Governance Matters: Vienna is ranked top of the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Global Liveability Index 2023. What makes Vienna such a pleasant city to live in?

Eva Kail: One of the main reasons is that in Vienna we made significant early investments in public transport infrastructure. For example, our historic tram system remains intact and to this day is constantly expanded, unlike in cities such as Los Angeles where it was phased out as cars took over the streets. We also have quite a lot of nature within the city. Although not equally distributed, 50% of Vienna consists of green spaces. Vienna’s public administration is of a high quality, with social issues a central feature of policy-making. Although poverty exists, we, as the capital of Austria, are a wealthy city capable of investing in the quality of our infrastructure.

The freedom to make policy to fit local needs has also been helpful as planning issues are decentralised in Austria. As a federal state, Vienna makes its own building regulation and housing subsidy laws. Whenever I host foreign guests, I always make them guess which are the private housing projects and which are the subsidised houses in urban areas. The high standard of our subsidised houses is evident – very often they have no fences and boast better developed green spaces than their private counterparts.

‍

What do you think are Vienna’s priorities and challenges in urban planning in the next decade?

A huge challenge worldwide is the climate emergency and we must adapt our urban spaces accordingly. First, we need to go further on public transport and make other reforms to our mobility system to phase out private cars’ domination of our streets and explore newer, cleaner energy sources. Second, we need more space to plant trees, which enhance the micro-climate of dense cities by providing shade and cooling the air. Third, we must change our food production and consumer patterns. In this process, it is important to be on the ground to consider the technical questions and the ways in which we can best introduce blue-green infrastructure, which refers to public waterways and natural spaces.

During the industrial revolution, cities such as London and Paris underwent rapid transformation. We should aim to achieve this today as we improve the sustainability of our cities. As we do so, we need to consider the social impact and avoid technical solutions that end up affecting society negatively in the process. Securing public acceptance and encouraging behavioural change to promote sustainability are as important as infrastructure.

The media play a critical role in this. Mainstream discourse largely emphasises the threats to our quality of life from policies aimed at fighting the climate crisis and adapting to climate change, but in fact there are ample opportunities for our cities to become more liveable. If we change our mobility patterns, you will hear the birds singing again and get better air quality. You will see more children playing in the streets and roaming alone – an excellent indicator of a city’s liveability.

Achieving this requires the collective efforts of policymakers, as well as the buy-in of the public and the media. This is where Vienna has made significant strides. For example, in Aspern Seestadt, one of the largest urban development areas in Europe, we have an extensive public transport network, wide cycling paths, ample broad sidewalks, and citizen-sourced mobility suggestions. The result is more sustainable living and higher quality of life.

‍

How can urban planners and city managers design a city that is useful to everyone?

In Vienna, we have developed highly structured but simple fairness checks. First, we define the target groups likely to use a particular space. Then, we consider the spatial design while standing in the shoes of these target groups. In one urban analysis, we did this by role-playing as a child and an old man with walking difficulties. These exercises helped us to visualise the urban environment and assess how people experience it. Through these checks, we realised that we were missing certain things that would affect critical and vulnerable groups, so we had to re-evaluate certain planning parameters.

As well as influencing new developments, it is also important to evaluate and improve on the use of existing parks or public spaces. To do this, it is critical to spend time on-site and get to know the needs of the intended users. For example, when we were looking at redesigning Reumannplatz, a well known public square in Vienna, we sent multilingual planners armed with cakes and coffees to conduct surveys for a weekend.

We wanted to hear from everybody, including migrant communities and homeless people who are typically overlooked. Even with these inclusive methods, we struggled to reach everybody. The square reopened in 2020 with the adoption of gender-sensitive design principles. It now features workout stations, more than 50 new trees, and a redesigned playground. It also has a large podium named Mädchenbühne (girls’ stage), in response to a request by local schoolgirls for a performance space. The podium can of course be used by other groups, but the name marks an invitation for girls to take their space.

Urban design in new urban development areas can be tricky, with many issues to consider. Targeted densities are crucial to creating high-quality green spaces. We need a certain level of density in order for housing to be affordable and close to shops, restaurants, transport infrastructure, and everything else that residents need. However, too high a level of building density does not allow for enough good quality public or semi-public green areas.

There is a similar issue with sunlight as cramming too many tall buildings together can block it out.  When evaluating the urban design proposal for a new area that included a primary school we asked the developers to produce shading diagrams for their design proposal. It showed that the open space and the outdoor facilities of the school and the  playgrounds of a kindergarten would not receive any sunlight in spring or autumn. This prompted us to recommend that the developers reduce the gross floor space slightly and rearrange the buildings to offer some sunlight on the ground. The position of the kindergarten was also changed to create a larger and better lit outdoor area.

‍

What is gender mainstreaming and how did it come to be applied to city planning in Vienna?

Gender mainstreaming is a policy that aims to achieve equal structural conditions for men and women. A step up from that would be the Gender Plus process, which goes beyond biological sex to delve into other factors such as age and social or cultural background. In Vienna, we use these approaches to create what we call a Fair Shared City, which is liveable for all.

I started working on this some 30 years ago, before the term “gender mainstreaming” even existed. In 1991, while working in the Urban Renewal Unit, together with a colleague I organised a photography exhibition called “Who Owns Public Space? Women’s Everyday Life in the City”. It featured eight women from a range of backgrounds navigating different life situations through the city and attracted more than 4,000 visitors. Among the things it highlighted were the spaces where women felt anxious and threatened, as well as the spaces of well-being. At that time, nobody was discussing pedestrian needs and public space. The exhibition helped to highlight those issues through the prism of women’s perspectives.

I was later asked to head the first Women’s Office in Vienna, a department created to tackle women’s issues and that also launched projects related to gender-sensitive urban design. In 1993, we established the Frauen-Werk-Stadt (Women-Work-City) project – to date the largest of its kind in Europe – in which female architects designed a small new neighbourhood in Vienna prioritising women’s practical needs.

These unique dwellings had family rooms facing courtyards where children could play outdoors freely. A kindergarten, a pharmacy, and a doctor were situated within the development. Other amenities within walking distance included a supermarket, other shops, and a primary school. We also placed a tram stop just outside the front of the apartment block to help keep walking distances short, which is important for working parents and homemakers. There were also places to store prams on every floor, which any parent will know makes a lot of difference. We also designed staircases that led directly to the underground carpark to minimise the walking distance. These were things being missed when planning decisions were being taken from the perspective of men in their traditional breadwinner roles.

This first project was completed in 1997 and a second one at another location in 2004. It was considered revolutionary at the time as it demonstrated the practical application of gender-sensitive design and paved the way towards creating a Fair Shared City.

‍

One of the challenges you faced was to get the city and public administration on board with new initiatives. How did you gain the trust and buy-in of stakeholders within the public service?

It is essential first to secure political support. A good strategy is to start with a pilot programme, because that enables politicians to assess the situation. It allays their doubts when you say, “It is just a pilot to try out something.” Of course, you choose the pilot carefully because it must be successful. This involves perfecting the framework and securing adequate finances and timetables for a realistic chance of success. To convince policymakers, you must also translate social issues into their technical language.

For four years, in the pilot district of Mariahilf, a large number of coworkers and stakeholders within the public service were part of our pilot process. Engaging with coworkers in departments charged with governing different aspects of public space led to practical improvements being proposed. In one instance, somebody proposed flashing the green pedestrian signal three seconds earlier because many pedestrians had been irritated by cars coming around the corner.

In my experience, I believe we should be enthusiastic but pragmatic. You can always make an impact on an individual level, but it is much more effective to work from an existing institutional policy. It is good also to be vocal about the positive impacts of your design.

Finally, people often complain that there is no or insufficient data. Having data is important, but so is using common sense and putting yourself in the shoes of others. I have always wondered why technical details take such a high precedence over the user experience. This is prevalent in the architectural field because the professional bubble often becomes disconnected from practical user needs. Urban planners, particularly those of us interested in considering gender and other needs, need to think about making sure people are at the heart of the cities we design.