MILUnet Workshop Report Munich - Munich/Habi-044-MILUnet... · MILUnet Workshop Report Munich ......

MILUnet Workshop Report MunichResults of the MILU Implementation Lab

26th-28th October 2005

2006-01 final

Munich Meeting 10-2005

of 29

Contents

I. IntroductionMunich and its regionThe MILUnet Workshop MunichThe Local CaseThe Regional Case

II. The framework for MILU Analysis

III. Workshop Minutes

III.1 The Local Case: The "Sueddeutscher Verlag" areaLocal Case Site VisitRephrasing the Problem PerceptionFindings of the Implementation LabPresentation of RecommendationsFirst Review by the Munich MILU team

III.2 The Regional Case: Biotech Cluster Martinsried – GroßhadernFirst Reflections after the PresentationRegional Case Site VisitImproved Perception of the Regional CaseFindings of the Implementation Lab and Presentation (Group Arun Jain)Findings of the Implementation Lab (Group Huib Haccou)Presentation of Findings (Group Huib Haccou)First Review by the Munich MILU team

Further information see www.milu.net with- Programme Munich Meeting- List of Participants- Dossier Munich Cases- Presentations Munich Meeting

MILUnet Munich Team – City of Munich / Department of Urban Planning:[email protected]@[email protected]@muenchen.de

Page 1: Aerial view Sueddeutscher Verlag area (c Bertram Luftbild Verlag)Page 1: Aerial view Martinsried / Grosshadern (c LMU)

MILUnet / City of Munich - Department of Urban Planning (2006)


of 29

I. Introduction

Munich and its RegionThe metropolitan area of Munich comprises approximately 2.4 Mil. inhabitants ofwhich 1.26 Mil. live in the city of Munich, the capital of the Free State of Bavaria. TheMunich region is one of the largest regions in population in Southern Germany aswell as in the neighbouring countries. Its strength as business location is based on itsdiversified economic structure including several global players, a vivid middle class,and pre-eminently qualified human capital. The region has an outstandinginfrastructure. Several universities, research institutes of international distinction andother educational facilities ensure a high potential for innovation and accordingly offerqualified employment.

The MILUnet Munich WorkshopMILUnet – the Multifunctional and Intensive Land Use Network (2004-2007) – is co-financed by the EU through Interreg IIIC. The second Red MILUnet Workshop andImplementation Lab was held from 25th – 28th October 2005 in Munich. It washosted by the City of Munich, Department of Urban Planning, Division UrbanDevelopment Planning. All MILUnet information can be found on http://www.milu.net.

The Local CaseThe local case concerns the transformation of the site of the „Sueddeutsche Verlag“within the city centre. The prominent publishing house already moved its print shopfrom its location in the historic core of Munich to the outskirts of the city. The lot wassold to an investor in 2003. Suedeutscher Verlag subsequently rented the area fromthe new owner for some remaining units. In 2008 the lease contract will finally endand all parts of Sueddeutscher Verlag will be moved to the outskirts.

The City of Munich not only raised the question what kind of alternative reuses of theSueddeutsche Verlag lot should be supported by the City to meet MILU criteria. Coreconcern was how the planning procedure should be managed, and how farconflicting interests between the investor and the planning authority could betranscended.

The Regional CaseThe regional case focuses on the bio-tech cluster in Martinsried, which is close to thecity limits of Munich – just not within the city. Adjacent to Martinsried there arenumerous medical science institutes in Großhadern, a part of Munich.

This site was chosen as an example for rather unregulated settlements of large scalescience institutions in the region of Munich. It is located in an ecological importantarea without sufficient spatial resources available for potential spin-off industries andwith a poor connection to the public transport system.


of 29

Questions taken as starting point were: How can the city – together with partners –overcome the weak inter-communal planning and what can be done to improve thenetwork of different science locations within the Munich region?

Participants MILUnet Munich meeting: site visit Martinsried (10-2005)

MILUnet participants visiting the Sueddeutsche Verlag Building (26-10-2005)


of 29

II. The framework for MILU Analysis

As has been the format for all MILUnet Implementation Labs the group raises sixissues – identity, critical mass, connectivity, human scale, promotion and marketing,as well as process – to work on the local and the regional case:

IdentityDoes the project area have its own identity?How can this identity be enhanced and improved?Are there local aspirations that can be capitalised?

Critical massDoes each site have the development, infrastructure and resident population tomaintain coherent community?What additional elements are needed to reach and support desired critical mass?

ConnectionsWhat links does each site have with its surrounding natural and man-madeenvironment?How can these connections be further enhanced and developed?What land uses and infrastructure are required to integrate the sites into thesurrounding urban and natural fabric?

Human scaleDo the existing developments fit with diverse human scale activities?Are scale and relationships of public spaces supportive to their intended use?What adaptations can be made to support better social interaction betweenvarious uses on each site?

Promotion and MarketingHow are existing (mixed) uses promoted?How effective are these efforts?What types of promotion could improve or create community image or a bettersense of place?By what means can local decisions makers and/or policy makers be encouragedto lend their support to MILU?

ProcessHow to organise an effective planning and implementation process?


of 29

A point of major importance that does recur throughout all cases is that differentparties with potentially conflicting interests have to work together to organise multi-functional intensive land use. The key to MILU is thus to create win-win situations.MILUNET seeks to identify useful mechanisms and instruments, as well asopportunities and constraints, for creating these win-win situations. Thus, the processoriented issues of MILU to be addressed include:

Which types of partnerships are suitable for MILU initiatives? Which organisationsshould lead the way and which parties are essential for success?What are the legal and financial risks involved?What are the social, economic and environmental problems and benefits?Which parties suffer or profit from MILU solutions?Which planning concepts and urban technologies are in use and/or could/shouldbe developed?What mechanisms / regimes trigger MILU developments / solutions.

In preparation of the meeting, the Munich team considered this framework foranalysis to describe the two cases chosen (see also Munich meeting dossier). Theteam came up with a first problem conception and formulated questions that shouldguide work at the meeting – see chapter local and chapter regional case.


of 29

III. Workshop Minutes

At the meeting in Munich, a new MILUnet Workshop and Implementation Labscheme was tested:

Local & Regional case

Internal Presentation and Tasks for 4 taskforces

L LR R

Dimensions of the problem

Reference cases & Innovation Board

Obs. Sug.

L LR R

&

Obs. Obs.Sug. Sug.

Obs. Sug.

Obs. Obs.Sug. Sug.

Problem Statements

Presentation to Stakeholders

&

As was agreed in Budapest at the MILUnet midterm review in September 2005, thefirst part of the implementation lab should focus at a better understanding of thecases presented before starting to work on their improvement.

III.1 The Local Case: The "Sueddeutscher Verlag" Area

You can find a detailed description of the local case, additional backgroundinformation and the presentations on www.milu.net (dossier Munich workshop).

After the presentation of the local case and its reference case Radstock theperception was that the Sueddeutsche Verlag area qualifies for al real MILU solutiondue to its outstanding and diverse building stock, its density and its specific identity.The question thus was, how to maintain or improve this favourable situation withrespect to the particular interests of the investors. However, the group also raisedconcerns about a loss of working places following the transformation.


of 29

Local Case Site Visit

Rephrasing the Problem Perception

After splitting up into two local (and two regional) subgroups, the participants wereasked to reconsider the initial problem definition and the questions raised in advanceof the meeting and during the presentations and the site visit. The aim was to specifythe problem – if necessary – before following the familiar MILUnet method to collectobservations and suggestions regarding the MILU issues identity, critical mass,human scale, promotion & marketing and process. Based on this MILUnet frameworkfor analysis the Munich team had considered the following questions as mostimportant for the local case:

How can the intense pressure on historic buildings by the demands for modernneeds be diverted to mutually satisfying solutions to conservation anddevelopment?


of 29

What is the adequate mix of uses in this part of Munich's core area?Which planning area should be considered to integrate the local case optimally inthe surrounding urban fabric?Which planning procedures do you recommend to support human scale of thenew development?In which way can the new development be promoted as MILU project?Which stakeholders should be involved in the planning and implementationprocess to come up with a real MILU solution?

Improved PerceptionThe groups acknowledged that the site can’t be redeveloped without paying enoughattention to the adjacent area in general, and the parking house, the square in frontof the post office, and the two arcades in particular. Questionable was indeed, whichconnections would actually lead to visual and spatial quality and the overallattractiveness of the site. Another point was the expected impact of the move out of1.000 mainly highly-skilled employees on the specialised retailers in the surroundingarea. The participants highlighted the “hidden identity” of the lot as another matterthat has to be addressed, since the area is by now still closed to the public and firsthas to be exposed. Of concern was particularly the relation between history andmodern development.Finally, the question came up, how to find a good balance in terms of the promotionof the site as a MILU project and how to structure the planning process.


of 29

Findings of the Implementation Lab

In separate and joint sessions, two subgroups for the local case worked out thefollowing findings embedded in the MILU framework.

IdentityThe “Sueddeutsche Verlag” site disposes of a strong, yet hidden identity that has tobe identified in the future. Since the area is closed to the public, the identity is moreof psychological origin, thus more related to the newspaper as an industrial productand its image than to the housing stock itself. Nevertheless do local people havespecific aspirations and high expectations on the future appearance and land use ofthe site, since it is situated in the historic core of Munich and comprises atremendous ensemble of monumental and industrial buildings. The identity of thearea indeed is also strongly influenced by the adjacent area. In a wider perspective,the whole location is predominantly recognised as a shopping area. But the square infront of the post office is so far a void area and thus impedes an attractive connectionto the pedestrian area in the North. The area furthermore lacks green, trees andopen spaces.

The historical scheme of the site and its industrial heritage was generallyacknowledged to be unique and therefore has to be clearly reflected in the futuredevelopment. The variety of structures of the different buildings itself provides spacefor different functions. This means that the monumental building stock should bepreserved and other parts restructured, instead of being demolished and newly built.This would also help to create an identity through the preservation of the specificrooftops of the site. Simultaneously, former printing facilities and media relicts shouldbe an integral part of the new concept. The groups took also extensive land uses intoconsideration, as far as they don’t interfere with the mentioned ideal views of aspecific place with an outstanding identity.

The exposition of the hidden identity was widely acknowledged to generate a newdynamic core thus creating added value to the whole area near the city centre. Therestructured site should indeed not only make the historic qualities more visible, butalso pick up the character of the adjacent area. New developments, such as therevitalisation of surrounding green, the creation of green roof parks and publiccourtyards on the site, should complement the concept.

Critical massThe differentiated structure of the “Sueddeutsche Verlag” lot located in the historiccore was seen to provide sufficient conditions to realise different uses in time andspace and thus to reach the desired critical mass. The exodus of about 1.000employees was indeed interpreted quite critical with respect to the persistence of thespecialised retailers in the surrounding area.The creation of mixed use and functions, and particularly the layering of functionsand the use of the time dimension (evening and night activities) was regarded to be


of 29

the only promising strategy to boost use and intensify the critical mass. The groupsagreed on an compatible mix of commercial, cultural and residential use, with theprinciple aim to compensate lost jobs through small scale retailers, prestigious officespace and (media related) enterprises, workshops, galleries and ateliers. Particularlythe recent uses should function both as a link to the industrial past and as anincubator for future innovations. Cultural activities should additionally act as historicaland cultural footprints of the site, and would counteract mono-functional job creation.Again was the need to create green on the site regarded to be evident, e.g. via roofgarden restaurants.

Human scaleThe decisive plus of the lot is its perfect density. The present buildings and spaceswould easily encourage activities at diverse human scales through restructuring. Butthe site is negatively influenced by its surrounding area. There is no green, thesurface car park in front of the site is an uncomfortable environment, and the parkinggarage is an inappropriate and unattractive use.

Suggestions in order to overcome these deficiencies point at the need to improve thequality of the surroundings and to make more green, such as through the conversionof the ground level car park into a pedestrian square and the creation of a centralatrium or several small courtyards and green rooftops. The vertical dimension wouldallow panoramic views from the housetops into squares, arcades and streets, tomake the surroundings more visible.Connectivity and intermingling of different land uses such as dwelling, retailing andgastronomy increase the people’s interactions, would at the same time bring diversityto human scale and intensify the use of the site both during the day and at night.


of 29

ConnectivityThe present state of the site is characterised by no connectivity to the surroundingstreets, by bad connections to the main pedestrian zone, a void square in front of thepost office that hinders a sophisticated flow of pedestrians from the Kaufinger Streetvia the arcades to the block, and a poor traffic situation.

It is thus essential to integrate the adjacent area into the development plans of the“Sueddeutsche Verlag” site by restructuring the square in front of the lot and creatingdirect walkways from the arcades to the block.

The overall connectivity could furthermore be enhanced through an opening betweenthe Sendlinger and the Hotter Street by inviting gateways and covered galleries.Simultaneously, additional traffic congestion caused by a high degree of residentialuse should be proved. In line with the desired mix of land uses, limiting residentialuse and the construction of an underground parking garage could eventually reducethe traffic congestion.


of 29

Promotion and marketingThe groups came to the conclusion that the block’s reputation at the moment isconnected to the “Sueddeutsche Zeitung”. It was indeed to question, whether themove out of the newspaper gives a bad signal, or rather, whether the place will alsoin the future be linked to the Sueddeutsche.


of 29

The participants were confident that the site should be promoted via identifiablebranding (e.g. “Sueddeutscher Hof”). To boost the lot as a nucleus of sustainabledevelopment, the former professional media functions should be exposed andexpanded as cultural links to the present. Imaginable would be for instance the use ofthe industrial heritage through a publicly accessible forum where liquid installationscommunicate daily news to the visitors. Other media related functions probably alsowith an educational factor could work as well.The political forum, which is so far the single part of the lot that is publicly available,should be maintained.The clear advantages of MILU, such as the integration of different functions and theuse of the third and fourth dimension, could additionally be used to promote a projectthat is much more than a sole shopping destination. Referring to this, a deliberatechoice of functions and a good balance between them would in itself advertise theblock.


of 29

ProcessThe desired planning procedure of the “Sueddeutsche Verlag” area was split up in 6-steps. This ideal process would allow for an increasing specialisation of the debateand an adjusted number of stakeholders thereon:

1. Inventory and InformationThe first phase provides for the collection of ideas of the involved parties. Thisphase in reality already begun with the first informal meetings of the PlanningDepartment and the investors

2. Definition of guidelinesIn this step, the city is in co-operation with the developer responsible for thearticulation of the general content and process of the development plan

3. InformationThis phase contains the fine tuning of the 2nd phase, as the city and thedevelopers, in line with their particular needs and wishes, agree upon a generalframework, which describes the following process and defines the participatingstakeholders, but is still open for different solutions

4. Alternative solutions and public discussionThe framework including different solutions is presented to the public and an opendiscussion is started. An (architectural competition) is originated on this basis andends with the presentation of at least three plans

5. ConsultationThis phase envisages the consultation of the city (planning department) and thedeveloper on the conceived plans, which is possible in more steps and is carriedout under the direction of the local authority

6. Final PlanThe final phase ends with the decision of the city council on the plan that wasbefore accepted by the planning department and the developers

The entire planing process should stand with continuous communication andmonitoring. In addition, an agreement upon the development outside the actual site inline with a master plan is desirable, since this contributes to the value of the lot itself.In this context, the different parties involved could redefine their priorities with relationto the parking garage and the square in front of the post office. With respect to theupcoming costs, the developer should bear the external expenses, whereas the City(planning department) should facilitate the process. Already during the planningprocess, but particularly afterwards a kind of “centre manager” could be installed,being responsible among others for the strategic direction of the site, leasing,promotion and long-time management of the facilities.


of 29

Presentation of RecommendationsAll MILUnet participants were keen on the prospects of the “Sueddeutsche Verlag”area to become a real MILU project, due to its outstanding starting position. In linewith a multifunctional and intensive development several key recommendations weregiven at the plenary presentation:

The eminent building stock should be largely preserved and restructuredExtensive land uses on the site are with reference to the surrounding area insofaracceptable, as they are not misused as a role model for further developmentsThe historic and industrial legacy should be utilised to create an authentic identityof the placeThe lot has to be opened to the surrounding streets to increase connectivity,expose the so far “hidden identity” and to create the desired critical massThe adjacent area has to be included in the development process to boost theattractiveness of the actual siteThe lot qualifies for multifunctional land use and the integration of the 3rd and 4thdimensionThe planning procedure should be carried out in a systematic 6-phaseprogramme

Sketch about a potential appearance of the future “Sueddeutsche Verlag” area

Among the stakeholders present were several representatives of Munich'suniversities, different units of the urban planning department and a representative ofthe district committee. Unfortunately, the investors did not follow the invitation of theCity of Munich. They will be informed about the outcome as part of the follow upactivities after the meeting.


of 29

First Review by the Munich MILU teamShortly after the workshop, the Munich MILU team stressed particularly the followinginsights as important for future actions of the City:

Integration of the surrounding area in the planning process of the “Sueddeutsche”lot (square in front of the post office, parking garage)Not necessarily a small-scale mix of use within the lot, since the adjacent areaprovides a multifunctional land use itself -> Keep the mix of the surroundings inmind, large scale land use can be suitableOpening up of the inner area of the lotLargely restructuring of the present building stock instead of new development ->cuts at specific buildingsIntegrate the 3rd (vertical) and 4th (time) dimension


of 29

III.2 The Regional Case: Biotech Cluster Martinsried - Großhadern

For a detailed description of the regional case, the regional framework and thepresentations of case and reference case see www.milu.net Munich meeting dossier.

First Reflections after the PresentationThe problem within the regional case – and the question is, what is the problem?– shows two scales: quality of place and comprehensive overall strategy. Can itbe addressed within the existing planning structure?We do not know what the different stakeholders have in mind or what they wouldnot like to happen.

Regional Case Site Visit

MILUnet Munich Meeting: Site visit Martinsried (26-10-2005)

Original Problem Perception and RephrasingAfter splitting up into two regional (and two local) subgroups, the participants wereasked to reconsidered the initial problem definition and the questions raised inadvance of the meeting and during the presentations and the site visit. The aim wasto specify the problem – if necessary – before following the familiar MILUnet methodto collect observations and suggestions regarding the MILU issues identity, criticalmass, human scale, promotion & marketing and process. Based on this MILUnet


of 29

framework for analysis the Munich team had considered the following questions asmost important for the regional case:

How could the overall situation in Martinsried/Großhadern be improved?What could be done to achieve a long-term development inMartinsried/Großhadern according to the principles of sustainable development?What could be done to improve the network of the different science clusters withinthe Munich region?Who should initialise a new effort to improve the public transport network(especially the extension of the subway line)? How can this be done?What should be the role of the Regional Planning Association of the Munichregion (RPV) in the planning processes related to the “science region”?

Seen from a problem perspective, the basic perception of the Martinsried /Großhadern-case by the City of Munich was:

The present “quality” of place in Großhadern/MartinsriedA comprehensive overall strategy is still lacking (no master plan)There is a “lack of entity” on the regional scale

Improved Perception of the Regional CaseThe group quickly acknowledged that the most eminent preconditions or ratherproblems related to the science cluster in Martinsried/Großhadern are quite complex.A MILU basis of the analysed site was challenged since (so far) land use is purelymono-functional. The case is strictly speaking “just” a local case in the region ofMunich, and not a regional case itself. Furthermore, it was unknown, how and whydecisions to (re)locate science institutes in this area had been taken.The participants asked for a clearer picture of the political will, the characteristics ofthe (regional) planning structure, the ability to alter the infrastructure, and existingand future capacities on the local and regional scale (e.g. with respect to theavailability of land).

The participants reflected on the possible short and long term needs of theconcerned institutions and communities. The question was whether if there is anactual need for stronger / more networks or if this need is only derived from atheoretical point of view. Thus, it was of interest what current synergies betweeninstitutions exist, or rather what their shared needs and issues are. The group sawthe need for inventories of future ideas of the different stakeholders, and acomprehensive inventory / monitoring of the region (including historic developmentsetc.). Furthermore the question what critical mass was necessary for such synergieswas raised. And, what level of regional co-ordination is required to obtain suchsynergies. On a higher scale of analysis, a question was raised about the spatialdimension of any existing clusters. From a strategic point of view, the advantages ofcluster/network strategies of higher levels of government were discussed.


of 29

The working groups reflected on the possibilities to better integrate the science parkinto the science region. For the time being Martinsried was conceived to be a local(isolated) case within a regional science region, which has to be redefined to steer asustainable future regional development. The lacking of a master plan for regional(high-tech) development was considered to be a major problem that has to beaddressed. In this context, the core question was how the municipality can raiseawareness among stakeholders for the need of an overall regional strategy.

First ideas were to network the respective science clusters with each other and withMunich, and to implement a forum concerned with the science region. For thispurpose the overall connectivity would have to be clearly improved, probably in termsof a special transportation plan. The promotion of the innovative character of techspots, such as “in Martinsried starts the victory”, was argued to be a promisingconcept as well. In line with the MILU interweaving aspect, the stakeholders shouldpromote a mixture of functions and not only trust in the rather one-sided knowledgetransfer between professional researchers. Additionally the density of the area shouldbe increased, without downgrading existent conditions.

Findings of the Implementation LabFurther work on the case took place in separate and joint sessions. One of the twosubgroups decided not to proceed in line with the general MILUnet six-issueframework of the Implementation Lab, but to channel the analysis more problem-centred. According to this the results of the regional case as presented here are oncemore subdivided for the respective group.

Findings of the Implementation Lab (Group Arun Jain)

ConcernsThe analysis of the regional case within this part of the implementation lab once morestarted with the formulation of predominant concerns. Particularly mentioned was therisk of duplicating functions (e.g. tech facilities) through institutional competitionbetween different communities (e.g. Munich vs. Planegg).Indirectly related was the concern the responsible planning authority might not beable to sustain local presence, among others with respect to infrastructure,relevance, and organising capacity.

Suggestions/actionsThe group agreed on the formulation of an action plan that necessarily would have tocontain an implementation component, which both recognises existing conditions andhelps to initiate a local dialogue between the relevant stakeholders.


of 29

Three-step action plan

1) The first phase of the action plan should be based on some local/areaassessment or analysis. A first dialogue should be initiated, with the aim to clarifythe institutional reasons for that location, and to identify institutional andcommunity needs and issues on the different spatial scales. This should takeplace within a pre-meeting between Munich and Planegg. This meeting'sparticipants should first and foremost be stimulated to intensify their co-operationand to formulate their ideas. The authorities should be open to short and longterm objectives, since this is an open and flexible process. The focus should lieon co-operative infrastructure improvements. Already at that time best waysshould be identified to realise its implementation and other local issues.Institutional confidentiality has to be kept in the whole phase.

2) Munich and Planegg should encourage a dialogue between bio-medicinefacilities, the university hospital, the Max Planck Institute and the local spin-offenterprises. They should formulate their vision of the development of theMartinsried/Großhadern area. Their proposals should include demands oninfrastructure.

3) As step three of the action plan, a facilitating party (e.g. the Planning Association)should help all stakeholders involved to identify and discuss shared needs andissues. In this process, new stakeholders and new public-private partnershipscould be identified. The parties could define projects, tools, and strategies for theimplementation of their common vision.

Technology issuesThe analysis of the specific needs of high-tech and knowledge industries wasconsidered to be a decisive factor to steer future settlements that not only facilitatesustainable regional development, but also meet the needs of the respectiveindustries. As an incubator for further economic development and spin-off industries,the strategy of grouping by synergy should get special attention. With respect to thequestion on how to keep existent facilities and meet institutional growth needs andhow to attract new industries, the authorities should think about the possibilities toprovide sufficient floor space – in a supportive manner.The creation or better support of polycentric centres to stimulate both local civicquality (economy, environment, development, infrastructure sustainability) and toencourage a network of the regional and local scale was conceived to be a majorgoal.

Naturally no ready made concept of networks should be imposed upon thescience/knowledge institutions. Instead, the base for a flexible growth structureshould be created that would offer various combinations (see picture below).


of 29

MILUnet Munich Meeting – Presentation Regional Case (28-10-2005)


of 29

Group 2 (Huib Haccou):Observations and Suggestions of the Implementation LabThis group followed the MILUnet framework more closely and used the six issues ofconcern to analyse the regional case and formulate recommendations.

IdentityToo many aspects related to the regional case seemed to be self-evident – whichwas not shared at all by participants of the implementation lab.

Until now, the identity of the area appeared to be mixed and thus difficult forbranding. Some participants regarded this lack of clear identity as advantage since itcould ease the development of a new image like "green village for knowledgeworkers".

The creation of an identity requires communication between the researchers / theresearch facilities and the residents of the surrounding area. The inhabitants shouldbe informed about the future area development.

To create identity for the place proposals were tocreate regional maps to develop a sense of the region (show commuter flows andother socio-economic features)use a layer approach (cf. presented reference case from the Netherlands) toidentify and support the development of the metropolitan regionidentify the components of the metropolitan regionovercome disparities

An urban network may be a strategic concept to redefine the metropolitan system(which is more than the city of Munich).

Additionally, the parties involved should stress the problems related to large-scalesettlements at the urban fringe within the region that lacks a comprehensive regionalplanning system.

It seemed important not to impose a ready-made identity, but to let it develop throughencouraging place making. This strategy could easily be linked to the task ofmarketing and promotion.

Critical massSince land use in Martinsried is mono-functional an imbalance in mass was observedon the one hand. It was noticed, on the other hand, that the location is embedded ina regional network and that this could contribute to reach a favourable critical mass.One could, however, indeed worry about a loss of critical mass in inner city locations,caused by the drain of institutions to the wider region. The huge scale of themetropolitan hospital appeared out of balance.


of 29

To reach a desirable critical mass, more mass could be attracted to the location ofMartinsried thus creating demand for amenities and hence a better mix of functions.Also, the regional network as a whole was regarded as the "place" to deliver thenecessary critical mass. The effect of "science drain" from inner city locations couldbe mitigated through boosting the forum function of the inner city. It could function ashub for the polycentric structure.Creating a "critical mass in interest" in the location could help to gain the financialresources needed to develop the place.The parties involved should give attention to functions related to the hospital(teaching, nursery, ..) as well as to possible spin-offs.

Human scaleThe aspect of human scale was not seen to be an important factor for regionaldevelopment. However, good public/private interfaces with respect to edge uses,recreation, or social institutions, were regarded important to encourage reasonableplace making.

ConnectivityConnection of Martinsried to the public transport system was conceived as bad.Regarding the regional connection, the question came up whether there is a realneed for higher speed physical connections between the respective high-techlocations or of those locations with the inner city transport system. Connectivityseemed to follow the development and not being used as a strategic instrument. Onesuggestion was to research the perception of connectivity.

Walking/biking distances seemed to be too long. Suggestions were to create a cyclepath network in Martinsried and the surrounding area.

A link of science locations in the city centre was asked for and a regional forum at thelocation of the local case was suggested.

Promotion and marketingA sophisticated promotion of the science cluster is hampered by the lack of regionalpolicy.This problem could be met through raising the overall awareness of the significanceof the regional context. The differences in the perception of clustering at European,national, Bavarian, regional and local level should be considered. Local stakeholdersmight utilise the different strategic interests of different levels of government tofacilitate solutions favourable for Martinsried/Großhadern.

ProcessThe dominant weak point is that there is no master plan. There is no strategicprocess architecture for regional governance and planning, and apparently nosophisticated network between the respective parties.


of 29

A small consortium of a few key persons to start up a process that creates trustamong both small and big entities. This might take the shape of a MünchnerRegionalforum with a specific meeting point – which is still needed. Additionally,participants asked for an open discussions between the different social groups. Theinvolvement of social research was suggested. Better awareness for all involvedparties, their strategies and visions seemed necessary.The importance of integrated, small scale projects supported by the "MünchnerRegionalforum" was stressed. Such projects could act as catalyst for a betterregional co-operation. Among the suggestions the group asked for a pilot project"Martinsried".


of 29

Presentation of the findings of group 2 for the case of Martinsried/Großhadern

In the final presentations, the findings of the implementation lab group two werepresented based on a three step strategy:

A strategy to raise the awareness of the regional context

The following strategy was proposed to overcame the most important problem inMartinsried/Großhadern – the lack of awareness for the problems that are stronglyrelated to the regional context:

Share the common diagnosis of developmentCreate a vision on the connectivity of functions (e.g. bio-tech) on the regionalscale (map)Show the advantages for the MILU character for a small nucleus like Martinsried(win-win-situations)

Development Diagnosis and creation of a vision of the region

The group gave a first sketch of acommon diagnosis of development. Itwas proposed that this analysis shouldbe shared by all stakeholders

The articulation of a general vision onregional networking should rank high onthe stakeholders' agenda.This should be based on research intothe actual scale and linkages of the “Bio-Tech region”. This could be compared tothe respective perceptions of the region.In this context mainly the financial andmunicipal structure is of concern, as wellas how political barriers caused by inter-communal competition could beovercome.

Understanding regional networks could help to “deconstruct” the perception that thewhole region is mainly characterised by an imbalance between one dominant andmany small nuclei. Thus, a more realistic image of the region showing interde-pendencies and complementing roles could be gained. Creating a newunderstanding of the regional system in the field of (bio-)technology could later onprovide a better basis for regional co-operation in all fields.


of 29

To enable networks and a central hub and meeting function of the core – i.e. the cityof Munich – the group proposed to investigate the transport network and closemissing links.

MILUnet Munich Meeting – Presentation Regional Case (28-10-2005)

Advantages of a MILU character of the small nucleus MartinsriedOn the basis of MILU criteria the further process of development of Martinsried /Großhadern could bring a range of advantages for the place and for the city ofMunich:The municipality would profit from the connection between Martinsried and the city ofMunich induced by the settlement of (bio)technology institutes and businesses. Anintegrated regional planning process could concentrate new settlements and thuscreate space for new uses. The forest could find multifunctional use and additionalsmall leisure related uses could occur. This would result in an increase of the landvalue. This action would create demand for more amenities. In terms of a positivespiral more ("qualified") critical mass could be allured. An improved image based onthe quality of the place would attract new (highly educated, well off) residents.This would allow for a better utilisation of Munich’s facilities, such as culture,entertainment, shopping and recreation. Promotion and marketing strategies couldbe intensified and designed to be more selective. They could be carried out on aninternational scale.Workers and residents would profit from better amenities close by and from anincrease in land value. Long term advantages would develop.

Use special occasions to raise the awareness for the regional contextA specific proposal of the group was the idea to capitalise on the historical event ofthe “Sueddeutsche Verlag” moving out to the urban fringe. This event should be usedto start a general discussion of the city's and the region's development which areclosely linked. The idea was to gain support from the Sueddeutsche Verlag whichcould publish a series of articles by scientists, journalists, and others and they couldarrange public debates on the future of the municipalities within the Munich region.


of 29

What futures are feared, wished for, expected and how to go about thesedevelopments should be discussed. These activities of the publishing house could bestimulated by the Head of the Department of Urban Planning (the so calledStadtbaurätin).


of 29

First Review by the Munich MILU Team on the Regional Case

Shortly after the workshop, the Munich MILU team stressed particularly the followinginsights as important for future actions of the City:

The Munich Department of Planning has again intensive contact to theneighbouring municipality of Planegg. That is regarded to be a basic requirementfor improvements in planning in general and transport planning in particular forthe area of the science cluster Großhadern/Martinsried. Co-operation in transportplanning had been low on the agenda after the local elections in 2002.We had to acknowledge that we don’t know exactly what precise requests theuniversities and research institutions have with respect to infrastructure facilities.These demands will therefore be retrieved.We furthermore had to realise that there is no consistent network of the differentuniversity- and research facilities. In the future we will have to focus more on thisissue.There is no superior organisation that could act as an independentmediator/facilitator at complex inter-municipal problems. The regional planningassociation neither has the financial nor the human resources that are requiredfor this purpose.The action plan designed during the MILUnet workshop displays an inductiveapproach that could open up complex structures.

MILUnet Workshop Report Munich - Munich/Habi-044-MILUnet... · MILUnet Workshop Report Munich ......

Documents

Transcript of MILUnet Workshop Report Munich - Munich/Habi-044-MILUnet... · MILUnet Workshop Report Munich ......