1.
Fundamental revision of the development strategy
The intention to demolish the building on a large scale is based on non-transparent decision-making processes from 2012 to 2013. We consider this decision long outdated and therefore demand a fundamental rethinking of the urban development concept.
Launching an architectural competition in 2025 leading to the demolition of a generally well-preserved flexible structure clearly contradicts the current societal and academic discourse. This is why we demand the greatest possible preservation of the existing building as a crucial condition for successful participation in the competition.
The adaptation of the proposed spatial program to suit the building’s structural capacities and to a scale that can be realistically implemented within the existing framework is therefore essential. This approach would be a logical and feasible strategy for a large-scale preservation and reuse of the existing structure.
The preservation of the building can thus become a flagship project for a future-oriented and climate-conscious approach to utilizing 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.
The goal is not to treat and preserve the campus as a monument. From today’s perspective it has several shortcomings, such as insufficient natural lighting or a historically car-centered planning approach to the ground level. That’s why we clearly and confidently say: yes to transformation!
Numerous innovative examples from the past have already demonstrated how such a transformation can be successful.
3.
Transparency and Participation
The future of public property must not be decided without 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. Civil society can only engage in meaningful participation and co-decision-making once all studies and expert reports on the building’s condition are made publicly accessible.