Architects and we as viewers attach great importance to occupying a special discursive position. “Architects have their own language” was one of the conclusions of a survey that we at Baumeister conducted with well-known architects in 2011. We cultivate our “discourse” and assume that its level is higher than the common chatter out there. […]

Architects and we as viewers attach great importance to occupying a special discursive position. “Architects have their own language” was one of the conclusions of a survey that we at Baumeister conducted with well-known architects in 2011. We cultivate our “discourse” and assume that its level is higher than the common chatter out there.

But is that still true in the age of social media? You get the impression: not automatically anymore. As soon as there is a debate about architecture on Facebook and the like, the rhetorical quick-fire is not far away. The rapidly escalating debate about the Herzog de Meuron design for the Berlin Kulturforum was a good example of this. Now Volker Staab is finding out how quickly an architectural competition decision can become a net political issue – with all the unpleasant side effects. The striking but not demonstratively “historically aware” design for the ensemble around Cologne Cathedral is the subject of heated debate. And it is not always on a level playing field.

The debate first arose on the Facebook page of the Cologne information platform www.koelnarchitektur.de. One user wrote: “a tragedy… no, hell paired with cultivated boredom”. “a mosque would probably be nicer”, another user added.

Anyone who publishes online will know: This kind of expression of opinion is rather mild in the rhetoric of the Internet. Nevertheless, the creators of Kölnarchitektur were not amused and felt compelled to reprimand their own community. “I dislike your attitude…extremely,” wrote one editor (again on Facebook), “especially as it by no means meets the standards of our readers, who, knowing the location and history, see more than blocks and grid facades…Let’s keep it level.”

The reaction of the Cologne-based architecture journalist is understandable. In fact, debates on the Internet quickly lose form and any kind of scale. There is uninhibited trolling. Even when discussing architecture. I recently dealt with this topic myself in a book on architecture and communication. The desire for a discursive style consensus is understandable. Especially when, as in the case of Cologne, a political note is added, branding contemporary architecture as an expression of an uninhibited delight in the forms of historical clichés. This could quickly throw an architectural discussion into the argumentative waters of the new right.

But this is precisely where I think there is an opportunity. So let me put it provocatively: How would it be if we as architecture journalists saw discursive trolling as an opportunity? In other words, if we manage to make the vision of a modern, non-traditionalist country heard by discussing architecture? It is precisely this vision that is currently under attack from AfD and co. And the advocates of an open society occasionally seem to be running out of arguments. Architecture that gives precisely this society a profile is quickly treated by AfD supporters as a symptom of decay. However, it is ultimately an expression of precisely what makes this (our) society attractive and appealing. This could be highlighted – and thus counter the trolls. But it would mean that we as discussants would have to do more than just share the same arguments with the same friends – and meet the vulgar rest with indignation.

The June issue of Baumeister is dedicated to the German Pavilion in Venice and provides exclusive insights into the concept and the history of its creation.

An unusual cover adorns our June issue. Instead of elegant architecture, we see a pile of stones. The cover picture is a suggestive snapshot from the German Pavilion in Venice. It opened last Friday and focuses on Germany as a country of migration in response to the refugee crisis.

The German Pavilion thus makes an important contribution to broadening society’s understanding of the current migration processes. It addresses the architectural and urban planning implications of the fact that Germany is also a country of immigration – whether we like it or not.

Baumeister, in collaboration with the curators of the German Pavilion, is also dedicated to this topic. We present the eight central theses by journalist Doug Saunders, which also form a core part of the exhibition in the Giardini in Venice. In advance, the Baumeister editorial team spoke to Doug Saunders about his theses.

In an exclusive essay, the curators, a team from the Deutsches Architekturmuseum in Frankfurt led by director Peter Cachola Schmal and curator Oliver Elser, explain the concept of the pavilion – and the title of their exhibition, “Making Heimat”. The essay also provides an insight into the radical implementation of the concept, which represents one of the biggest interventions in the history of the German Pavilion.