1.
Fundamental revision of the development strategy
The intention to demolish the building on a large scale is based on a non-transparent decision-making processes from 2012 to 2013. We consider this decision to be long outdated and therefore demand to rethink the urban development concept fundamentally.
To launch an architectural competition in 2025 leading to the demolition of a generally well-preserved flexible structure is clearly a contradiction to the current societal and academic discourse. This is why we demand the greatest possible preservation of the existing building as a basic requirement for a successful participation in the competition.
The adaptation of the proposed spatial program – adjusted to the building’s structural capacities and to a size that can be realistically implemented within the existing structures – is therefore necessary. This approach would be a logical and feasible strategy to preserve and reuse the existing structure on a large scale.
The preservation of the building can thus become a flagship project for a future-oriented and climate-conscious approach to the built environment.
2.
Transformation and preservation instead of demolition
One may or may not value the modernist-style façades of the 1970s and 1980s. However, preservation is not merely a matter of aesthetics. The architecture of this period has numerous qualities and deserves to be valued – just like buildings from other eras. This period should also continue to be a visible part of our built environment.
It is not the goal to treat and preserve the campus as a monument. From today’s perspective it has several shortcomings, such as insufficient natural lighting or a now historical car-centered planning approach in the base level. We therefore clearly say: yes to transformation!
Many innovative examples from the past have already shown how such a transformation can succeed.
3.
Transparency and Participation
The future of public property must not be decided without any public debate. We therefore call for a transparent discourse and democratic decision-making processes.
We urge the key stakeholders – the City of Vienna, BIG (Austrian Federal Real Estate Company) and the future users, the University of Vienna and the BOKU University to integrate considerations of resource and energy consumption, life cycle, and embodied energy into their decisions. Participation and co-decision-making by civil society can only take place once all studies and expert reports on the building’s condition are made publicly accessible.