30.10.2024

Plastic

Building design

Prof. Ruth Keller and Dipl.-Rest. Dietmar Linke

Are plastics part of our cultural heritage? Do we generally need a research center for the restoration of such materials? Is systematic training for plastics restorers necessary and are there really no alternatives to plastics as a means of restoration? The “Plastics Heritage” symposium, from 22 to 24 October 2014 at HTW Berlin, offered Restauro the opportunity to talk to the organizers: Ruth Keller, Professor […]

The “Plastics Heritage” symposium, from 22 to 24 October 2014 at HTW Berlin, offered Restauro the opportunity to talk to the organizers: Ruth Keller, Professor of Restoration and Conservation Science at HTW Berlin, Dr. Dr.h.c. Günter Lattermann, Chairman of the German Society for the History of Plastics (dgkg) and lecturer at HTW Berlin and Dietmar Linke, graduate restorer and lecturer at HTW Berlin.

How did the idea of a conference jointly organized by the University of Applied Sciences (HTW) and the German Society for the History of Plastics (dgkg) come about?
Keller: We have been in contact for many years. Initially, there were discussions between Mr. Linke and Mr. Lattermann regarding a restoration. Mr. Lattermann now teaches our prospective restorers in the field of plastics. Back in 2012, we held an interdisciplinary “Meeting on the History of Plastics” at the university in Berlin-Oberschöneweide, which brought together restorers, regional planners and even art dealers. We have since founded DOMA, a documentation center for the history of materials, which collects literature, archive and sample materials.

Lattermann: The continuation of the “Forum Plastics History” conference series, which already took place in Cologne in 2009 and Bremen in 2011, is this year’s culmination of our long collaboration with 118 participants from twelve nations.

For over 100 years, plastics – refined natural materials and synthetic polymers – have played a decisive role in our everyday lives. It goes without saying that we are talking about “Plastics Heritage” at this conference. This was not always the case in the museum sector, as we heard in the presentations. When was there a rethink about perceiving plastic as a cultural asset?
Lattermann: The term “plastics heritage” was coined during the preparations for the symposium. In my opinion, the rethink has only just begun and it is still far from common knowledge to regard plastics as a material of cultural heritage. Not only in some museums, but also among the general public, there is still a sense of astonishment.

Museums that have objects made of plastic in their collections are faced with the problem that their objects age and require special restoration skills. How do you assess the training of conservators in this specialist field?
Linke: I assume that this was only systematically started in Germany in the mid-1990s. In the meantime, plastics have become an established part of teaching, for example at the universities in Berlin and Cologne, even if there is still no specialization in plastics restoration.

Does this make Germany a pioneer in the training of conservators for modern materials?
Linke: I think that the UK and Denmark in particular were very early adopters in this field. But even there, this is only a component of broader courses of study and not a separate course. I am not aware of any specialization in the training of plastics restorers.

Lattermann: In Italy and the Netherlands in particular, courses lasting several days are often offered where theoretical and practical knowledge in this field is taught.

Keller: Unfortunately, to my knowledge, plastic restoration has not yet been taught as a truly independent part of restoration. It will not be possible to systematically cover the large field of plastics restoration, that is a long-term task.

When did restorers recognize plastics as a material for restoration? Are there no alternatives to synthetic polymers in restoration?
Linke: Yes, that’s how I see it. Plastics have been used as a restoration material since the 1960s. Of course, many mistakes were made back then. Like many things in the field of restoration, working with synthetic polymers is a learning process. Of course, we also use natural polymers in restoration, for example as adhesives or supplementary compounds, but synthetic polymers are indispensable in certain applications.

There are thousands of different material compositions in the polymer sector. Variable additive compositions can completely change the properties of a material. More and more newly designed plastics are coming onto the market. How important is systematic research in this area and how dependent are restorers on the industry?
Keller: The manufacturers of the acrylic resins we frequently use don’t immediately call us when they change something in production. We base our choice of materials in part on publications from the 1980s and 1990s. There is an urgent need for an institution to carry out such studies. The Canadian Conservation Institute is a good example of international research, as is the private Getty in California. The research laboratories of the Staatliche Museen/Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz are not equipped for this in terms of personnel. Germany should set a good example in this respect, as the plastics industry was and is very important here.

Lattermann: Together with the USA, Germany is the birthplace of polymer science. The concept of macromolecules was invented by Staudinger. But I take a critical view of collaboration with industry, because the composition of the polymers or the various additives are trade secrets. Nobody will be able to disclose them voluntarily. However, such a research institute is fundamentally important and can be carried out in cooperation with polymer chemistry, i.e. also with university institutions.

Linke: The need for research in the field of plastics for restoration is enormous. It would be a sensible solution to establish a central research institute here. But of course not only for the field of modern materials, but also for all other restoration disciplines. Unfortunately, this has not yet come about due to the cultural sovereignty of the federal states and is damaging Germany as a restoration location in the long term. Short-term research projects lasting two years help to clarify certain issues in individual cases, but they are no alternative to the fundamental research and development work that is necessary.

One final question: will biopolymers play a role in restoration in the future?
Lattermann: Modern biopolymers are undoubtedly on the rise, but development has only just begun. However, not everything that has so far been produced from synthetic polymers and composites will be able to be covered by biopolymers in the future. However, for reasons of resource conservation and environmental protection, biopolymers will undoubtedly be increasingly used in the future. The problem of preserving and restoring modern biopolymers will then inevitably arise, as is already the case for semi-synthetic and fully synthetic polymers. But this is not yet acute, even though objects made of historical, natural polymers or biopolymers have long been part of our cultural heritage worth preserving as the oldest class of materials of all.

The interview was conducted by Heike Schlasse.

15.12.2024

Project

Viva la Piazza Zenetti

Building design

General

Since summer 2018, Piazza Zenetti in Munich has been an example of how a former parking lot can make neighbourly coexistence possible in a large city. Nevertheless, the planners responsible at raumzeug have to defend their project time and again.

Since summer 2018, Piazza Zenetti in Munich has been an example of how a rethought parking lot can make neighbourly coexistence possible in a large city. Nevertheless, the planners responsible at raumzeug have to defend their project time and again. G+L editor Theresa Ramisch presents the project here.

I always thought that the housing situation in Munich depended on how much money you had. But it’s actually a question of luck. At least if you believe the people of Munich. If you ask them where they live in the state capital, the classic answer is: “I was lucky.” Only after a meaningful pause is it revealed where the actual place of residence is. This is usually somewhere within or on the edge of the Mittlerer Ring. Well, or even in Großhadern. Happiness is subjective.
Yes, it takes a lot to find a suitable apartment in Munich. Money alone doesn’t always get you there. The pressure on space is enormous. So it’s no wonder that the financially weak creative scene in the Bavarian capital has little space left – for living and working. But also to initiate new projects. And this despite the fact that it offers so much potential for long-term urban development, as we discuss in the October 2019 issue of G+L.

But despite all these adversities, Munich’s creatives have managed to fight for a small inner-city area where creative bottom-up processes are once again possible. The Munich Schlachthofviertel. Here, players such as the Wanda e.V. association with Alte Utting or Bahnwärter Thiel are proving how creative projects can make a city like Munich – which is already considered to be highly liveable – even more attractive. What is special about the Schlachthofviertel, however, is that the Munich planning department is also jumping on the creative bandwagon that is currently thundering through the district. With the Piazza Zenetti.

Zenettiplatz led a dreary existence until the summer of 2018. There was no quality of stay here. Parking spaces defined the square. Nobody wanted to sit down and stay. But then, as part of the “City2share” project, the city invited tenders for the design of Zenettiplatz as a mobility station including a temporary neighborhood meeting place. The Munich office raumzeug was awarded the project and landscape architects Johann-Christian Hannemann and Felix Lüdicke developed a two-part square design, which is now – with further additions – in its second year.

The design

The southern area accommodates a wide range of mobility options with car-sharing parking spaces, e-charging stations and public transport bikes. The planners developed the northern area, which is part of the recreation and communication area, together with the residents in a needs analysis and a design concept. The result is a multifunctional, colorful square that is well received by the neighborhood.
An all-round, colorful piece of furniture – built as part of a participatory construction site – defines the spatial design. It encompasses the square and continues on the other side of the street, combining mobility with a place to stay. Six raised beds, a collection of potted plants and several rambling trees are responsible for the greenery on the otherwise very gray square.
In summer 2019, a carpet of grass was also added, which was only supposed to be here for two weeks. However, three dedicated neighborhood children campaigned to extend the lawn experiment over the entire summer – and beyond. The lawn is currently spending the winter at the neighbor’s, the Thiel railroad yard.

The use

The planners’ aim was to ensure that the square could be used for a variety of purposes. And they have achieved this. The surrounding (currently green) furniture can be used for sitting, working, but also for running around and playing. There is an information board, which acts as a bulletin board and reports on current activities in the piazza, as well as a book exchange shelf, a deposit niche, a swap board and lockable boxes for toys and tools. Simple, robust and functional – this triad best describes the character of the Piazza.

But wouldn’t parking spaces make more sense?

The planners actively involve the neighborhood with joint activities. One such campaign was the fountain experiment that took place in Piazza Zenetti in mid-July 2019. If you look at the pictures, it looks fun, doesn’t it? And it was. The sad thing is that not everyone is convinced by the fun. Even after two years – even shortly after such a successful event – Johann-Christian Hannemann and Felix Lüdicke in Isarvorstadt are still discussing whether the space is being used at all and whether ten parking spaces wouldn’t make more sense. The planners from raumzeug repeatedly hear “gentrification” criticism at the square: that they are only staging the functioning of the piazza and that the neighbors don’t use the square at all.
Are the critics right? My opinion: No. Firstly, a hundred meters further on, behind the underpass on Tumblingerstrasse, there are always free parking spaces. You just have to use them. Secondly, we should all be driving less anyway. Thirdly, the raised beds are blooming and growing. Why is that an argument? They are looked after by some extremely dedicated space and bed sponsors from the neighborhood. Doesn’t that alone speak for the fact that the community in Piazza Zenetti works? I mean, apart from the fact that there’s always someone sitting here? … Exactly. And fourthly: I’ve rarely been to a place in Munich where neighborly togetherness comes about as easily as in Piazza Zenetti. We don’t need to discuss the fact that neighborly togetherness is rare in a big city like Munich and is becoming increasingly rare. Nor do we need to discuss the fact that we need spaces without consumer pressure that bring us closer together as people, as neighbors, that counteract the increasing anonymity in the big city and that activate togetherness instead of coexistence. Public spaces should invite, not exclude. And that is precisely what the Piazza does. Thanks to the spatial design by Johann-Christian Hannemann and Felix Lüdicke, but also thanks to the social commitment of the planners themselves. They can be found in the Piazza every Wednesday from 6 p.m. for the neighborhood meeting “putz, plausch und plan”. And they don’t even live in the neighborhood. That’s what I call commitment.

Also interesting on this topic: You can find a commentary on why Munich in particular needs creative projects in the October 2019 issue of G+L (topic “Creative city”). Written by: Johann-Christian Hannemann and Felix Lüdicke. Take a look inside the magazine here.

Photos: Johann-Christian Hanneman (raumzeug)

27.03.2026

Advertising

Energy-efficient refurbishment – sustainable building envelopes with DOMICO

Building design

Domico, Energy-efficient refurbishment, Refurbishment

Transformation des Gebäudebestands als zentrale Zukunftsaufgabe

Die energetische Sanierung zählt zu den drängendsten Herausforderungen der europäischen Bau- und Immobilienwirtschaft. Insbesondere Gebäude aus den 1960er- und 1970er-Jahren stehen vor einem tiefgreifenden Modernisierungsbedarf. Verschärfte gesetzliche Anforderungen an EnergieeffizienzBrandschutzNachhaltigkeitGebäudehülleFassadeFassadenvorgehängte hinterlüftete FassadenDOMICOBrandschutzDämmungRaumklimaModulleiste „S“VorfertigungEffizienzDie Planum®-FassadensystemeNachhaltiges BauenGebäudehülleEnergieträgerPlanum®SolarLuftdichtheitFassadeEnergiePlanum®SolarGebäudehülleUnterkonstruktionGebäudehülleEnergieeffizienzFassadenPhotovoltaikWeitere Informationen zum Thema Sanierung finden Sie hier:

QR-Code – DOMICO Report „WOHNHAUSANLAGEN“