A Vision of Europe

The results of Task Force activities over four years were various. In Chinon the results were seen in a civic policy on renovation; in St. Petersburg in the renewal of the relationship between the city and the historic, but lately marginalised, Repin Institute - enabling it to play a part in certain kinds of city planning debate; in Bornstedt building has commenced on new villa blocks designed in accordance with Task Force guidelines; in Viterbo a Ł50-60m development proposal is now being put in place for the Sta Maria in Gradi Quarter, by a new Mayor, but in line with earlier Task Force guidelines; and in the cities of Potsdam and Berlin new impetus was given to old, tired, debates about the future of their vacated Castle Squares.

Funding for the Task Force came from a range of different sources – from participant fees, public funds (eg. EU programmes, or relevant national sources), private individuals, private trusts, and local businesses. Three of the Task Forces (Viterbo, Caprarola, Potsdam/Bornstedt) were published in book form by The Prince of Wales’s Institute, and others in the form of articles.

The Task Force sought to offer to a city a proposal which made sense on the level of urban form - reflecting both its historical armature, and its likely future development - and then to have this proposal discussed in a public forum. The collective vision which emerged from this was then mobilised in order to mount a critique of a range of processes - generative processes, the “hidden hand” of urban development. In general terms, these conventional processes tend to put the views of professionals before those of users, tend to be predicated on a fragmentation of professional specialisms, and tend to put functional, procedural, technical, image-related and economic considerations before those of form. The Task Force, over a very short period – of anything between two and four weeks – would formulate an urban proposal de novo. This proposal was intended to be clear didactically (in that the steps taken to reach it were made as clear as possible – showing the connections between community input, social context, and final proposal), and also comprehensible to those coming to it, or indeed to urban design, for the first time. The proposals presented to, and discussed with, local residents were always distinguished by a formal clarity and logic, though this was not to ignore matters of process, but rather to try to embody them in a discussable form *

* The advantages of doing this were never more clearly seen than at the exhibition mounted in the crypt of St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1988, when Arup Associates and John Simpson placed installations side-by-side, designed to elicit the views of the public about the future of Paternoster Square in London. While the former consisted of little more than a series of arrows disposed around a disembodied dome supported on a perspex cylinder, the latter was presented in the form of a strikingly well-developed, detailed model. It was no surprise that the public found the Simpson proposal the easier to engage with. As a result, public enthusiasm for certain elements of the Simpson scheme continued to guide planning on the Paternoster site for a long time thereafter, and even the current, disappointing, scheme was unable entirely to ignore them.

The Prince of Wales's Urban Design Task Force 1994-1998
The results
The results of Task Force activities over four years were various. In Chinon the results were seen in a civic policy on renovation; in St. Petersburg in the renewal of the relationship between the city and the historic, but lately marginalised, Repin Institute - enabling it to play a part in certain kinds of city planning debate; in Bornstedt building has commenced on new villa blocks designed in accordance with Task Force guidelines; in Viterbo a Ł50-60m development proposal is now being put in place for the Sta Maria in Gradi Quarter, by a new Mayor, but in line with earlier Task Force guidelines; and in the cities of Potsdam and Berlin new impetus was given to old, tired, debates about the future of their vacated Castle Squares. Funding for the Task Force came from a range of different sources – from participant fees, public funds (eg. EU programmes, or relevant national sources), private individuals, private trusts, and local businesses. Three of the Task Forces (Viterbo, Caprarola, Potsdam/Bornstedt) were published in book form by The Prince of Wales’s Institute, and others in the form of articles. Proposed Youth Hostel for Bornstedt The Task Force sought to offer to a city a proposal which made sense on the level of urban form - reflecting both its historical armature, and its likely future development - and then to have this proposal discussed in a public forum. The collective vision which emerged from this was then mobilised in order to mount a critique of a range of processes - generative processes, the “hidden hand” of urban development. In general terms, these conventional processes tend to put the views of professionals before those of users, tend to be predicated on a fragmentation of professional specialisms, and tend to put functional, procedural, technical, image-related and economic considerations before those of form. The Task Force, over a very short period – of anything between two and four weeks – would formulate an urban proposal de novo. This proposal was intended to be clear didactically (in that the steps taken to reach it were made as clear as possible – showing the connections between community input, social context, and final proposal), and also comprehensible to those coming to it, or indeed to urban design, for the first time. The proposals presented to, and discussed with, local residents were always distinguished by a formal clarity and logic, though this was not to ignore matters of process, but rather to try to embody them in a discussable form * * The advantages of doing this were never more clearly seen than at the exhibition mounted in the crypt of St. Paul’s Cathedral in 1988, when Arup Associates and John Simpson placed installations side-by-side, designed to elicit the views of the public about the future of Paternoster Square in London. While the former consisted of little more than a series of arrows disposed around a disembodied dome supported on a perspex cylinder, the latter was presented in the form of a strikingly well-developed, detailed model. It was no surprise that the public found the Simpson proposal the easier to engage with. As a result, public enthusiasm for certain elements of the Simpson scheme continued to guide planning on the Paternoster site for a long time thereafter, and even the current, disappointing, scheme was unable entirely to ignore them.

				Back to Urban Design Task Force

A Vision of Europe Viale Risorgimento 2 - 40136 Bologna Italy - Tel: 0039-051-656 9392 Fax: 0039-051-656 8778 www.avoe.org gabriele.tagliaventi@mail.ing.unibo.it Back to first page
Manifesto	Network	Architecture	Cityplanning	Exhibitions	Conferences	Publications	News