberately focus on individual aspects which have been particularly well-imple­ mented within each project. Each neighbourhood’s strengths and weaknesses are presented in a network diagram. This is based on the topics set out in the chapter “Challenges & Action Areas” and a qualitative evaluation (1 = average, 2 = above average, 3 = best practice). The following table (p. 227) lists the seven most important parameters exerting a key influence over contents, planning and development strat­ egies, as well as construction processes in neigh­ bourhood development. The issues listed in each category are drawn from current literature and have been further developed to allow an inter­ national comparison. The featured neighbourhoods are intended to provide suggestions as to how individual projects can address global sustainability issues within their respective project parameters. The case stud­ ies aim to show how project planners can adopt holistic approaches to meet the specific challenges presented by their project.

Chapter 5 —  Case Studies

Projects documented (pp. 228 – 261) in the case study section Further projects (pp. 262 – 265) Fig. 1  Location of neighbourhoods analysed


Berlin TXL - The Urban Tech Republic, Berlin

Viertel Zwei, Vienna



NEST – New Ethiopian -Sustainable Town


Hammarby Sjöstad


Dockside Green

Bo01 – Western -Harbour



Potsdamer Platz


Climate zone Tropical



City type by population Rural village (population < 20,000)

Small town (population 20,000 – 49,999)

Medium-sized town (population 50,000 – 499,999) Major city (population 500,000 – 9,999,999)

‡ ‡

Location within urban area Stand-alone outside urban area

Satellite connected to urban area Peripheral location

Urban location

‡ ‡

Inner-city location

Previous land use Nature (incl. forest)


Brownfield (mining, distribution, transport etc.) Urban brownfield (incl. existing buildings)

Infill regeneration (existing high-density urban development)

‡ ‡

Built environment New buildings

New and some existing buildings

Mainly existing buildings

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

Existing regeneration area with few new buildings

Land use Housing
















Leisure / Special use







Project scale Neighbourhoods District

‡ ‡

New town ‡ primary use

‡ ‡

 ¥ secondary use


Chapter 5 —  Case Studies




Am Kabelwerk

The Green Capital



Av. Presidente Kennedy

Carré Vert



Bd. de Saint-Georges

Les Plaines-du-Loup



Route des Plaines-du-Loup

Malley, Prilly and Renens sectors



Route des Lausanne





Green City




Kraftwerk 1








Le Quartier Central




Neue Weststadt


Esslingen am Neckar


Inner-city Passivhaus ­neighbourhood






Freiburg im B ­ reisgau


“Am Schlierberg” Solar neighbourhood


Freiburg im B ­ reisgau




Freiburg im B ­ reisgau













Langer Anger

Smiley West




Stellwerk 60


Cologne Nippes

Am alten Stellwerk





Messestadt Riem
















Amorbach II






Offenbach am Main


Scharnhauser Park




Artilleriekaserne St. Arnual











Auf dem Petrisberg, ­Max-Planck-Straße

French Quarter and Loretto



Aixer Straße, Loretto-Platz




Alte Weberei



Im Sonnenfeld














Material flows


Water /soil

Key access Open space / urban climate


Process/ social aspects


Urban design



Further Projects

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡

‡ ‡



‡ ‡

‡ ‡


Further Projects

Construction ­begin Area and completion [ha]

Planning team


1990 – 2005

READ-Group (Norman Foster, Richard Rogers, Renzo Piano, Thomas Herzog)

2004 – 2010 As from 1965

60 8 Whole city

Rüdiger Lainer + Partner


2009 – 2011


City of Geneva

2010 – 2020


TRIBU Architecture

2015 – 2021


SDOL – Schéma Directeur de l’Ouest Lausannois

2009 – 2014


Ecofaubourgs; HKA Finance

2013 – 2015


Diener & Diener Architekten ; Vogt Landschaftsarchitekten

1998 – 2001


Stücheli Architekten; Bünzli & Courvoisier Architekten AG

2001– 2020


City of Opfikon

2006 – 2014



as from 2011


lehen 3

2007 – 2009



1997– 2006


Kohlhoff & Kohlhoff

1999 – 2005


SolarArchitektur, Rolf Disch

Projektgemeinschaft Rieselfeld; B.E.M.S architecture group

KCAP Architects; ASTOC

SWW Architekten

Trojan & Trojan

1993 – 2010 as from 2000  1993 – 2000 as from 2001

50 165 60 116

1998 – 2007


Volkswohnung GmbH; City of Karlsruhe

2006 – 2013


Rößner und Waldmann Architekten

West 8; O & O Baukunst

Frauenfeld und Partner consortium

as from 2014


1997– 2009


2002 – 2010


Steidle + Partner; TDB landschape architects

1996 – 2014


Christian Vogel Architekten

2014 – 2016


bogevischs buero architekten und stadtplaner gmbh, shag, udo schindler, walter hable architekten gbr

1997 – 2004


Hans-Joachim Ziltz

2008 – 2017


Offenbacher Projektentwicklungsgesellschaft (OPG), City of Offenbach

1996 – 2003


Janson + Wolfrum

2003 – 2008


Wandel Hoeffer Lorch Architekten

as from 2011


O & O Baukunst



Bachtler Böhme + Partner / City of Trier (master plan);;

1996 – 2007


Development department, former urban regeneration office

2005 – 2009


Hähnig & Gemmike

2011– 2014


Hähnig & Gemmike

1999 – 2003


City of Ulm

2007– 2011


Eble Messerschmidt Partner, based on WTB Dreibund details/2756




Authors Helmut Bott, Professor Dr.-Ing. (Editor) Helmut Bott studied Architecture at TU Darmstadt from 1967 to 1974 and subsequently worked for the ­Saarbrücken City Planning department and for Stadt­ bauplan GmbH in Darmstadt. From 1977 to 1981, he lectured at the University of Kassel and at TU Darmstadt. Bott worked freelance for various private practice partnerships as from 1981, and was Profes­ sor for Urban Planning and Design at Cologne Univer­ sity of Applied Sciences (TH Köln) from 1985 to 1997. Bott was appointed as Director of the SI Urban Design Institute at Stuttgart University in 1997, where he was Professor for Urban Planning and Design until 2015. He has been a Director of the International Centre for Cultural and Technical Research (IZKT) at Stuttgart University since 1999. Between 2000 and 2005, Pro­ fessor Bott held visiting professorships in China and South Korea. From 2006 to 2010, he was Dean of the Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning at the Uni­ versity of Stuttgart. Professor Bott held further visiting professorships at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou and at Jiaotong University in Xi’an from 2007 to 2014, and is co-editor of the “Community Design” publica­ tion at Tsinghua University in Beijing. As founding Dean of Cairo German University (GUC), and as a member of the University Council, Professor Bott has been engaged in developing the Architecture and Urban Planning Institute in Cairo and Berlin since 2010. He has chaired the Board of Directors at Stutt­ gart University’s IZKT since 2013, and in 2018 was appointed visiting Professor at the Sino-German Research Center (SEU) in the Department of Urban Planning at Nanjing Southeast University’s School of Architecture in China. Gregor C. Grassl, M. Eng., Dipl.-Ing. (Editor) Gregor Grassl studied Architecture at Munich School of Applied Sciences (MUAS) from 1998 to 2002, with visits to the Universities of Prague and Cairo. In 1999, Grassl was awarded the “Honor al Merito” for his engagement in development aid in Cochabamba, Bolivia. From 2003, he worked in architectural prac­ tice in Bad Reichenhall. From 2006 to 2008, Grassl completed a Master’s degree course in Urban Plan­ ning at Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences (HfT). He joined Drees & Sommer in 2007, initiated the development of the Urban Districts certificate at the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) and is a Senior Auditor for the DGNB and ÖGNI systems. Grassl qualified as a specialist planner in Energy Effi­ ciency at the Academy of the Chamber of Engineers in the State of Hesse in 2013, and has led the Blue City programme since 2011. He has provided sustain­ ability advice to numerous national and international urban development projects, and has prepared tech­ nical masterplans in collaboration with renowned design practices such as KCAP Architects and Plan­ ners, Albert Speer & Partner, ASTOC, and Zaha Hadid. Grassl has worked on many research projects, including the development of a City BIM tool. He has taught in the DGNB Academy since 2012, and was a lecturer for the international Resource Efficiency in Architecture and Planning (REAP) Master’s degree course at Hamburg HafenCity University (HCU) from 2013 to 2016. At Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences (HfT), Grassl has held teaching positions within the international “Sustainable Urban Building Design” Master’s degree course in project manage­

ment since 2017, and within the “Smart City Manage­ ment” Master’s degree course since 2018. He was appointed to the International Fraunhofer Academy’s technical committee for the “Smart Society Profes­ sional Academy” in 2017. Grassl is an expert within the “National Future City Platform” set up by ministries of the German Federal Government. He is a founding member of the “Morgenstadt” research network and an expert member of professional groups such as the Association of German Engineers (VDI) “Stadt Denken” committee. Stephan Anders, Dr.-Ing. (Editor) From 2003 to 2008, Stephan Anders studied Architec­ ture and Urban Design at Stuttgart University and at ETH Zurich. During his studies, he worked for KCAP Architects and Planners, Ippolito Fleitz Group and the Chair for Information Architecture (IA) at ETH Zurich. His degree project entitled “Zero Emission City” was awarded within Stuttgart University’s degree awards programme. From 2009 to 2015, Anders worked in teaching and research at the Urban Design Institute at Stuttgart University whilst completing his Doctorate, focusing on concepts for sustainable urban and neighbourhood development. His PhD “Cities as Sys­ tems” was published in 2016. He has worked for the German Sustainable Building Council (DGNB) since 2012, initially as product manager for the DGNB certi­ fication systems for sustainable neighbourhoods and industrial locations. During that time, he was also responsible for DGNB Auditor training for sustainable neighbourhood and the DGNB university cooperation with more than 60 universities. Since 2017, Dr Anders has led the DGNB Certification department, focusing on national and international application of the DGNB certification systems for sustainable urban districts, buildings and interiors. Dr Anders is a lecturer for Urban Energy Planning at Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences (HfT).

Co-authors Martin Altmann, Dipl.-Geograph Martin Altmann studied Geography at the University of Trier from 1986 to 1992 and subsequently worked as research assistant to the Federal Office for Building and Regional Planning. He has worked in the real estate sector since 1993, joining Drees & Sommer Development Management team in 1997. Altmann has been a member of the Board of Directors at Drees & Sommer since 2008, leading development manage­ ment in North Rhine Westphalia since 2015. Jürgen Baumüller, Professor Dr. From 1964 –1971, Jürgen Baumüller studied Meteor­ ology at the Universities of Karlsruhe and Hamburg and went on to work as an Urban Climatologist for the City of Stuttgart from 1971 to 1973. He was engaged in research at the Institute of Physics at Stuttgart’s University of Hohenheim from 1973 to 1978, where he completed his PhD in 1979. From 1978 to 2008, Dr Baumüller was the leading Director of the Urban Climate department at the City of Stuttgart. From 1982, he was a lecturer at Stuttgart University’s Insti­ tute for Landscape Planning and Ecology (ILPÖ), and he lectured at Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences (HfT) from 1988 to 1993. Professor Baumüller was appointed to an honorary professorship at Stuttgart

University in 1993, where he held a teaching post for environmental protection technology as from 1995. He is now retired, but continues to teach at Stuttgart University. Julia Böttge, Dipl.-Wirt.-Ing. Julia Böttge studied Real Estate Technology and ­Economics at the University of Stuttgart from 2007 to 2012, subsequently working as a research assistant within the Holistic Accounting unit at Stuttgart Univer­ sity’s Institute for Building Physics until 2014. Since 2016, she has worked within the Construction Accounting department of the Max Bögl group. Sigrid Busch, Dr.-Ing. Sigrid Busch studied Architecture and Urban Planning at Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences (HfT), at the École nationale supérieure de création industrielle in Paris, at the University of California in Berkeley, and at Stuttgart University. She worked in private practice in Germany and the Netherlands before taking up a teaching position at the SI Urban Design Institute at the University of Stuttgart in 2002 where she subse­ quently completed her PhD. Dr Busch lectures on simulating and visualising noise protection and en­­ ergy efficiency in urban neighbourhoods. Dominic Church, Dipl. Ing., M.Sc. (LSE) Dominic Church studied Architecture at Stuttgart ­University from 1991 to 1997 and went on to work in private practice in Gothenburg, Tel Aviv and London until 2001. He completed a Master’s in City Design and Social Science at the London School of Econom­ ics (LSE) Cities Programme in 2001, where he subse­ quently worked in research, teaching and consultancy until 2005. From 2005, he was Senior Policy Advisor at the Commission for Architecture and the Built Envi­ ronment (CABE) in London, leading housing policy and the Building for Life programme. Since 2011, Church has been engaged in teaching and research at SI Urban Design Institute at Stuttgart University, at the Sustainable Urbanism Institute at TU Munich, and at Nürtingen Geislingen University (HfWU). From 2011 to 2015, he led the international application of the DGNB system. Church now leads strategic planning for the City of Lucerne’s key urban develop­ ment sites. Thorsten Erl, Dr.-Ing. Thorsten Erl studied architecture at TU Berlin, TU Darmstadt and at the Faculdade de Arquitectura da Universidade in Porto (FAUP). He completed his diploma in 1999 and has since worked for metris architects and urban planners, based in Darmstadt und Heidelberg. Since 2002, Erl has been active in teaching and research at the SI Urban Design Insti­ tute at Stuttgart University, where he completed a PhD on “The city and harbour of Porto” in 2011. Since 2012, Dr Erl has been a lecturer in environmental development planning at Nürtingen Geislingen Uni­ versity (HfWU), and has worked as a DGNB Auditor for Sustainable Urban Districts. Manal M. F. El-Shahat, M.Sc., Ph.D Manal M. F. El-Shahat is director & founder of EZBET Project. She is a senior researcher at the department of International Urbanism / Städtebau Institut (SI) at University of Stuttgart. She is also faculty member at Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University in Cairo (on leave). EZBET Project is an academic initiative aims to provide the basic urban and social facilities in the informal area in Cairo through engaging all


stakeholders in the process. As part of this project, she developed an academic course entitled “Participa­ tory Needs Assessment (PNA)”, which links the theory and practice and shows a real tool for participatory development in informal settlements in the global south. Dr. El-Shahat has different academic publica­ tions on topics related to the treatment of urbanisation problems of informal settlements, and participatory planning. Currently, she is the project manager of an interdisciplinary research project “Integrated Housing with Immigrants” at Department for Sociology of Archi­ tecture and Housing, which is a cooperation with the German Institute of Urban Affairs (DifU) in Berlin.

Thomas Haun, Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Haun studied Architecture at Bauhaus Uni­ versity Weimar from 2000 to 2007. Since then, his ­professional work has focused on sustainable con­ struction. Since 2016, he has been the Strategic Buyer for EnBW Energie Baden-Württemberg with responsibility for the procurement of construction and contracting for buildings, civil engineering and off­ shore foundations. Thomas Haun has since qualified as a Building Biologist at the Institute of Building Biol­ ogy and Sustainability (IBN), as a DGNB Auditor, as a LEED Accredited Professional, and as a BREEAM Licensed Assessor and BREEAM In-Use Auditor.

Johannes Gantner, Dr.-Ing., M.Sc., Dipl. Ing. (FH) From 2004 to 2011, Johannes Gantner studied archi­ tecture at OTH Regensburg University (OTH), and Sustainable Energy Competence (SENCE) at Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences (HfT), the University of Applied Forest Sciences Rottenburg and Ulm Univer­ sity of Applied Sciences. Since 2011, he has held a research and teaching post at the Fraunhofer Insti­ tute for Building Physics (IBP) at Stuttgart University, where he completed his PhD in 2017. Dr Gantner has project-managed various European research projects since 2011. He is a Life Cycle Assessment Certified Professional (LCACP) and member of the American Center for Life Cycle Assessment (ACLCA)

Dietrich Henckel, Professor em. Dr. Dietrich Henckel studied Economic and Social Scienc­ es and Law at the University of Konstanz, gaining a degree in Economics in 1973. He went on to complete a PhD in Social Sciences in 1976. From 1976 to 1979, Dr Henckel was engaged in teaching and research at Stuttgart University’s Institute of Building Economics. From 1979 to 2004, he was a project manager at the German Institute for Urbanism (Difu). From 2004 to 2017, he was professor for Urban and Regional Eco­ nomics at TU Berlin’s Institute for Urban Regional plan­ ning, where he was managing director from 2005 to 2009 and Dean from 2009 – 2013. Professor Henckel is a member of numerous committees and advisory boards.

Philipp Groß, M.Eng. Philipp Groß studied infrastructure management at Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences (HfT) from 2009 to 2013 and completed a Master in Energy-­ oriented Ecological Urban Redevelopment at Nord­ hausen University of Applied Sciences in 2016. He joined Drees & Sommer in 2011 to work in the Blue City team, focussing on holistic project development in Germany and abroad as well as Smart Cities including smart planning tools and processes. Groß is a DGNB Auditor for Sustainable Urban Districts, and BREEAM Communities Assessor. From 2016 to 2018, he was engaged in training DGNB Registered Profes­ sionals in Mongolia. He co-initiated and tutored the Eco City Planner Mongolia training.

Olaf Hildebrandt, Dipl.-Ing. Olaf Hildebrandt studied architecture at Hanover ­University, focusing on urban planning issues, and completing his Diploma in 1982. From 1980 to 1983, he worked freelance for the Institut für angewandte Systemforschung und Prognose (now the Eduard-­ Pestel Institut). In 1983, Hildebrandt co-founded the ARENHA Energy advice working group in Hanover. In 1988, he joined the ebök planning practice in Tübingen, and has been managing director of ebök Planung und Entwicklung GmbH since 2006. His work focuses on energy-oriented urban development, cli­ mate protection concepts, building management and structural thermal insulation. Since 2010, Hildebrandt has been a lecturer for energy-oriented urban plan­ ning within the Master’s degree course in urban plan­ ning at Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences (HfT).

Tilman Harlander, Professor Dr. rer. pol. habil. From 1967 to 1972, Tilman Harlander studied Soci­ ology, Economics and Political science at Munich and Berlin Universities and went on to gain a Doctorate from Oldenburg University in 1978, habilitating at Aachen University (RWTH) in 1994. From 1989 to 1997 he was Chairman of the Supervisory Board of the Aachen municipal housing company GEWOGE. He took up a visiting professorship in Lima in 1999 and was Professor for the Sociology of Architecture and Housing at the Institute for Housing and Design within Stuttgart University’s Faculty of Architecture and Urban Planning from 1997 to 2011. Professor Harlander was Faculty Dean from 2002 to 2006. Emeri­tus since 2011 he continues to be involved in numerous scientific associations, advisory boards and Jury committees. Gerhard Hauber, Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Gerhard Hauber completed his studies in Landscape Architecture at Beuth University of Applied Sciences in 1994, going on to work for Ramboll Studio Dreiseitl landscape architects from 1996. Since 1998, he has led projects in Germany and abroad, acting as managing director since 2008. From 2011 onwards, ­Hauber collaborated on the development of the DGNB System for Sustainable Urban Districts.

Jürgen Laukemper, Dr. Jürgen Laukemper studied building engineering at Stuttgart University from 1979 to 1985, subsequently working as a highways and civil engineering construc­ tion manager until 1986. He then took up a post in teaching and research at Stuttgart University, where he completed a PhD in 1991. Dr Laukemper joined Drees & Sommer in 1991, where he has been a Part­ ner and acted as Chair of the management board for Drees & Sommer Infra Consult and Development ­Management since 2000. He is also a lecturer in Pro­ ject Management at Stuttgart University of Applied Sciences (HfT). Rolf Messerschmidt, Dipl.-Ing. Rolf Messerschmidt studied architecture and urban planning at Stuttgart University. In 1999, his degree project was a web-based planning tool for sustainable urban development. He went on to work for Joachim Eble Architects in Tübingen from 1999 to 2017, where he has led the urban planning team since 2001. Messerschmidt became a Partner in Eble Messer­ schmidt Partner in 2017. From 2002 to 2008, he worked on the EU research projects ECOCITY and SNOWBALL – Energy Smart Urban Design. Messer­


schmidt is a lecturer SI Urban Design Institute at Stutt­ gart University and has been a DGNB Auditor since 2010, joining the DGNB technical committee in 2011. Peter Mösle, Dr.-Ing. Peter Mösle studied Mechanical Engineering at Stutt­ gart University, focusing on energy technology, and gained a scholarship for the University of Arizona before completing his degree at the Fraunhofer Insti­ tute for Solar Energy Systems in Freiburg im Breis­ gau in 1996. Mösle has worked for Drees & Sommer Advanced Building Technologies since 2006. He was appointed managing director for Energy Design / Sustainable Construction in July 2010 and has been a partner at Drees & Sommer since 2012. Dr Mösle completed his PhD “Developing a method to interna­ tionalise a certification system for sustainable build­ ings” in 2009. A member of the DGNB Board of Direct­ors, he is Chair of System Development. Marcel Özer, M.Sc. From 2008 to 2016, Marcel Özer studied Environmen­ tal Engineering at Stuttgart University and at the École Spéciale des Travaux Publics du Batiment et de l’Indus­ trie (ESTP) in Paris. During his studies, he worked for Stuttgart University’s Institute for Urban Drainage, Water Quality and Waste. Özer joined Drees & Sommer in 2016 as a cradle-to-cradle project engineer, focus­ ing on holistic sustainability concepts for construction. Since 2016, he has gained further qualifications as a Building Biologist at the Institute of Building Biology and Sustainability (IBN), and as a DGNB Consultant. Christopher Vagn Philipsen, Dipl.-Ing. Christopher Vagn Philipsen studied Process Engineer­ ing at Stuttgart University from 1981 to 1987, and sub­ sequently worked for the Fichtner Group until 1997. He joined Drees & Sommer Infra Consult and Development Management in Stuttgart in 1997 and has been the Managing Director of Drees & Sommer since 2000. Christopher Philipsen became a partner at Drees & Sommer Stuttgart in 2012, focusing on project manag­ ing plants to produce, distribute and store energy. Waltraud Pustal, Professor Dipl.-Ing. Waltraud Pustal studied landscape management at Nürtingen Geislingen University (HfWU) from 1983 to 1987 and worked in various planning practices until 1993. From 1996 to 2000, she took up visiting profes­ sorships at Nürtingen-Geislingen, Hohenheim, and Tübingen Universities. As from 2000, Pustal taught landscape planning as well as nature conservation and environmental law at Nürtingen-Geislingen University, where she was appointed honorary professor in 2013. She also tutored landscape planning within the Urban Planning Master’s degree course at Stuttgart Univer­ sity of Applied Sciences (HfT) from 2008 to 2017. Pro­ fessor Pustal has owned a landscape and urban plan­ ning consultancy in Pfullingen since 1993, and has been a member of the technical subcommittees on landscape planning and certification at the German professional chambers’ committee on fee codes. Christina Sager-Klauß, Dr.-Ing. Christina Sager-Klauß studied architecture at Kassel University (Gesamthochschule Kassel) from 1994 to 2002, and completed a PhD at TU Delft in 2016. From 2002 to 2005, she was engaged in research and teaching at the Chair of Building Technology and Cli­ mate Responsive Design at TU Munich. From 2005 to 2007, Dr Sager-Klauß worked at the German Energy Agency (dena), focusing on building construction.



Case Study ­Collaborators From 2007 to 2017, she led units at the Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics (IBP) and Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technol­ ogy (IWES). As from 2018, Dr Sager-Klauß has led a unit within the Fraunhofer Institute for Energy Econom­ ics and Energy System Technology (IEE). Daniela Schneider, Dipl.-Ing. (FH), M.Sc. Daniela Schneider studied architecture at Stuttgart University of Applied Science (HfT) from 2003 to 2008. From 2010 to 2012, she completed the Environment and Architecture Master’s degree course at Wismar University of Applied Sciences, focusing on construc­ tion material cycles. From 2008 to 2016, Schneider worked as a construction and project leader for sus­ tainable construction. In 2016, she joined Drees & Sommer to work in the cradle-to-cradle team. A project partner since 2018, Schneider is also a member of the DGNB expert group “Ease of recovery and recycling”, and a DGNB Auditor. Since 2017, Schneider has lec­ tured on “cyclical planning and construction” as part of the Master’s degree course in Architecture at Stutt­ gart University of Applied Sciences (HfT). Mario Schneider, Dipl.-Ing. Mario Schneider studied architecture at Stuttgart ­University from 2006 to 2012. During his studies, he worked for the university’s Institute for Structural Engineering and Design and at the Fraunhofer Insti­ tute for Industrial Design. From 2012 to 2016, he was engaged in teaching and research at Stuttgart Univer­ sity’s Institute for Foundations of Planning (IGP) whilst completing his PhD. In 2017, Schneider joined DGNB to focus on system development for neighbourhoods and DGNB academy in Germany and abroad. Antonella Sgobba, Dr.-Ing. Antonella Sgobba studied architecture at the univer­ sities of Florence and Madrid (ETSAM), where she completed the diploma in 1997. From 1999 to 2000, she completed a Master’s degree course in Urban Planning at UPC Barcelona. Sgobba worked in private practice in Barcelona and Stuttgart from 1997 to 2007, including Arribas Arquitectos, IDOM ACXT for Toyo Ito, and Behnisch Architekten, and took part in various freelance planning competitions. From 2007 to 2013, Sgobba was engaged in teaching and research at the SI Urban Design Institute at Stuttgart University, lec­ turing on issues such as sustainable urban planning and noise protection simulations. In 2011, she com­ pleted her PhD on “Architecture, the city and the auto­ mobile industry”. From 2014 to 2016, Dr Sgobba worked for the Karlsruhe City Planning office, where she worked on urban development concepts and led the Spatial Framework project. In 2017, Dr Sgobba was appointed as advisor to the government of Upper Franconia in Bayreuth, with responsibility for urban design and urban planning support. Guido Spars, Professor Dr. habil. Guido Spars studied economics at Cologne University, completed a PhD on the land market and land duties at TU Berlin in 2000, where he habilitated in 2007. Dr Spars has led the field of economics of planning and construction at Wuppertal University (BUW) since 2006, where he is also Vice Dean of Research and leads the Master’s degree course in Real Estate Man­ agement / Construction Project Management. He is a member of various scientific committees and asso­ ciations and published several books and papers, including Sharing-Approaches for Housing and Neighbourhoods (“Sharing-Ansätze für Wohnen und

Quartier: Nachhaltigkeitstransformation, kollaborative Konsummodelle und Wohnungswirtschaft”, Fraunhofer IRB-Verlag, 2018) and “Raumunter­nehmen – Wie Nutzer selbst Räume entwickeln” (Jovis-Verlag, 2014). Stefan Siedentop, Professor Dr.-Ing. Stefan Siedentop studied Spatial Planning at Dort­ mund University from 1988 to 1994, where he com­ pleted his PhD in 2001. Dr Siedentop was active in research and teaching, and project manager at the Leibniz Institute of Ecological Urban and Regional Development (IÖR) in Dresden. From 2007 to 2013, Professor Siedentop led the Institute of Spatial and Regional Planning (IREUS) at Stuttgart University. He was appointed as Professor for Urban Development at the Technical University of Dortmund in 2013 and leads the Research Institute for Regional and Urban Development (ILS). Antje Stokman, Professor Dipl.-Ing. From 1993 to 2000, Antje Stokman studied Landscape Architecture at Hanover University and at Edinburgh College of Art. From 2000 to 2001, she was engaged in teaching and research at Hanover Leibniz Univer­sity. From 2001 to 2004, Stokman led overseas projects at Rainer Schmidt landscape architects in Munich. She has held various teaching posts in China and in Ger­ many. From 2005 to 2010, Stokman was Junior Profes­ sor for the Design and Management of Flowing Water Catchment Areas at Hanover Leibniz University. From 2010 to 2018 she was Professor for Landscape Plan­ ning and Ecology, leading the Institute for Landscape Planning and Ecology (ILPÖ) at Stuttgart University. Stokman was appointed Professor for Architecture and Landscape at HafenCity University in 2017. Alyssa Weskamp, M.Sc., M.Arch. From 2007 to 2011, Alyssa Weskamp studied archi­ tecture at TU Berlin. From 2011 to 2013, she studied Urban Design TU Berlin und Tongji University Shang­ hai. In 2013 /2014, Weskamp took up a visiting fellow­ ship within the Urban Design and Sustainable Urban Development unit at TU Berlin. She joined Drees & Sommer Advanced Building Technologies GmbH in 2014 to work in Stuttgart and Berlin. Weskamp is a DGNB Auditor for Urban Districts and LEED AP Neighborhood Development. Bastian Wittstock, Dr.-Ing. From 2000 to 2006, Bastian Wittstock studied Environ­ mental Technology at Stuttgart University, where he completed his PhD in 2012. From 2011 to 2014, Dr Wittstock led the Sustainable Building Group within the Fraunhofer Institute for Building Physics (IBP). He joined thinkstep AG (previously PE INTERNATIONAL AG) in 2014 leading the Building & Construction team and the Sustainable Buildings field. From 2011 to 2015, Dr Wittstock was appointed as a lecturer in Engineering Science at Stuttgart University. He is a DGNB Auditor for buildings and urban districts and has been a mem­ ber of the DGNB technical committee since 2015. Andreas von Zadow, M.A. Andreas von Zadow studied Communication Science at TU Berlin. He worked for the Berlin Senate Depart­ ment for Urban Development and Housing, and he was deputy head of the European Academy for the Urban Environment (EA.UE). Von Zadow is working as independent advisor since 1993. He coaches and facilitates the development of projects, organisations and urban design processes. He is managing partner of Von Zadow International – VZI.

Potsdamer Platz:  Gregor C. Grassl, ­Alexander Sailer Carlsberg:  Stephan Anders, Isabelle Willnauer ecoQuartier:  Rolf Messerschmidt ­ illnauer Bo01:  Stephan Anders, Isabelle W Dockside Green:  Stephan Anders, ­Calvin Kühn, Peter Pratter, Isabelle ­Willnauer Neckarbogen:  Gregor C. Grassl, ­Alexander Sailer Hammarby Sjöstad:  Stephan Anders, Lisa Gänsbauer, Isabelle Willnauer ­ lexander Sailer Möckernkiez:  Gregor C. Grassl, A NEST:  Stephan Anders, Hristina ­Safranova, Isabelle Willnauer ­ vangelos Solakis, GWL-Terrein:  Stephan Anders, E ­Isabelle Willnauer Barangaroo:  Isabelle Willnauer Petrisberg:  Martin Altmann NDSM Wharf:  Stephan Anders, Anna Ilonka Kübler, ­Isabelle Willnauer Berlin TXL – The Urban Tech Republic:  Gregor C. Grassl, Alyssa Weskamp Viertel Zwei:  Gregor C. Grassl, Alyssa Weskamp

We would also like to thank the following students at Stuttgart University for developing the basis for the case study section of this book: Andrea Balestrini, Alexander Becker, Julia Bührle, Feng Chen, Yongrae Cho, Tahira Deniz, Viola ­Fonnesu, Lisa Gänsbauer, Melanie Houben Garcia, Michal Hloupy, Olga Ivanova, Anna Kübler, Calvin Kühn, Lee Jungin, Dominika Lis, Erika Loria, Julia Maisch, Peter Pratter, Tana Qamar, Eliza Rubena, Ann-Kristin Rüter, Alexander Sailer, Hristina ­Safronova, Jeong-Nook Seo, Rebecca Scholz, ­Evangelos Solakis, Jun Tan, Serap Topel, Simone Vielhuber, Yeon Kyoung Yoo, Sandra Zenk, Hongmei Zhai, Juliane ­Zindel

Profile for DETAIL

Sustainable Urban Planning  

This publication addresses the fundamental challenges of urban planning today and offers planners essential knowledge, implementation strate...

Sustainable Urban Planning  

This publication addresses the fundamental challenges of urban planning today and offers planners essential knowledge, implementation strate...