Planning and design for long-term neighborhood adaptability: an investigation of the formation and evolution of Kreuzviertel in Dortmund, Germany

Abstract

This article addresses the question of how to develop planning and design frameworks capable of accommodating long-term neighborhood adaptability. Despite recent studies offering normative ideas to tackle this challenge, there is a noticeable shortage of investigations examining the effective role of planning in the genesis and evolution of successful existing urban areas. In helping to bridge this research gap, the article undertakes a comprehensive study of planning and design measures which has guaranteed the formation and evolution of Kreuzviertel, in Dortmund, Germany. It analyses the neighborhood’s genesis, contemporary urban planning characteristics, factors contributing to its appeal, and the effective contributions of planning and design interventions to its success. The article reflects on this case study and more general implications on the topic.

Introduction

The literature offers many ideas about how a good city or neighborhood should look. A common belief is that wise master plans and detailed plans can directly create successful and attractive urban areas. This belief is frequently reflected in university faculties of planning and design, where students learn how to design large-scale urban projects in great detail but seldom study the characteristics and genesis of urban areas that people prefer. For instance, when considering cities like Venice or Amsterdam, many observers focus on their physical shape and architectural appearance. However, how many would be willing to investigate the codes and institutions that made slow, open-ended, and incremental evolution in these places possible? (Akbar 1988; Vance 1990; Kostof 1991; Habraken 1998; Hakim 20082016; Romano 20082010; Slaev et al. 2022; Thinh and Kamalipour 2022) (Figs. 1, 2, and 3).

Fig. 1 

Neighborhoods’ blocks codification

Fig. 2 

Area of interest and surrounding area for comparisons of Kreuzviertel

Fig. 3 

Building incremental evolution in Kreuzviertel. Data reworked from Barrenbrügge (2006, p. 64)

The great misconception in this approach to city planning and design is that many dynamic aspects of urban development, as well as people’s preferences—especially over a long period of time—are beyond planners’ control (Moroni and Cozzolino 2019). In order to deal with this issue, recent works stressed that a good plan should be able to accommodate long-term changes and processes that cannot be forecast once and forever at the beginning of the design phase. The main point is that planning and the continuous emergence of spontaneous social-spatial configuration should not be seen as dichotomous elements but as complementary ones (Ikeda 2017; Kamalipour and Dovey 2017; Bertaud 2018; Cozzolino et al. 2020; Cozzolino 2022; Debray et al. 2023). In other words, a good plan should be flexible enough to accommodate open-ended scenarios despite the problems and uncertainties that this might cause. Following Lang (2005, p. 367): “An efficient design today may not be so in the future. The design goal is thus to allow for change, to create urban designs that are robust, whose parts are easy to change. Short-term inefficiencies may prove to be long-run efficiencies. Elements of urban form, buildings in particular, should be able to be adapted or removed with relative ease”.

An increasing number of studies suggest possible planning and design approaches to accommodate long-term urban adaptability. What literature generally labels as adaptive urbanism (Verebes 2013; Buitelaar et al. 2014; Alfasi et al. 2020; Cozzolino 2020; Carter and Moroni 2022; Tsahor et al. 2023) or plot-based urbanism (Mehaffy 2008; Love and Crawford 2011; Porta et al. 2016; Tarbatt 20122017; Rudlin and Hemani 2019; Romice et al. 2020) are two approaches which directly seek to answers to this challenge. Nevertheless, there is a shortage of studies analyzing the formation and evolution of ordinary areas and what planning measures have ensured their success. A particularly interesting work in this regard is Easterly et al. (2016). However, this study primarily focuses on the long-term evolution of the economic vocation of an urban area rather than the planning conditions that facilitated them.

This article carefully considers this issue. It investigates the design and evolution of Kreuzviertel in Dortmund, Germany, a highly appreciated neighborhood often indicated as a “place to be” by many Dortmunders. It suggests that valuable insights can be gained by studying how city areas that people like and appreciate have emerged and formed over time, by focusing on the design framework that enabled their long-term formation processes and the real role planners played in their success.

This article first analyses the genesis of Kreuzviertel (Section “Design and evolution of Kreuzviertel”; this section is supported by historical maps, from Figs. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11) and its main contemporary urban planning characteristics, i.e., those socio-spatial aspects that typically fall within the purview of planning (Section “Contemporary characteristics of Kreuzviertel”; this section presents nine analytical thematic maps, from Figs. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20). It then discusses the neighborhood’s most appreciated factors and the effective contribution made by planning and design measures to their formation. The article concludes with some reflections on the effective role of planning and its interrelation with unpredictable emergent phenomena (Fig. 21).

Fig. 4 

Dortmund historical map, 1878 (from Dortmund City Archive)

Fig. 5 

Historical map, 1878 (from Dortmund City Archive)

Fig. 6 

Historical map, 1898: first street layout (from Dortmund City Archive)

Fig. 7 

Historical map, 1902: street layout revision (from Dortmund City Archive)

Fig. 8 

Historical map, 1910 (from Dortmund City Archive)

Fig. 9 

Historical map, 1920 (from Dortmund City Archive)

Fig. 10 

Historical map, 1934 (from Dortmund City Archive)

Fig. 11

Source: Imagery @2023 Google, Map data @2023 Google

Kreuzviertel after the Second World War (from Dortmund City Archive) and nowadays.

Fig. 12 

Perimeters of blocks

Fig. 13 

Sealed surface

Fig. 14 

Average size of buildings

Fig. 15 

Population density

Fig. 16 

Courtyard types

Fig. 17 

Buildings year of construction

Fig. 18 

Public/private interfaces

Fig. 19 

Land use distribution

Fig. 20 

Gathering open spaces and amenities distribution

Fig. 21 

The main structural elements that have influenced the design and long-term development of the neighborhood

In addition to various analytical and exploratory maps, the article provides a selection of carefully located relevant photographs (Fig. 22) to illustrate some prominent aspects of the area (from Figs. 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, and 40).

Fig. 22 

Map of photos

Fig. 23 

A restaurant in the heart of the neighborhood near Heilig-Kreuz-Kirche

Fig. 24 

A restaurant in the central intersection between Neuer Graben and Liebigstraße, one of the busiest areas in the neighborhood

Fig. 25 

One of the kiosks in the neighborhood, located along Lindemannstraße. Kiosks are small shops that offer various basic services. They are primarily used for purchasing beverages

Fig. 26 

A view of Schillingstraße, the only “curved” street in the neighborhood

Fig. 27 

A bar at the intersection of Kreuzstraße and Arneckestraße

Fig. 28 

A view of Neuer Graben showcasing the architectural quality of some historic buildings and the neighbourhood’s predisposition to be pedestrian and bike-friendly

Fig. 29 

An example of buildings constructed after World War II that have maintained the same morphological layout. The two buildings in the photo are located on Arneckestraße

Fig. 30

Decorations on a façade in Liebigstraße

Fig. 31 

A small private courtyard with various functions situated along the eastern end of Neuer Graben

Fig. 32 

An example of the public/private interface of the neighborhood. The photo depicts the sidewalk on Weisbachstraße

Fig. 33 

An example of the public/private interface of the neighborhood along a tree-lined street with large planters placed between the sidewalk and the buildings. The photo portrays Arneckestraße

Fig. 34 

A frequented area of the neighborhood, near the Fachschule at the intersection of Neuer Graben and Weisbachstraße

Fig. 35 

A view of the central part of Arneckestraße. An example of an intimate street and a calm environment

Fig. 36 

A view of some buildings located along the northern part of Lindemannstraße, near the central junction Möllerbrücke

Fig. 37 

Some historic buildings situated along Kreuzstraße, heading towards Lindemannstraße

Fig. 38 

A group of young people crossing the Möllerbrücke

Fig. 39 

A view of the popular Möllerbrücke that represents one of the main socialization spots in the city

Fig. 40 

A sight of the southern section of West Park, previously a cemetery, which attracts a large number of young people during the summer

Methodology

The study moved through five main steps. The first involved the area selection and collection of primary data and sources. The choice of neighborhood boundaries was inspired by Barrenbrügge’s book Das Dortmunder Kreuzviertel (2006) and Lynch’s concepts of edges and districts (1960). To proceed with the analysis, blocks included in the area were codified (Fig. 1) and historical maps and the primary regulative instruments that had shaped the development of the neighborhood collected from the Dortmund City Archive.

The second step involved analysis of the neighborhood’s incremental formation by comparing several historical maps. Moreover, many items of information were collected by means of a literature review based on different sources and documents. Barrenbrügge (2006) and Hnilica (2016) were of great help in this regard.

The third step consisted of the synchronic analysis of Kreuzviertel’s main planning characteristics. Part of the analysis was limited within the neighborhood’s boundaries, while other findings resulted from comparisons of Kreuzviertel with its surrounding area (radius 1.5 km; Fig. 2). The analyses were conducted using a Geomonitoring Information System (GIS) and partially with direct observation methods.

The fourth step was analysis of the area’s most appreciated aspects based on the selection of 50 online sources such as blogs, local guides, books, magazines, videos, newspapers, podcasts, and real estate websites describing Kreuzviertel (Table 2). This step required an extensive qualitative categorization of the collected neighborhood descriptions. The author asserts these sources’ validity within the article’s ambit, as they exemplify what people value in the area. The portrayals of Kreuzviertel gleaned from these sources may not proffer the same degree of exactitude as individual questionnaires or interviews. Yet, it achieves the goal of outlining the preferred characteristics of Kreuzviertel.

The last step involved assessment of the role of planning in the generation of those aspects appreciated in the area: that is, an evaluation of those planning choices that had contributed to the contemporary appreciation of Kreuzviertel.

Design and evolution of Kreuzviertel

Dortmund is one of the principal cities of the Ruhr area, a northwest German region that became a major industrial center for coal and steel production during the nineteenth century. A small town before the industrialization period, Dortmund quickly expanded into a modern city, with its population rising from 44,400 in 1871 to 142,700 inhabitants in 1900 and 542,200 in 1939. The city, which currently has about 588,000 inhabitants, owes most of its expansion to this historical period (ca. 1870–1940). Other crucial characteristics of Dortmund are attributable to its reconstruction after the Second World War and then its deindustrialization period (ca. 1970/1980) with the consequent economic stagnation and slow, still ongoing, redevelopment.

The evolution of Kreuzviertel is distinguished here according to five phases: (i) the Pre-development expansion plan (before 1898); (ii) the housing boom (1898–1913); (iii) the interwar period (1914–1945); (iv) postwar reconstruction (1946–1970); (v) neighborhood consolidation (from 1970 until today).

Phase 1: Pre-development expansion plan (before 1898)

The origin of Kreuzviertel dates back to the development expansion plan in 1898 (Fig. 6). However, its urbanization process started in 1848 with the construction of a railway and, later on, the station Dortmund-South (future Stadthaus) in 1874. Due to the city’s rapid expansion, in 1893, the municipality built Südwestfriedhof, a new cemetery just south of Kreuzviertel, and with it came Große Heimstraße (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 44). At that time, the Kreuzviertel area was almost empty, except for a few elements that would play a fundamental role in determining the further development of the neighborhood: among them, the canal Neuer Graben, which traverses the area horizontally, and a few streets; specifically, Hohe Straße (the main gateway to the city), Kreuzstraße (which cuts the diagonally across the neighborhood), Sonnenstraße (a street running along the railway in the northern part of the neighborhood) and the newly built Große Heimstraße, which represents the western boundary of the area under study.

As visible on the maps (Figs. 4, 5, and 6), only a few buildings were present in the area at that time, and they were mainly located along Hohe Straße and Kreuzstraße. This first phase ended with the construction of the Agricultural School (1895) and the School of Mechanical Engineering (1897) in Sonnenstraße. This intervention would have a relevant influence on the area’s contemporary universitarian character.

Phase 2: The housing boom (1898–1913)

The earliest design concept for the development of Kreuzviertel was formalized in 1898 (Fig. 6) and was a typical design of the urban expansion plans of that period in Germany (Bentlin 2023). It featured a large triangular square in its center and several diagonal streets connecting with it to form relatively large plots. However, the original design was not implemented due to resistance raised by the local landowners, who preferred a more regular layout more closely aligned with their existing property boundaries (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 47). To accommodate landowners’ demands, the municipality engaged in negotiations and redesigned a more regular street grid (Fig. 7). A land-coupling process was also implemented in order to reorganize existing land parcels and prepare them for individual development (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 41). The final development scheme resulted from both the landowners’ reluctance to allocate a large amount of land for public use and the municipality’s inability to support expropriation costs financially (Hnilica 2016).

As apparent in the 1898 and 1902 maps (Figs. 6, 7), certain already-existing urban structures influenced the development process. Among them, Kreuzstraße (which, with the new plan, gained greater importance), the Neuer Graben canal, which was then converted into the main artery of the neighborhood, and the two north–south streets, Hohe Straße and Große Heimstraße. Interestingly, the Schillingstraße of today exhibits a slight curvature in both development plan versions. This choice was dictated by the presence of an old factory. To this day, Schillingstraße is the only “irregular” street in the neighborhood (Fig. 21).

Streets in the neighborhood began to be paved and illuminated only in 1910. Most of them remained unfished until most of the buildings were completed. The construction of buildings proceeded incrementally from east to west (Fig. 8). According to Hnilica (2016), the municipality had no real control over the private construction process. However, the Dortmunder Bürgerbuch (Dortmund Citizen’s Book), published in 1898, set out several principles that regulated the construction of buildings. These rules were not particularly intrusive in architectural and functional choices. Besides stipulating procedures for obtaining the building permit, they dealt mainly with aspects such as street alignment, guidelines for design of facades, safety issues (i.e., fire, gas, and how to treat wooden structures), nuisances (i.e., smell, noise, vibration), building heights and distances, and maximum building area.¹ These rules were prevalently general (i.e., equally applicable to the whole municipal area) and negative (establishing mainly what to avoid and prevent).²

A crucial aspect of the Dortmunder Bürgerbuch, which would impact the future of Kreuzviertel, was the introduction of a legal distinction among three main zones in the city: (i) the historic city center, (ii) areas for expansions with no industry, and (iii) areas for expansions with industry. Following this distinction, in 1907 the Stadtplan declared Kreuzviertel a factory-free area (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 46). This choice determined a regime of exclusivity compared to the northern part of the city, which developed a more productive vocation (Hnilica 2016, p. 46). This initiative contributed to differentiating between the different development processes and reputations of the southern and northern parts of the city, with Nordstadt “restricted” to being a place for workers and immigrants (Fischer-Krapohl 2013; Flacke et al. 2016; Hans and Hanhörster 2020; Wittowsky et al. 2020; Shaev 2021).

In this phase, the street-grid plan was adjusted to meet new needs. For example, in 1904, the municipality created Vinckeplatz, a public green square which was not included in the initial development plan. Another change concerned the creation of additional streets because landowners considered some blocks too large (e.g., blocks 9, 10 and 11 in Fig. 1; Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 51).

Kreuzviertel experienced the fastest development rate in this phase, with most of the blocks being developed or initiated by 1914 (Fig. 9). In parallel to the development of residential buildings, new schools (e.g., Köngliches Gymnasium, Overberg, Pestalozzi and an infant school) and a neighborhood church (Kreuzkirche) were built as well. With the progressive development of the neighborhood, in 1912 the nearby old cemetery was converted into a public park named Westpark.

Phase 3: Between the two World Wars (1914–1945)

With the beginning of the First World War, the construction pace decreased substantially (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 101; see Fig. 3). This was due to a lesser availability of land—most of the plots had already been developed—as well as the war’s economic and social impact. Between 1914 and 1920, there was less building activity by private developers, while there were some initiatives by non-profit-housing associations (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 103). In 1923, the construction activity resumed, with new private initiatives and several public interventions. For example, the municipality created allotment gardens and developed three new tramlines connecting the area to Südwestfriedhof, Barop, and Hombruch (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 106). In 1927, important sports facilities were constructed near the neighborhood, such as a public swimming pool (Freibad Volkspark) and the stadium Rote Erde (adjacent to today’s Signal Iduna, the home of Borussia Dortmund).

The erection of public buildings continued with the construction of new administrative offices, schools, and churches. The main idea was to cluster some significant public functions in the area (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 134). By 1934 (Fig. 10), most of the neighborhood was built up except for a few empty lots.

Phase 4: The reconstruction (1946–1970)

The disastrous effects of the Second World War are particularly visible in Dortmund, with about 66% of the built environment seriously damaged or demolished by bombs (Schildt 2007). Notably, a bombing raid in March 1945 almost completely destroyed the historic city center, which was later rebuilt in the car-oriented modernist style typical of the 1950s. As for the rest of the city, Kreuzviertel suffered from war damage, but less than the city center (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 167). Although the demolished buildings in Kreuzviertel were often substituted with modernist architecture, unlike the city center, the overall morphological scheme of the neighborhood was kept unchanged (Fig. 11).

After the Second World War, investments restarted with strategic public interventions. For example, the municipality built a new school in Liebigstraße, rebuilt the one in Lindemannstraße, and reconstructed St. Nicolai Kirche and Kreuzkirche (Barrenbrügge 2006, pp. 180–181). By the end of this phase (1970), almost all the damage to private buildings had been repaired, with several new buildings built anew on empty lots. The reconstruction of the demolished buildings took time because construction materials were hard to find and often unavailable for private initiatives (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 168).

Phase 5: Neighborhood consolidation towards today’s image (from 1970 until today)

In the 1970s, Kreuzviertel received an influx of younger people and started to be characterized by a “progressive” (political) connotation that was important in addressing some future neighborhood policies (e.g., introducing measures for the preservation of historic buildings; Barrenbrügge 2006, pp. 200–201).

In the 1980s, the area experienced the opening of larger supermarkets and a slow change in neighborhood shops. In 1984, the Möllerbrücke station became the neighborhood’s principal transportation hub. In those years, diverse design concepts to favor pedestrians and cyclists were proposed, and some playgrounds added to courtyards (Barrenbrügge 2006, p. 194). The 1990s saw an increase in international residents and a rise in the number of shops, restaurants, and pubs. The tram lines passing through the area were removed in 2002, and some “bicycle parking houses” were built across the neighborhood. In 2005, the school in Lindemannstraße was demolished, and in 2006 the Fachhochschule moved to Sonnenstraße (Barrenbrügge 2006, pp. 189–201).

As evidenced by the analysis of numerous sources (see Table 2), today, the area is celebrated for its historic character, a good range of shops, pubs, and restaurants, and various initiatives aiming at improving its quality, especially for pedestrians and cyclists. It is largely frequented by young people.

Contemporary characteristics of the Kreuzviertel

Compared to its surroundings, Kreuzviertel has relatively small blocks ranging from 0.2 to 2.2 ha, with an average size of 0.9 ha (Fig. 12). Besides block 5 (2.2 ha), the large block of the Fachhochschule (the university building), all the others are smaller than 1.6 ha, with 19 blocks out of 30 being less than 1 ha. Blocks’ shape is generally compact and regular, with edges less than 100 m long (most ranging between 70 and 85 m). This configuration generates a high level of permeability, that is, the presence of multiple street intersections, which guarantees the existence of possible alternative walking routes and facilitates more interchanges between private and public spaces (Van Nes 2008; Dovey and Wood 2015; Van Nes and Yamu 2021).

Kreuzviertel has an average of 72% sealed surfaces, ranging from 48 to 93%, with 16 blocks out of 30 with more than 70% (Fig. 13). Compared to the immediate surrounding, the neighborhood has a large amount of sealed surface (which is, however, less than the city center, where blocks reach peaks of 95%). Most of the land in the neighborhood is built up with only a little room left for green spaces, which are usually located in courtyards or along streets, as in the case of flowerbeds and rows of trees. An exception is Vinckeplatz, a relatively green square that, however, plays a marginal role in the neighborhood due to its location. The actual green area of the neighborhood is concentrated in Westpark (ca. 9 ha), the former city cemetery turned into an urban park. Its importance exceeds the neighborhood scale, with many people frequenting it for various purposes (Wilker and Gruehn 2017).

An essential characteristic of the area is the presence of courtyards in each block (Fig. 16). Courtyards are of various kinds and have various uses (Table 1). Most are privately owned and used (23 out of 30). Of these, 12 are collectively used by their inhabitants but not accessible by external visitors (type B), while 11 are privately used but fragmented in many small properties (type C). In total, only seven courtyards in the neighborhood are publicly accessible; three are open for recreational purposes (e.g., public gardens; type A), and four are for commercial uses (type D). Hence, the presence of courtyards, although it has different characteristics within the neighborhood, is a typical and constituent feature of the area.

Table 1 Blocks characteristics

On average, buildings have footprints smaller than that of the surrounding area (Fig. 14). This contributes to greater diversity (e.g., architectural, functional, proprietary) and an overall “picturesque” character. Moreover, despite the bombings during the Second World War, a large proportion of the building stock dates back to between 1890 and 1940, with only a small part built after the Second World War (Fig. 17). Although the buildings constructed after 1950 have a different style, to be emphasized is that they have maintained almost the same footprint as those demolished during the war. The main difference concerns their architectural style. While pre-war buildings are rich with decorations in their facades, post-war ones are plain and simple.

The streets in the neighborhood are mainly intimate, and their conformation does not favor car circulation (although the presence of cars is high in the area, with many of them parked on the street: Scheiner et al. 2020). An important aspect concerns the prevalent types of interfaces between buildings and streets (Fig. 18). Drawing inspiration from the work of Dovey and Wood (2015), the three principal types in the area are—definitions by the author—(i) connected (i.e., buildings with active ground floors for commercial uses directly accessible from sidewalks); (ii) direct (i.e., buildings without active ground floors or public functions but aligned to the street and in direct relation with sidewalks); and (iii) indirect (i.e., buildings are aligned to the street but are physically separated by the presence of small green spaces). Finally, a small number of interfaces in the area is (iv) disconnected (i.e., a situation in which buildings are not connected and aligned with the street but are physically distant and separated). In short, Kreuzviertel is generally characterized by a close interrelation between the buildings and the streets, which stimulates an active use of ground floors and sidewalks and, therefore, a vivid street life.

Another characteristic of the area contributing to public life and vibrancy is the presence of different functions (Fig. 19). While 55% of the buildings are fully residential, the remaining 45%, although primarily residential, present a wide range of uses. The retail activities are uniformly distributed within the area, with a higher concentration along Lindemannstraße, Neuer Graben, and Kreuzstraße. An interesting aspect is that some popular bars, cafés, and restaurants are not located on the main streets but in the very heart of the neighborhood (Fig. 20). This characteristic constantly attracts visitors into the area.

Lastly, an important feature is the presence of a high concentration of residents in the area (Fig. 15). Despite its mixed-used vocation, Kreuzviertel is a prevalently a residential area. This aspect guarantees a constant presence of people in the neighborhood. Unlike Dortmund’s city center, which is almost exclusively commercial and retail-oriented (most of the blocks in the city center have fewer than ten residents per hectare) or other nearby lower-density residential areas (usually with a local population ranging from 100 or 200 inhabitants per hectare), Kreuzviertel has a population density that, in most of its blocks, exceeds 300 inhabitants per hectare.

What people like about Kreuzviertel

This section focuses on what makes Kreuzviertel “a place to be” (in Dortmund, at least). Therefore, it emphasizes the main positive aspects of the neighborhood, meaning that some negative or critical aspects of the area may not emerge from the analysis. The study analyzed 50 online sources describing the area (Table 2). The result was a collection of 320 aspects relevant to the description of the neighborhood, which were grouped for similarities into six main categories. These are now ranked in terms of their intensity/recurrency: (i) quality of life and culture, (ii) economic activities and amenities, (iii) built environment, (iv) population, (v) real estate value, (vi) transport and accessibility. That which is called “real estate value” is a special category.

Table 2 Sources and analysis of the area’s most appreciated characteristics

The most recurrent aspect concerns the quality of life and lifestyle/culture of the area. This category includes features contributing to the consolidated “trendy” image of the area, rich in leisure and recreational opportunities, but also offering a well-balanced combination of urban atmosphere and residential tranquility. The mix of residential functions and a fine-grained mixed-used urban fabric is central in many descriptions of the area. This aspect is widely considered to be the main factor making the neighborhood a desirable place to live. The area is also described as “peaceful”, “colorful”, “pulsating”, and “vibrant”; offering a “village feeling” and a pleasant street life.

The second aspect concerns the concentration of economic activities and amenities in the area. From the analysis emerges the appreciation for diverse gastronomic alternatives, multiple places (such as bars, pubs, and cafes) in which to “hang out” at different times, and a variety of small and independent stores combined with the presence of supermarkets for everyday shopping. It also emerges that other functions (e.g., the university or the nearby hospital, stadium, and Dortmund Messe) give even more variety to the neighborhood. A positive characteristic of the area is that it offers a nightlife scene more attractive than other areas in the city.

The third most recurrent aspect concerns the built environment. A salient feature is the presence of many restored old buildings with original and well-kept facades. Analysis shows the appreciation for the highly decorated and colorful Wilhelmine and Art Nouveau buildings (which are not so easily findable in such a concentrated manner elsewhere in the city), combined with well-proportionated streets, most of them tree-lined and with broad sidewalks. The overall perception is that of a charming area which is also pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly. Besides the general characteristic of the urban fabric, Westpark is a major attraction factor.

Also evident in the various descriptions is the role played by the type of population living and frequenting the neighborhood. The area is praised for having a mix of different generations and a strong attachment to it by its inhabitants, which generates a “community feeling”. From the analysis emerges that students, academics, freelancers, and artists/designers choose to live in the area. At the same time, the neighborhood is also described as an attractive area for professionals from abroad, who find an international-friendly atmosphere in Kreuzviertel.

Another aspect contributing to the success of the area is its level of accessibility, which is due to the presence of multiple transportation modes and good connections with the surroundings. People appreciate Kreuzviertel’s proximity to the city center (15-min walking distance) and the Central Station (20-min walking distance). Also, given the presence of the Möllerbrücke S-Bahn and Kreuzstraße and Saarlandstraße U-Bahn, the area is presented as well-connected to the rest of the city and its region, so that non-residents can also easily reach the area to socialize.

Lastly, there is an aspect that sheds light on the quality and attractiveness of the neighborhood but also raises some issues related to its exclusiveness. This aspect concerns its real estate value. Differently from the previous features, this one cannot be seen strictly as a “quality” or “reason why people like the area” but mainly as a consequence of it. The various sources analyzed presented the area as “more expensive”, “exclusive”, and with fewer vacant houses compared to the general housing market of Dortmund.

To better understand this last point, it is worth considering the following aspect. Dortmund is relatively cheaper and more affordable than other cities in the region. According to the website ImmoScout24 (accessed March 2023), the average purchase prices of apartments in Dortmund is €2519/m², compared with €4293/m² in Köln, €4662/m² in Düsseldorf, €4040/m² in Münster, €2576/m² in Essen, and €2541/m² Bochum. However, within Dortmund, there are marked differences. For example, the average purchase price in Kreuzviertel is €3849/m², while in the northern part of the city (Nordstadt) it is €2307/m² in Hafen-Südost, and €1635/m² in Nordmarkt-Südost.³

Discussion

To what extent did planning contribute to generating the current appreciated characteristics of the neighborhood?

After presenting the salient aspects of the design and evolution of Kreuzviertel, its main planning characteristics, and the reasons why people like it, this section first highlights the positive impact of certain planning measures that have contributed, at least to date, to the neighborhood’s success. It then emphasizes certain largely spontaneous and unpredictable dynamics that have also played an important role in the neighborhood’s current popularity.

Planning successful factors

Primarily, it is essential to acknowledge the critical role of the initial planning framework, which facilitated and structured the long-term, largely emergent, and self-adaptive development of the area (Alexander et al. 1987; Alfasi and Portugali 2007; Moroni 2015; Rauws 2017).

Three key components underpinned the design framework: (i) a robust street layout (designed in 1898 and adjusted in 1902 and 1904), which served as a physical guide for small private projects and ensured the presence of a dignified and indispensable collective space within the neighborhood (Mouthing 1999; Salingaros 1998; Porta and Romice 2014); (ii) a simple building code introduced in 1898, which set out basic regulatory directives for private initiatives; and (iii) the land readjustment that took place between 1898 and 1902, which reorganized and defined the configuration of plots and parcels and favored a high degree diversity by ensuring distributed design responsibility among several relatively small developers (Bobkova et al. 2019; Cozzolino and Moroni 2021).

The success of this design framework is rooted not only in its open-ended approach framed solely by certain structural conditions but also in some very concrete choices, such as: the high permeability of the urban fabric, which makes Kreuzviertel very walkable (an aspect directly related to the presence of short-blocks); the prevailing typology of public/private interfaces and street alignment, which stimulates a continuous use of the public space; the possibility of having a dense and highly residential environment mixed with different functions; and the high accessibility of the area through various transportation modes (e.g., cars, trains, buses, metro)—which, however, has been implemented over time on the basis of different specific plans.

Another decisive planning aspect, directly related to the design framework is the incremental nature of development. On the one hand, incrementality concerned the construction of private buildings over a relatively long period of time (ca. 1902–1934), which ensured the action of multiple small initiators. The main effects are visible in the architectural variety (for example, in building facades) and in highly mixed and diverse plots. On the other hand, incrementality also concerned the many public planning interventions made in the area over time after its actual completion. In fact, the neighborhood has benefitted from continuous adjustments and projects by the municipality which has constantly improved the area by creating new functions and public spaces. For example, the decisions to locate certain primary, publicly important functions (e.g., university, Westpark, stadium, etc.) in Kreuzviert (or nearby) and to develop strategic mobility nodes has positively influenced the neighborhood and its surrounding.

One element that can be criticized from an ethical point of view but which has undoubtedly contributed to the area’s positive reputation early on is its exclusivity regime established with the 1907 zoning plan. With this measure, the municipality has strongly characterized this area, and Dortmund South as a whole, by precluding the possibility of opening large new production sites, making Kreuzviertel more attractive for residential use. This contributed to a path-depending disparity of treatment with respect to the northern part of the city that is still visible and perceptible today.

Lastly, another important planning measure was the Preservation Act, which introduced new regulations aimed at conserving Kreuzviertel’s historic heritage. To be noted is that, in this case, according to the existing literature, the Preservation Act was connected to the presence of an active community committed to protecting certain distinctive features of the neighborhood.

Successful aspects beyond planning

There follows a selection of dynamics beyond the direct control of planning that have contributed to the contemporary positive perception and success of Kreuzviertel.

The first aspect is the fortunate preservation of the neighborhood’s historic character. Compared to the city center, Kreuzviertel was only marginally affected by the bombings of the Second World War. That unforeseeable event placed more importance on the neighborhood’s heritage. Moreover, the prioritization of the rebuilding of the historic center and the consequent difficulty of finding materials for the immediate reconstruction of private buildings in the area resulted in a slower redevelopment process which reproduced the already-existing morphology.

A second interesting aspect concerns the role of private developers during the housing boom phase (1898–1913). Although Kreuzviertel developed in parallel with other areas in the city with very similar street patterns, it attracted affluent developers who paid particular attention to constructing their buildings and facades. In other words, the same development plan could have different types of builders with perhaps less interest in constructing quality buildings. In this regard, it can also be said that the prevalent architectural style of the area is another fortunate result. In fact, it is an incidental circumstance that today’s society particularly appreciates the building style of that period.

Besides the architectural quality of buildings, as we already saw, it is also interesting that in pursuit of greater profit goals, the various private agents involved in the initial urban development generated a morphological layout different from that of the original plan, with higher residential density, smaller plots, a more regular street grid, and less public space. Although this remains an intriguing suggestion, if they had not pursued their own profit interests, Kreuzviertel would probably be less attractive today.

A third relevant aspect concerns several hardly controllable social dynamics that have made the Kreuzviertel attractive today. Two of the most influential aspects contributing to the current neighborhood’s success are “lifestyle/culture” and “type of population”. Although certain urban policies may favor specific uses and/or attract certain people, the previous factors are, for obvious reasons, emergent phenomena. In short, who actually lives in the neighborhood or uses the area, the type of social atmosphere, and people’s lifestyle preferences are all aspects that cannot be directly determined by planning. The same applies to the kind of shops, bars, and private amenities in the neighborhood. Their presence and distribution in the area result from a delicate and dynamic balance between market supply and demand that depends on the concrete choices of some entrepreneurs. In this case, planning may incentivize some activities and businesses, prevent others from establishing themselves in the area, or limit their opening hours. However, their final configuration and distribution in the area are inexorably based on contextual market choices and opportunities. In short, a city is not like a large shopping mall or outlet mall that can choose which entrepreneur should rent what, and what kind of businesses they should run; in a city, this responsibility is fragmented and dispersed among many actors, and it is difficult to centrally coordinate in detail.

Besides these relatively “fortunate” aspects, it should be emphasized that the contemporary urban imagery consolidated since Jane Jacobs (1961) discussion of density, diversity, walkability, and urbanity—subsequently taken up by several authors (Sennett 1970; Jacobs and Appleyard 1987; Florida 2005; Gehl 2013)—as well as the current discourse on the 15-min and walkable cities, well matches the characteristics of Kreuzviertel. Nevertheless, it should also be considered that the neighborhood’s success has not been sudden but has been gradually consolidated over time. This suggests that certain design characteristics are successful and remain important despite changes in social dynamics. Possible characteristics may be the open-ended and adaptable vocation of Kreuzviertel that has enabled it to accommodate various social changes over time (e.g., by adjusting certain uses/functions or replacing individual buildings), the presence of a variegated property situation that has ensured diversity within the area, as well as a wide polycentric distribution of design responsibilities, and an urban layout that facilitates and stimulates street life.

Finally to be mentioned is that, despite the strong morphological similarity between Kreuzviertel and other areas of Dortmund (Nordstadt, for example), Kreuzviertel is usually preferred in the collective imagination, mainly for predominantly social issues (e.g., street atmosphere). For example, as already discussed, the average purchase price for apartments in Kreuzviertel is twice as high compared to Nordstadt. Certainly, there are various factors influencing such a disparity. Among these, a very significant factor is certainly the crime rate. Despite visible improvements in the last several years, the northern area of Dortmund—the most densely populated area of the city—is still subject to particular urban policing policies. The document “Living Safely in the Northern City” provides clear data on the subject. Compared to the peak of 2014 with 17,441 reported crimes, in 2022 the reported crime cases fell by a total of 35.93% (11,173 crimes). The most prevalent crime cases in Nordstadt are robbery and drug-related cases. Despite the area being appreciated for its multicultural character, to date Nordstadt is the city’s area with the highest concentration of street crime.⁴

This comparison clearly demonstrates that the shape and form of the built environment is not the only factor contributing to the beauty and attractiveness of urban areas. In other words, certain social aspects, which are hardly difficult to control through planning and design, may play a primary role in people’s preferences (Cozzolino 2023). This aspect is important because it does not prevent other areas in the city, perhaps ones with less appealing built environment, from becoming more attractive sooner or later (for example, if Kreuzviertel becomes too exclusive and monotonous in terms of functions and population due to the continuous rise in real estate prices—a process that Jane Jacobs, in 1961, called self-destruction of diversity).

Conclusions

This study focused on the positive aspects that contribute to making Kreuzviertel a widely appreciated area. However, it is important to acknowledge that the neighborhood is not without challenges, although the research focus may have obscured them. The objective of the study is not to portray Kreuzviertel as a perfect neighborhood. Its main purpose is to highlight the formation and evolution of a neighborhood that is widely considered desirable, as well as the characteristics that make it so.

This article presented a case study in which the relevance of planning measures in the genesis of the neighborhood area, at least in its earliest stage of development, is relatively high. However, in reconstructing the formation, evolution, and consolidation of Kreuzviertel, the study has shown that many important events and aspects, as well as the reasons why the neighborhood is appreciated, are aspects that planners could hardly have directly governed. A critical point emerging from the study is that the success of Kreuzviertel is contingent not only upon its physical form, although this is crucial, but also upon a multitude of social factors that cannot be directly planned (e.g., quality of life, type of population, economic activities, and amenities).

The case offers numerous implications for planning measures and interventions. One of these is the need to focus on the interplay between what can be designed and what can emerge spontaneously over an extended period of time. From this perspective, it is important to stress that, in addition to some specific public interventions and plans aimed at improving the neighborhood over time, three framework planning measures played a vital role in Kreuzviertel’s long-term, incremental evolution and the accommodation of those aspects currently valued in the area, namely: (i) the design of the public layout, (ii) the building code, and (iii) the form and distribution of land ownership.

Although these factors are not always central to the discussion of what constitutes good urban design, the analysis has shown that, at least in this case study on Kreuzviertel, they played a significant structuring role. Therefore, one possible suggestion to those who intend to continue studying how to plan and design good neighborhoods, bearing in mind their long-term and unpredictable development, is to take these three framework conditions into serious consideration. However, while good urban design ensuring long-term adaptability is a necessary condition, it must be stressed that it is not sufficient for a neighborhood’s future success. Other emergent economic and social dynamics beyond what planning can directly control also play a crucial role (Cozzolino and Moroni 2022).

Dortmund City Archive

200-01_0_0005. City planning map, 1872.

200-01_0_0010_1. City planning map, 1978.

200-01_0_0014-4. City planning map, 1898.

200-01_0_0016. City planning map, 1902.

200-01_0_0031. City planning map, 1910.

200-01_0_0048. City planning map, 1920.

200-01_0_0055. City planning map, 1934.

Dortmunder Bürgerbuch: Sammlung der Ortsstatuten, Polizei-Verordnungen, Regulative u.s.w. für die Stadt Dortmund, 1898 / (Dortmund citizen’s book: collection of local statutes, police ordinances, regulations etc. for the city of Dortmund, 1898).