Launching a Regional Development
        Initiative: The Experience of IBA Emscher Park
        
IBA Emscher Park was a development program which ran
        between 1989 and 1999 in the northern part of the Ruhr Valley. IBA
        stands for International Building Exposition, a traditional approach to
        innovative urban development which was interpreted in a very innovative
        way: It was not just urban but actually regional development, and it was
        not just about buildings but also about redeveloping brownfield sites,
        developing industrial heritage sites, cleaning up highly polluted rivers
        and contaminated estate, and improve the environmental quality and the
        quality of life. Emscher Park stands for the overall objective of the
        program: to convert the region along the Emscher river into a park-like
        urban landscape.
        
One of the key decisions in launching IBA Emscher Park
        was to avoid strategic planning, and indeed an overall coherent plan.
        IBA Emscher Park was based on a project approach. It started in 1989
        with a Call for Projects. Before that, the key stakeholders involved in
        the IBA had defined a set of criteria for the selection of projects.
        Basically, these criteria addressed two issues: quality and viability.
        
          - 
            
Quality was about architecture, urbanity and
            ecology. It was agreed that only projects which tried to attain a
            high architectural standard, contribute to substantial upgrading of
            urban quality and improve the environmental situation were to be
            accepted.
 
          - 
            
Viability was about being able to start a selected
            project right on. Initially, IBA Emscher Park was supposed to run
            for five years, so there was no time to be lost. Accordingly, all
            those project proposals were to be rejected where major obstacles
            stood in the way of quick implementation. One typical obstacle were
            property issues, for instance projects where a piece of real estate
            was to be redeveloped which belonged to various proprietors with
            diverging interests and agendas. Another typical obstacle where
            legal issues, where a given project would have involved highly
            complicated and protracted permit processes.
 
        
        Another key decision regarding the set-up of IBA was to
        run it in a decentralised manner. A small secretariat was created, with
        about 25 professionals who were hired on a fixed-term basis. Each of the
        projects which were selected by the IBA Secretariat was run by a local
        organisation. Often this was a legally independent development
        corporation set up by local government, frequently with co-ownership of
        state government. Occasionally, it was public-private partnerships,
        private developers, or other non-governmental organisations. The IBA
        Secretariat was represented in the governing body of each project
        organisation. Moreover, IBA Secretariat often played a very important
        role as a moderator and facilitator in stakeholder fora which were
        created around many projects in order to involve and mobilise the local
        community and make sure that a given project was firmly embedded into
        local administrative and community structures.
        
The IBA Secretariat turned out to be an organisation
        which reconciled the accumulation of power with a participatory
        approach. It was very powerful because it had the full backing of state
        government, which was the source of most of the funds needed for project
        implementation. If a local government could not convince the IBA
        Secretariat to accept a given project, it was highly unlikely that it
        would find any other way of getting state funding. However, the IBA
        Secretariat did not use its power to enforce its ideosyncratic ideas on
        how to implement a given project. It rather organised a process where
        both local knowledge and involvement where mobilised and where external
        know-how and creativity where introduced, usually via International
        Competitions which frequently involved internationally renowned
        architects and planning bureaus.
        
In the end, the explicit absence of strategic planning
        lead to projects which would not have been conceivable at the beginning,
        and which would not have happened if the IBA had, at the outset, been
        squeezed into the corset of a fixed strategic plan. In particular, this
        applies to the re-use of abandoned industrial installations, such as a
        huge steel plant or the largest cokery plant in the region. In the
        course of the IBA, an increasing number of stakeholders in the region
        accepted that these sites were not only scrapyards but also monuments of
        the industrial history of the region, and as such comparable to more
        conventional monuments such as churches. Re-defining abandoned
        industrial installations led to the creation of locations for cultural,
        recreational and business purposes. The re-definition involved an
        extensive learning process, and a profound change of mindsets, neither
        of which could have been planned strategically at the outset. At best,
        some people were able to formulate a vague vision which envisaged
        something like this. This is what perspectivic incrementalism is about:
        Try to formulate a perspective, a vision, so that you know where you
        want to head, and then try to get there step by step, without planning
        the fifth step before you have done the first one.
        
top