Blog

Do we need a new approach? A transdisciplinary one? One that remains open to change over time? One that actively considers current users? A process that is continually reassessed and re-evaluated – rather than rigidly implementing a predefined spatial program that may no longer meet actual needs by the time it is completed? Do we need an experimental approach that creates flexible solutions?

ALLIANZ ALTE WU discusses these, and many more critical questions, as the launch of the architectural competition draws nearer.

We therefore call on all decision-makers, project leaders in architecture or construction, political representatives, as well as on all future users to actively contribute to transformative change. This requires collective action across all levels! Now is the time to take responsibility! Now is the time to demand and promote a systemic shift within your discipline, profession and field of influence!

Text: Architects 4 Future Austria

The “University Campus Althangrund”, as planned by the Federal Real Estate Company (BIG), is projected to cost at least 1 billion euros. That’s a significant investment to tear down buildings that —until as recently as 2013 and 2021- still housed the Vienna University of Economics and Business and the biology department of the University of Vienna. After just 43 years of use, they are now set to be demolished and replaced by new buildings, which will serve the same purpose of housing universities. Does this really represent the most efficient path toward establishing a modern university location?

Since the planned project is to be funded by the Federal Ministry of Education, efficiency becomes a constitutionally mandated criterion. The following statement concerning the federal budget can be found on the Ministry of Finance’s website:

“In line with the principles of frugality and economic efficiency, the most cost-effective means of achieving the intended objectives should be chosen, whereby appropriateness is determined by weighing different courses of action within the framework of impact orientation.”

If we take a look at the  “Toni-Areal” in Zurich, we get a glimpse of the efficiency of building transformations. The parallels to the former campus of the Vienna University of Economics and Business (Alte WU) are striking—one might even argue that the Toni-Areal, having originally housed a dairy processing plant, presented additional challenges for its repurposing as an educational site.

In 2005, the former industrial site was first used for interim cultural purposes—similar to what we know from the Althangrund Cultural Center. Following a feasibility study regarding the accommodation of Zurich’s universities of Arts, Social Work, and Applied Psychology, the existing structure was transformed. Today, these institutions share the repurposed complex with restaurants and a museum. The total cost of the project amounted to approximately 550 million Swiss Francs (currently around €576.4 million). Notably, the development also included the creation of 100 residential units. The usable floor area of today’s Toni-Areal stands at 108,000 m². While the area once used by WU and the University of Vienna was significantly larger, the situation changed with the 2015 sale of UZA 4 (an office complex adjacent to the UZA 2 Geology Center) to a private real estate developer. Since then, the available floor space has become comparable: UZA 1 currently offers around 120,000 m², and BIG is aiming for approximately 150,000 m² for future use. From a financial standpoint, building upon existing structures clearly offers advantages. After all, Zurich’s transformation project came in far below the €1 bn mark currently projected in Vienna.

However, we do not have to look as far as Switzerland to find successful transformations of large buildings. A significant portion of the building complexes at Althangrund, designed by Kurt Hlawenicka, has already undergone such a transformation. The buildings above the Franz Josef train station, which previously housed office spaces for Bank Austria, were transformed as part of the “Francis” project. The project’s leaders emphasize the aspect of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a priority also highlighted by Allianz Alte WU. Building with the existing structures resulted in 67% fewer CO2 emissions than demolishing and rebuilding. The reduced effort in removing existing structures, the lower use of construction materials, and so on, are also reflected in lower costs. It is likely that this factor contributed to the decision to opt for a transformation of the existing buildings. Due to the higher efficiency of building transformations, the private sector’s interest in minimizing costs also aligns with climate protection goals in this case. However, this aspect could be neglected if projects are funded with taxpayer money. Therefore, it is the responsibility of actors in the public sector to ensure maximum efficiency. This should already be considered at the stage at which space requirements are made. If the leaders of the Francis project had planned to house two schools alongside offices, co-working spaces, restaurants, a supermarket, and other uses, a demolition would likely have seemed inevitable. However, they approached the existing building complex pragmatically and therefore conserved monetary and ecological resources. 

BIG justifies the planned large-scale demolition in part by citing insufficient natural daylight. However, a combination of building-mass modeling and indirect light-redirecting systems could solve this problem without having to tear the structures down. BIG’s concerns that this would lead to less floor space seems ironic if one recalls UZA 4’s sale in 2015. The site’s dedication to educational purposes had been settled for some time before the announcement of the upcoming demolition—but unfortunately, those responsible seem to have lacked the foresight to recognize that UZA 4 could have made a valuable contribution to fulfilling ambitious space requirements. 

Supporters of the demolition might argue that the planned project would direct federal funds toward research that wouldn’t be spent on it otherwise. However, one could also view it as a binding of resources that would no longer be available for actual research—such as staffing, direct funding of research projects, or even heating costs, which became a major concern at Austrian universities during the winter of 2022/23. Much like the energy used to build the existing campus is bound within these structures, federal funds would end up locked in the new buildings. This money could then not be spent on any research or teaching.

The demolition of the old campus of the Vienna University of Economics and Business was announced in March 2024. At that time, news focused more on the poor state of Austrian construction companies than on the huge deficit of the federal budget. The latter has since become the dominant topic in Austrian politics. Now is the time to not only consider this project a cash infusion for the construction sector but also a burden on the federal budget. Austria invested a substantial amount of money between 1978 and 1983 to construct the Althangrund University Center. Considering the dire budgetary situation, it would be advisable to appreciate these investments of the past. The costs of an outdated demolition-and-rebuild strategy would be borne by taxpayers. Therefore the imperative is now transformation instead of demolition!

opinion piece by Nicolas Etemad, BSc (WU)

further reading and related links: