Dresden bridge dispute
The controversy that flared up from the mid-1990s on the construction of an additional Elbe crossing in Dresden is known as the Dresden Bridge Dispute . The dispute concerns the four-lane inner-city traffic train Waldschlößchenbrücke , which - decided and planned in 1996/97 - was built between 2007 and 2013.
A referendum in 2005 resulted in a two-thirds majority in favor of the project, but could not resolve the bridge dispute. This went further and culminated in the unprecedented withdrawal of the World Heritage title for the Dresden Elbe Valley cultural landscape on June 25, 2009.
prehistory
Previous plans
Ideas for a bridge over the Elbe at Waldschlösschen have been around for more than 100 years and have not yet been implemented for aesthetic or financial reasons. The radial end of the road network at this point is - as an expert report by RWTH Aachen University states - neither historically nor morphologically "easily" deduced: The concentric structure of the city is not the result of a ribbon-like development in the Elbe valley expansion, but is based on a "building zone plan" from 1862, who tried to prevent uncontrolled growth of the city into the surrounding area and represented the "Inner Environweg" (environner, French for surround; it corresponded to the later 26th ring of the tram) as the boundary of the city.
The planners agreed that Dresden's fame as one of “the most beautiful cities” could only be preserved if the “friendly side” of the city “with the promenade to the Great Garden and the beautiful view of the Loschwitz Mountains” was kept open. A request from the people of Johannstadt, who wanted a pedestrian bridge for hiking in the Dresdner Heide , was rejected by the city council in 1900 because of "concerns of an aesthetic nature". The city acquired the Waldschlösschenwiese to secure it as a recreational area and issued a construction ban.
Later town planning kept a crossing at today's Thomas-Müntzer-Platz (downstream) open, which was not converted into concrete plans due to the lack of traffic. From 1934 to 1937 investigations were carried out on another bridge construction, and in 1937 the main traffic plan provided for a bridge at the Waldschlösschen . This plan grew in the GDR in 1967 to six lanes and by 1978/79 to a bridge with eight lanes, which should be connected with motorway junctions "to connect residential areas in the north and east of the city". In 1988 the Ministry of Transport of the GDR decided to build a four-lane bridge with intersection-free junctions from 1990 onwards, based on the design of the VEB Autobahnbaukombinat , which was no longer possible due to German reunification .
Traffic situation around 1990
With the reunification of Germany, the number of cars - and with it the volume of traffic - increased considerably, and the heavy goods traffic handled on the road increased significantly. The facts turned out to be particular weak points in the Dresden city area,
- that all transit traffic between the A 4 and A 13 motorways and the Czech border had to pass over the B 170 , the city center and its Elbe bridges (this only changed after the completion of the first construction phase of the A 17 bypassing the city in December 2005) and
- that all traffic crossing the Elbe converges on the Neustadt side in an area around the Albertplatz that is only about 700 m wide, which is not developed and is therefore overloaded at peak times.
Site and variant investigation
According to the current legal situation, large-scale alternatives are to be examined.
Considered locations
The initial investigations concerned the following locations (here sorted in east-west direction):
| source | bridge | Road connection (north / south) | advantages | disadvantage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| More Bridge Concept 2 | Laubegast - Niederpoyritz | Pillnitzer Landstrasse / Liehrstrasse |
|
|
| Traffic concept in 1994 1 |
Waldschlösschen | Stauffenbergallee / Fetscherstraße |
|
|
| More Bridge Concept 2 | Thomas-Müntzer-Platz | Diakonissenweg / Thomas-Müntzer-Platz |
|
|
| Traffic concept in 1994 1 |
third Marienbrücke | Uferstrasse / Weißeritzstrasse |
|
|
| Zoning WSB 3 |
Erfurter Strasse | Erfurter Strasse / Schlachthofstrasse |
|
|
- (1)… The 1994 traffic concept was approved by the Dresden city council in January 1994.
- (2)… The multi-bridge concept for building comparatively small Elbe bridges was designed by Mayor Gunter Just and city planner Michael Kaiser, who took office in 1994. Thereupon Just was withdrawn from the responsibility for traffic planning by the then mayor Wagner (CDU).
- (3) ... The traffic forecasts contained in the Waldschlößchenbrücken plan approval application assume the existence of a bridge on Erfurter Straße .
- (4) ... The tram option was canceled in 2002 following demands from the state of Saxony, see below .
Urban planning studies of various bridge locations were only carried out until 1996, after that no longer because of the funding restriction imposed by Minister of Economics Kajo Schommer , and after its abolition by the successor in office no longer because of the referendum that has meanwhile been carried out .
Decision for the alignment between Waldschlösschen and Fetscherstraße
The traffic concept adopted in January 1994 for the Waldschlößchenbrücke states: "From the point of view of traffic planning there is no alternative for this Elbe crossing". It remains open "whether the Elbe should be crossed as a tunnel, bridge or a combination of both". In this master plan, which is still valid today, this Elbe crossing was only given a third priority (after a solution for the Marienbrücke and a solution for the Blue Wonder).
Ultimately, all other locations discussed were discarded or postponed in favor of the Waldschlößchenbrücke. The decisive factor was the statement of the then Saxon Economics Minister Schommer , who declared on November 8, 1995 at one of the "Dresden Conferences" with the participation of the Lord Mayor Herbert Wagner , the Saxon State Minister for Environment and Regional Development Arnold Vaatz and the Saxon State Minister for Finance Georg Milbradt , that only one Waldschlößchenbrücke would be funded by the Free State and that this would be his final decision. The decisive location recommendation to the Dresden city administration was decided on 28/29. May 1996 a "bridge workshop".
There are contradicting statements about how democratically legitimized the decision-making by means of the “bridge workshop” was, as well as about the result of the vote: According to bridge proponents, “In 1996 [...] a workshop took place at which, in addition to all the relevant departments and departments, representatives of all parliamentary groups City councils, the Technical University with experts from various disciplines, freelance architects, planning offices, the Saxon State Ministry for Economics and Labor, the Dresden Regional Council, the Saxon State Conservator and the Waterways and Shipping Office took part. [...] The committee voted unanimously in favor of the Waldschlößchenbrücke! "According to the opponents," the mayor reserved the right to define the list of participants as precisely as possible. Of the 60 invited, only 27 were entitled to vote and 9 of them are said to have voted against the Waldschlößchenbrücke.
Dissent about the traffic relief effect
The proponents justify the indispensability of a new Elbe crossing at precisely this location with the fact that "... only there an effective gap closure can be established in the transport network [...] At other locations east of the city center, no comparably effective Elbe crossing can be integrated into the existing transport network". The opponents see this as a disadvantage because of the traffic-inducing effect. Your main traffic argument is the higher overall traffic load on the urban road system. In addition to an increase in the number of Elbe crossings, the city's planning documents show an increase in kilometers driven by eight percentage points. Even in the city center, the urban traffic forecast 2020 anticipates traffic increases in some cases in the event of the bridge being built. The opponents of the bridge also rely on examples from similar large-scale transport projects that had the same consequences. The bridge proponents, however, interpret the urban forecasts more positively. They also see the city-wide increase in traffic, but refer to the relief of the rest of the Elbe bridges and assume a better distribution of traffic flows.
The opponents also criticize the urban traffic forecast for the fact that the effects of supra-regional traffic were not even taken into account. They assume even higher loads, since the city is used as a national abbreviation due to the inner-city bridge. Motorists could save themselves the way to bypass Dresden via the A 4 and A 17 . The bridge proponents point out that there are 34 traffic lights on the alternative route over the Waldschlößchenbrücke and that the journey time will be extended, which is why the argument of the shortcut through the city is unrealistic.
The official traffic forecast for the existing Dresden Elbe bridges was revised upwards by the city administration for the planning-relevant year 2015 from the values initially assumed in 2003 during the planning approval procedure . In addition to this planning-relevant information, figures for 2020 were published on the "Brücken-Homepage" dresden.de/waldschloesschenbruecke for the first time in 2008, which show a significantly lower traffic load on the Elbe bridges compared to 2015, with one exception: for the Waldschlößchen bridge only forecast a very small decrease. (Critics, on the other hand, see the necessity of the planned four-parting questioned.)
The actual values of the traffic volume , which have been falling for a number of years , measured by means of the city's permanent counting stations on the Elbe bridges, are also cited as an argument against the need for a new Elbe crossing, as are reports by the TU Dresden , according to which the travel speed for car traffic in Dresden has been increasing since 1995 has almost doubled and is far higher than in most comparable large cities. According to the most recent TU travel time measurement, the average travel speed of motor vehicles in 2005 was just under 29 km / h on the entire Dresden road network and between 14 and 20 km / h especially on the Elbe bridges.
While a strong concentration of traffic on the newly developed Stauffenbergallee is forecast on the northern bridgehead , there is no such efficient main connection in the south, the traffic here has to be distributed over the existing road network through various residential areas. In this context, critics warn against the occurrence of the Braess paradox (reduction in the performance of a network by increasing capacity), which has already been observed in transport projects in Stuttgart and New York , for example . Significantly higher traffic loads are expected, especially for Fetscherstrasse and the eastern Käthe-Kollwitz-Ufer.
Blue miracle
Proponents see the Waldschlößchenbrücke as a necessary replacement for the aged Blue Wonder , for which a tonnage limit of 15 tons has been in effect since the 1990s. However, all traffic plans and forecasts of the city of Dresden assume that a Loschwitz Elbe crossing will be used permanently. This means that if the Blue Wonder actually has to be closed permanently, a solution is necessary in this area: Either a renovation of this bridge or a replacement structure in the immediate vicinity.
In January 2005, a few weeks before the referendum, the Lord Mayor Roßberg wrote about the Blue Wonder: "A thorough upgrading including repairs for permanent use is not possible, [...]" and gave a detailed explanation.
There was opposition from traffic planners and bridge building experts. In their opinion, the Blue Wonder is still needed as a connection between Loschwitz and Blasewitz. The Waldschlößchenbrücke is therefore not suitable to adequately replace the Blue Wonder due to its location, its integration into the road network and the lack of efficiency of the roads leading to it. This is indirectly confirmed by the available traffic forecasts, according to which the relief effect directly on the Blue Wonder is “only” 9%. A forecast case that would underpin Roßberg's thesis and depict the road network with the Waldschlösschenbrücke but without the Blue Wonder was never calculated or published.
According to the experts, the necessary preservation of the Blue Wonder is entirely possible through appropriate renovation and is necessary anyway for reasons of monument protection . The renovation is endangered because of the high construction and maintenance costs of the Waldschlößchenbrücke.
After Eberhard Katzschner u. a. showed that the Blue Wonder could be preserved permanently after 2030, the proponents of the bridge dispensed with this argument. However, they still justify the need for the Waldschlößchenbrücke with the hoped-for decrease in traffic problems at the bridgeheads of the Blue Wonder.
Although the urban forecasts predict a decrease in traffic on the Blauer Wunder, at the nearby Schillerplatz the pollution is expected to increase after the construction of the Waldschlößchenbrücke, as the traffic on the access roads will increase (landward + 7%, cityward + 13%). Therefore, it is feared that the traffic problems with the construction of the Waldschlößchenbrücke will increase in this sensitive urban area. Bridge proponents consider this fear to be wrong and are of the opinion that the relief on the Blue Wonder itself (- 9%) will enable a better flow of traffic at Schillerplatz.
The Blue Wonder is closed to motor vehicle traffic in the event of a flood of over 7 meters at the Dresden level. It was closed for several days during the floods in 2002 and 2006 . Whether the lockdown was even necessary in 2006 is a matter of dispute. The bridge can be made flood-proof with the comparatively low amount of € 4.3 million.
As of 2010
After the figures from the new traffic forecast for 2025 became known, concerns and protests increased because of the foreseeable disadvantages for public transport at the Fetscherplatz intersection . There it is expected that the backlog of left-turners coming from the future bridge will result in considerable waiting times for the tram .
While there is little change in the predicted traffic occupancy figures for the inner city bridges, the already low decrease on the Blue Wonder in the model now calculated is again significantly lower than in the 2020 forecast known at the time of the planning of the “relief bridge” .
planning
On August 15, 1996 the city council decided to build the Waldschlößchenbrücke at the location between the Dresden districts of Johannstadt and Radeberger Vorstadt, which was considered several times in the GDR . A referendum “Bridges against traffic jams” supported by the PDS in favor of the multi-bridge concept (Thomas-Müntzer-Platz + Niederpoyritz), for which more than the 20,000 signatures required at that time were collected, was an attempt to overturn this decision. However, it was ultimately declared inadmissible by the city council: "After the city council defended the admissibility of the referendum against the objection of the OB (March 21, 1997) and a complaint by the RP, on May 15, 1997 the SPD swung over to the CDU- One line and voted in favor of dispensing with the citizens' survey ”. The decisive vote is said to have come from the SPD city councilor Reinhard Martin. Martin, who had been the moderator of the bridge workshop the year before , was, in the opinion of other SPD comrades, “rewarded” with the post of managing director of the Aufbaugesellschaft Prager Straße (AGP) for this vote .
Intervention in the natural space
The four-lane traffic route is to emerge from the tunnel portal on the slope of the Waldschlösschenwiese below a lookout point , span the Elbe meadows and lead 635 m further south into a junction on the Vogelwiese .
It would be located both in the world cultural heritage Dresden Elbe Valley and in the " Fauna-Flora-Habitat 34E Elbe Valley between Schöna and Mühlberg", would touch the " Area Natural Monument 37 Glatthaferwiese on the Elbe bank of Johannstadt" and the most important fresh air corridor of the warmed city in the " Landscape Conservation Area Dresden Elbwiesen and Elb" -Alarms “cut.
The regional council commented on the granting of the planning approval decision with the following remarks: “The consequences of the new traffic route for the environment are undoubtedly considerable. […] Substitute landscape conservation measures are planned to compensate for unavoidable interventions in nature and the landscape. Among other things, the Elbe landscape near Zschieren is being redesigned in a natural way on an area of 29,800 square meters and the Brüchtigtgraben located there renatured. "
The opponents of the bridge criticize that the crossing should take place at the widest point of the Elbe meadows. In addition to the destruction of the landscape (which later became the main criticism of UNESCO ), this also causes the comparatively greatest damage to nature and the environment ( traffic noise , emissions , land consumption , etc.). They consider the compensatory measures planned for compensation to be completely unsuitable and unacceptable, partly because only distant areas - mostly on the outskirts - benefit from them.
Protection of threatened species
With their objections regarding the protection of species , the nature conservationists failed on the one hand, because the courts confirmed the view that the Elbe meadows were in any case not a suitable breeding area for the corncrake because of the dogs that were taken along by walkers . In 2007, however, the administrative judge first imposed a three-month construction freeze on the bat species, the little horseshoe bat, and then imposed a nocturnal 30 km / h limit that is still valid today. After the more stringent EU directives were reflected in the case law of the Federal Administrative Court in 2008 , the regional directorate (successor to the regional council) issued an amendment which, among other things, stipulates that the meadows should be mowed twice a year at a distance of 100 meters from the bridge in order to reduce the nitrogen concentration To preserve habitat, for example, for the now rare butterfly, the dark blue butterfly .
Folk festival area "Vogelwiese"
The bridgehead on the Johannstädter Elbwiese is located on the area of the traditional folk festival grounds of the Dresden Vogelwiese , which took place on this site in the years 1874–1939 and 1992–2003. When planning the bridge, staircases, passageways and service rooms were provided in the massive abutment structure so that the festival area can be located on both sides of the bridge on the inner surfaces of the exits.
Since 2004, the Vogelwiese has been taking place at a specially developed replacement location at Marienbrücke. It has not yet been known whether a permanent relocation should take place after the construction of the Waldschlößchenbrücke. Otherwise, the traditional square on the area then divided and framed by the Johannstadt bridgehead traffic junction would only be used as an alternative location (as was the case during the Elbe floods in 2006 ).
Decision for / against tram
One change to the plan for reasons of transport policy was the conversion of the light rail / tram route into a tram option and the later cancellation of this option. Contrary to its majority opinion, the city council had to remove the trams initially planned for proven economic benefits (expert opinion on behalf of the Dresden Transport Company ) in these two steps from the project. This was done in order to meet the demands of the state of Saxony ( four-lane carriageway for the MIT ) and not to endanger the promised funding .
Architecture and construction technology
Landscape protection and flood protection requirements with regard to the height and design of the structure expose the bridge design to a conflict of objectives. The bridge manages without a river pillar and, thanks to its length that can be flowed under, is intended to represent a minimal flow obstacle in terms of flood protection : At this point, the Elbe has an unobstructed flood profile that is more than 500 meters wide. The Waldschlößchenbrücke is to remain passable during a 100-year runoff event of the Elbe; Contrary to the requirements for the protection of the landscape and the visual relationships, the bridge must therefore offer the greatest possible clearance in the given water profile.
Functional problems
During the almost eight years of work on the plan approval , 15 changes were made to the “Waldschlößchenbrücke” project. One of the larger of these was necessary because the plan approval application submitted in 2000 was not approved due to missing documents and exceeding noise limit values. As a result, the planning was expanded to include the eastern side tunnel, while originally this traffic from / in a north-easterly direction was to be routed through residential areas.
Aesthetic problems
The design that won first place in the architectural competition followed, like all other participants in the competition, the requirement that the bridge contour, viewed from the direction of the city, must not break through the silhouette of the Elbe slope, i.e. it must be relatively flat. This requirement, which originated in the 1990s, is controversial today, as the opposite direction of view (towards the city center) is now considered more important. At the time, it significantly reduced the range of possible designs, since tall, slim pylon constructions had no chance. The design selected by the jury is now exposed to multiple criticism for aesthetic reasons, including from the Saxon Academy of the Arts and the Federal Chamber of Architects . The architect of the new Strelasund crossing (Rügen Bridge) , André Keipke, also spoke in the press in this context.
In the wake of the flood of the century in 2002 , an increase in the gradient was deemed necessary. Because of the resulting design problems with the tunnel portal on the Waldschlösschenwiese , an additional appraisal procedure was carried out in 2003 (with a jury on the submitted designs). UNESCO and the public did not find out about the consequences of the gradient elevation; it was only through the Aachen report in 2006, shortly before the Vilnius UNESCO conference, that the visual effects of the gradient elevation became known and criticized as "fortress-like structures" .
Through further rescheduling, the so-called “Burger Bridge” , which was decided at the beginning of 2008 (after the start of construction), on the one hand the tunnel mouth should appear more pleasing. In addition, the bridge body has been made slightly slimmer, mainly by eliminating the staircases and lighting masts (integration of the lamps in the handrail) and a revised foundation construction.
Both warring parties see their own side in the role of the guardian of the urban planning tradition of the state capital: The bridge opponents z. B. with their slogan "Because we love Dresden" in the voting booklet for the referendum in 2005 , the proponents with their argument that the UNESCO World Heritage title is one of the proofs that Dresdeners have been able to do this for centuries to decide on a sophisticated and landscape-compatible development by oneself and without external influence. The 2/3 majority in the 2005 referendum proves that the Waldschlößchenbrücke fits into this tradition, in that the population is behind the project, the proponents argue. The opponents of the bridge, however, point out that in the referendum in 2005 there were no alternatives (not even aesthetic ones) to choose from, but the vote under the sign “This bridge - or in the long term no new Elbe crossing” did not allow a free decision. The actual decision was made nine years earlier when choosing a location under the influence of the Free State.
Planning approval
With the first application for planning approval , the state capital failed at the approval authority: Because the permissible noise limit values were exceeded by up to 15 dB (A) in the Radeberger suburb on the northern bridgehead, which is mainly used as a residential area, the Dresden regional council suspended the conclusion of the procedure on July 14, 2000. The risk of legal action by affected citizens was considered too high.
The revised planning was submitted to the Dresden Regional Council on March 20, 2003, which issued the planning approval on February 25, 2004.
Subsequent changes to the plan approval decision were made in 2008 to → protect endangered species and in 2010 to swim in the bridge arch.
Legal dispute about the legality of the plan approval
With regard to the plan approval, only the interim legal protection proceedings have been completed so far . Whether the RP decision to build the bridge was legal has not yet been finally decided, as several main proceedings are still pending in the administrative courts in this regard .
A procedure initiated by nature conservation associations in April 2007, which aims, among other things, to take into account the now more stringent European nature conservation law, has also not yet been completed. The application submitted for interim legal protection was successful on August 9, 2007 at the Dresden Administrative Court. It issued a construction freeze and restored the suspensive effect of the action in the main proceedings. According to the court, certain endangerment aspects of the bat species lesser horseshoe bat, which is threatened with extinction in Saxony and Germany, are only insufficiently taken into account in the planning approval decision. Thus, there is no guarantee that parts of the population of this species cannot be significantly damaged by the bridge's potential barrier effects.
- The court granted the application, although it did not prove that the endangered species was actually restricted in its habitat. The bats may not even pass this particularly extensive area of the Elbe valley: "Free areas of more than 200 m are rarely flown over." According to the case law of the Federal Administrative Court, however, the project is detrimental if the plan approval does not contain all doubts the effectiveness of the planned species protection measures have been eliminated. In this context, evidence must be provided that compelling reasons of overriding public interest required the implementation of the project, which could not be satisfied by an alternative solution that would not impair the FFH areas or not at all. The Federal Administrative Court set this strict framework for the interpretation of European nature conservation law in January 2007 with its judgment on the Halle western bypass (northern section of the A 143 ).
After the regional council filed a complaint, the Saxon Higher Administrative Court announced on November 14, 2007 the lifting of the construction freeze. It issued the requirement to limit the speed of the entire train in the night from April to October to 30 km / h and to monitor it with two "speed cameras" until the main proceedings were finally resolved . The court believes that the risk of collision between the Little Horseshoe Bat and vehicles is sufficient to end the construction stop. All other possible errors with regard to the protection of bats, because of which the planning approval decision in the main proceedings could prove to be illegal, can be remedied by subsequent rescheduling. The court considers such corrections to the planning approval to be conceivable, for example in the lighting concept and in the creation of guide structures .
- According to a legal opinion, the paradoxical situation could be that the city would be forced to start construction, although it may have to be stopped again - if the planning in the context of these lawsuits proves to be unlawful. A boondoggle , financial and environmental damage that would be - but very unlikely - result.
After the Dresden Administrative Court postponed the continuation of the hearing from August 5 to October 16, 2008 due to a new decision by the Federal Administrative Court, the regional directorate (successor to the regional council since August 1, 2008) made divergent decisions ( Section 34 (3) BNatSchG , see also Section Protection of Threatened Species ) for subsequent changes to the planning approval decision. On October 30, 2008, the nature conservation associations' action was dismissed by the administrative court in the first instance. The judgment is based on the well-founded view that an Elbe tunnel is “not a preferable option” , because nature would have to be interfered with more strongly during its construction than when building bridges. The Chamber approved the appeal in accordance with Section 124a (1) Sentence 1 VwGO because the case raises questions of fundamental importance, particularly with regard to European nature conservation law ( Section 124a (1), Section 124 (2) No. 3 VwGO). The appeal was lodged on March 26, 2009 by the three plaintiff associations Green League Saxony , BUND Saxony and NABU Saxony at the Saxon Higher Administrative Court in Bautzen. In addition, the Dresden Administrative Court has eight other unfinished bridging lawsuits, including from private individuals and businesses.
In the appeal hearing at the Saxon Higher Administrative Court at the end of 2011, after several days of negotiations, the appeal of the nature conservation associations was rejected, but an appeal was allowed. The oral appeal hearing took place on March 6, 2014 before the Federal Administrative Court in Leipzig . Before giving its verdict, this court first sought the opinion of the European Court of Justice . On January 14, 2016, the latter decided that the European nature conservation requirements must be taken into account, even if they only came into force after the plan approval procedure. After the judgment of the Federal Administrative Court of July 15, 2016, the Dresden Regional Directorate has to carry out a subsequent FFH impact assessment and a species protection assessment, the court declared the planning approval decision to be partially illegal:
- “The deficiencies in the planning approval decision mentioned under 3. do not lead to its cancellation, but only to the determination of its illegality. You therefore do not help the main, but only the auxiliary request to be successful. Because they do not affect any mandatory planning obstacle; there is the specific possibility that they can be remedied in a supplementary procedure without questioning the overall planning (Section 39 (3) SächsStrG in conjunction with Section 75 (1a) sentence 2 VwVfG) "
Political dispute over the implementation of the approved planning
financing
Own funds
Opponents refer to the project as “Germany's most expensive city bridge” because of its high costs and fear that the city will lack funds for public transport, road and school renovation, cultural funding, etc. in return. This exhibit proponents as unfounded: "The construction of the transport train there is neither social nor in the cultural field to cuts because these areas are financed from the administrative budget, the construction of the road train but from the capital budget." This statement does not take account, that the city council can move the funds between households. In addition, the relatively high maintenance costs actually have to be met from the administrative budget.
After the (provisional) completion of the bridge project at that time, the city of Dresden was awarded the title of " Schleudersachse 2004" by the taxpayers' association because of the high planning costs, including € 7.5 million for variant investigations .
Proponents see it as essential to complete a project into which such immense funds have already flowed. For this reason, among other things, they initiated the referendum of February 27, 2005 by means of a referendum in 2004 . For the opponents, the planning costs, which have continued to rise over the years, are proof that the project cannot be implemented at this point and must be abandoned as quickly as possible.
They also fear that Dresden's finances would be unduly strained by the construction and, in particular, maintenance of the bridge. They claim that the city's recently achieved debt relief through the sale of all communal apartments ( WOBA sale 2006) had to be bought at a high price. Despite being debt-free, Dresden can still only achieve a balanced budget through cuts in many areas and a permanently very high property tax.
Dresden already had the third highest assessment rate among the 50 largest German cities for property tax B in 2004 (with 535%, only Bremen [580%] and Berlin [660%] were even higher). Since the renewed increase in 2005 to 635%, the Saxon state capital has now been roughly on a par with the federal capital at the top German level. The need for this tax increase was justified in the Dresden city council by the CDU parliamentary group with the Waldschlößchenbrücke: “With the approval of the budget, the answer to the question also arose whether the city council would comply with the clear decision of the Dresden citizens to build the Waldschlößchenbrücke. Under these conditions, the CDU parliamentary group also had to agree to the increase in property tax with a heavy heart. ” In 2007, the CDU parliamentary group also refused to abandon this high rate of assessment , while others (e.g. the citizens' group and Haus & Grund ) called for a reduction.
A bridge variant that does without the side tunnels by connecting the bridge directly to Bautzner Strasse using “ Dutch ramps ” would cost around € 100,000 less in annual maintenance. However, this proposal made by Mayor Roßberg in 2001 was rejected by the then city council majority of the CDU and FDP / DSU in order not to risk any further delay.
Funding
The high funding quota promised by the Free State has always been one of the main arguments of the proponents of this bridge location since the statement made in the run-up to the bridge workshop in 1995 . In the voting booklet for the referendum, the sentence, which is no longer valid, was also misleadingly printed: “The city is only available for this project and cannot be used for other purposes” . Advocacy-p.3 The fact was, however, that at the time of the referendum there was already a statement by Economics Minister Thomas Jurk , according to which the largest share of the funding, namely the € 80 million (of a total of € 96 million) from federal funds (the GVFG ) was already available Million euros), would also be made available for other eligible projects. As of the beginning of April 2007 it was questionable whether the 80 million GVFG funds would still be made available by the federal government for the currently planned bridge variant. The Saxon Ministry of Economics under Thomas Jurk (SPD) then temporarily stopped the payment of money for the project. The CDU-led Ministry of Finance, on the other hand, assured that the city of Dresden had “a secure legal position” thanks to the grant decision of October 28, 2004 . The cited decision only holds out the prospect of funding for the years 2005–2008 and also contains the passage “The […] promised grants are non-binding and apply subject to the provision of funds. The prospect does not establish any legal entitlement to approval. "
The federal government ( BMVBS ) had promised financial compensation in the event of a potentially more expensive compromise with UNESCO.
total cost
After completion, the actual cost was a good 180 million euros.
Construction work and conflict with the protection of the world heritage
As part of the election campaign for the mayoral election, incumbent Herbert Wagner broke ground on November 29, 2000 - regardless of the failure of the planning approval at that time due to missing documents and exceeding noise limits and the feared conflicts with the requested World Heritage protected area - the groundbreaking ceremony for the Waldschlößchenbrücke. According to reports, during the discussions between 2000 and 2002 about the pros and cons of applying for a title, city councilor Hermann Henke (both CDU) saw a potential for conflict between the world cultural heritage site and the planned bridge. Wagner finally dropped his concerns because the Free State (under Kurt Biedenkopf (CDU)) spoke out in favor of an application.
Because of “the uniqueness of the triad of river, landscape and architecture”, UNESCO named the Dresden Elbe Valley cultural landscape between the Pillnitz castles in the east and Übigau in the west a World Heritage Site in July 2004 . The designation as a cultural asset of “unique and universal value” is a requirement for protection in accordance with the World Heritage Convention “for the benefit of mankind”. Although the legal assessment of the World Heritage Convention is controversial among legal experts, since it was only approved by the Federal Government in 1976 and the convention was only published in the Federal Law Gazette, but no treaty or consent law was passed by the Bundestag, the overwhelming opinion is that the Free State of Saxony is also over committed to the constitutional principle of federally friendly behavior , to fulfill the task incumbent on the Federal Republic of Germany and to take care of the “recording, protection and preservation” of the natural and cultural heritage in accordance with the Convention. The federal government has committed itself to “pursuing a general policy aimed at giving cultural and natural heritage a function in public life and including the protection of this heritage in exhaustive planning” and “doing everything in its power for this purpose Standing [to] do ”. As has since been established by the court, the legislature's protective function as a world cultural heritage is of subordinate importance in the current bridge dispute, as it has not been implemented in national law since 1976. A legal opinion commissioned by the federal government comes to the conclusion that “ every contracting state should do everything in its power to preserve the world heritage ” and that the state of Saxony is also bound by the world heritage convention.
- → See also: Lindau Agreement
The planning approval was decided on February 25, 2004. In the decision, Ulrich Fastenrath complained in 2006, international lawyer at the TU Dresden, the Elbe valley is not addressed as a world cultural heritage. The responsible monument protection authority "failed to include the world cultural heritage in its statement in misjudgment of the requirements of international law and a misjudgment of the effects of the bridge construction." The regional council countered Fastenrath's report of August 9, 2006, stating that the UNESCO World Heritage Commission had carried out its own expert assessment on this question and that the project had been classified as "harmless". Even a later plan approval that would have related to this decision would not have come to a different conclusion, at least for the reasons given by Fastenrath.
Urgent motions, local elections and referendums 2004
After the planning approval decision, several lawsuits were filed, which were rejected as urgent applications, but were only dealt with in the main proceedings from the beginning of 2008.
Due to serious financial difficulties, the bridge dispute also became a campaign topic for the 2004 local elections: the planning approval was successfully completed at the time, but for months the city council was unable to adopt an approvable budget through massive cuts (condition for starting an investment project). When the regional council approved the draft budget shortly before the election date for the city council elections, some people saw it as no coincidence, but rather an election campaign aid for the CDU and FDP, who feared for their majority at the city level. Nevertheless, a narrow “left” majority from the SPD, Greens and PDS was elected.
Because of the pending urgent proceedings against the building law before the Higher Administrative Court, the newly occupied Dresden City Council decided on September 7, 2004 to suspend the start of construction and the award of the contract for the time being. Against the objection of Mayor Roßberg, the city council decided to use the 2.7 million euros of own funds earmarked for the project, which is still in question, to renovate day-care centers. The majority in the city council, made up of the SPD, Greens and PDS, was unable to implement this project, as it turned out that the bridge funds planned for 2004 had not only been spent but were even exceeded.
As a result, ADAC , CDU and FDP initiated a referendum based on a referendum through the citizens' initiative Pro Waldschlößchenbrücke , which 17.6% of the citizens eligible to vote signed. A legal opinion came to the conclusion that the referendum would be inadmissible due to an inadequate cost recovery proposal. If the plan approval decision had to be revoked, the referendum would also be invalid. “If a referendum is successful and construction begins immediately, however, the paradoxical situation is conceivable that the city will invest considerable additional costs in a construction project that turns out to be illegal in the course of legal proceedings. The city would have to remove an investment ruin. The damage would be immense ” , it says literally in the report of the lawyer von Alvensleben.
On the day of becoming known of the report to the public petition, November 4, met with the city and the approval decision of the Regional Council, a, in the financial for bridge aid of totaling 96 million euros (90% of eligible costs) binding were promised asked . At the same time, it urged savings, even if the plans would have to be changed. Despite the warning of an investment ruin, the referendum was found admissible by the city council on December 7, 2004 and scheduled for February 2005. The decision was passed with 54 votes in favor (CDU, FDP, SPD, PDS and citizens 'faction) against 2 votes against (Peter Lames [SPD] and Elke Zimmermann [Greens]) with 13 abstentions (Greens, PDS and citizens' faction).
Referendum 2005
Voting item: Waldschlößchenbrücke traffic train
“Voting booklet” for the referendum
| total | Top 5 voting districts | location |
|---|---|---|
|
Yes 67.9% |
83.9% Weixdorf |
Outskirts, North |
|
No 32.1% |
68.6% Äußere Neustadt |
central, north of the city |
With a voting participation of 50.8% on February 27, 2005, 67.9% of the Dresden residents voted in favor of the construction of the bridge and the traffic train. There was a majority against the bridge in only one of the 36 voting districts , and a more or less clear majority in favor of it in the other 35 . While the approval in the bridge distant voting districts was greatest (up to 83.9%) voted mostly per bridge also directly adjacent to the bridge districts Johannstadt (60.2%) and Other Neustadt (50.4%).
The question was: “Are you in favor of building the Waldschlößchenbrücke? - including the traffic train of the depicted illustration - ", for which the adjacent plan sketch was printed. The question raised by the referendum related to a traffic train consisting of a bridge and a tunnel at the northern bridgehead. His result is binding for the city until February 27, 2008. Since the accompanying documents explicitly referred to the existing building law, this plebiscite had less of the character of a direction-setting vote , but more of a referendum to subsequently confirm a decision that had already been made.
On the day of the vote, the participants in the referendum were not yet aware of
- that the Dresden Elbe Valley could lose the title of "World Heritage Site" because of this bridge (see section visualizations, reports and decision "Red List" ff. ),
- that the promised funds could also benefit other bridge projects (see section on funds ) and
- that the Waldschlößchenbrücke would also have to be co-financed by a considerable increase in “property tax B” (see section own funds ). While the Saxon community code stipulates in Section 24 (1): “A referendum will not take place on […] community taxes , tariffs and charges […]” , CDU city councilor Jürgen Eckoldt revealed two months after the decision that there would also be a property tax increase to finance the bridge. The Alvensleben expert opinion had already warned against such a connection months earlier with its section “Insufficient cost recovery proposal” , but this was not made public before the vote.
UNESCO conflict
When the application for the title “World Heritage Dresden Elbe Valley” coincided with the planning of the bridge, UNESCO was informed of the intention to build the new Elbe crossing. It is controversial whether the information transmitted represented the planned structure correctly, in sufficient detail and objectively, or whether the project was concealed.
Endangerment of the world heritage and consequences
In October 2005 it became known that UNESCO had raised serious concerns about the Waldschlößchenbrücke project within the World Heritage Site . The world organization pointed out that the data and visualizations for the bridge provided in the application were incorrect. For example, the location of the bridge was given in an ICOMOS report as "5 km downstream from the city center", but it is 2.5 km upstream (see Dresden Elbe Valley cultural landscape # communication problem in the nomination process ). Why neither those responsible in Dresden nor the UNESCO commission noticed this obvious mistake when examining the application was discussed during the mediation talks, but ultimately remained unclear to this day. Allegedly, UNESCO only became aware of the deviation through information from bridge opponents, compare the Dresden Elbe Valley World Heritage site .
In addition, planning changes ( in some places higher roadway ), which arose in the aftermath of the Elbe flood in 2002 , should not have been listed in full. After all, in the opinion of their opponents, the visualization of the bridge was too suggestive and the visual relationships concerned were faded out.
The secretariat of the World Heritage Committee (World Heritage Center Paris) asked the city of Dresden to commission an independent expert opinion on the compatibility of the bridge with the title “World Heritage”. After talks between the mayor and UNESCO, the start of construction planned for March 22, 2006 was postponed to await the decision at the 30th session of the UNESCO Committee in Vilnius. In July 2006, the Dresden Elbe Valley was placed on the Red List of World Heritage in Danger.
The UNESCO ultimatum set a long chain of political and legal disputes in motion, which are described in detail in the following sections. There were small rescheduling ("Burger variant", see below ), with which UNESCO was still to be re-tuned, as well as a discourse about the feasibility of an Elbe tunnel instead of the Waldschlößchenbrücke.
Ultimately, all compromise efforts were unsuccessful: After the procedure in the temporary legal emanated in favor of the bridge, the construction work did not begin on 19 November 2007. Even after shortly thereafter (late February 2008) elapsed validity period of the citizens' decision came it to a construction freeze under among other things because of the then expected compensation claims of the construction companies. A referendum in favor of an Elbe tunnel was declared inadmissible. UNESCO stiffened on the position that, according to the expert opinions obtained, every overground crossing of the Elbe at this point contradicts the protection of the cultural landscape . According to the proposal of his secretariat (World Heritage Center Paris), the Dresden Elbe Valley World Heritage was removed from the World Heritage List at the meeting of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee on June 23, 2009 with a majority of 14: 5 .
Visualizations, expert reports and the "Red List" decision
The subject of optical effects, which is the focus of the UNESCO concerns, had hardly been the subject of a factual discussion before. This was largely due to the fact that almost no neutral visualization existed, only those that had been created by supporters or opponents of the bridge for a specific purpose. Since the appearance of the bridge itself and the disruptions in visual relationships it causes (for example, the famous Waldschlösschenblick ) are largely dependent on the chosen viewing point, supporters and opponents repeatedly accused each other of taking pictures from unrealistic (frog or bird) perspectives or from unrealistic perspectives Use (tele) focal lengths.
After UNESCO expressed their concerns, the Dresden city administration had three visualizations created, namely:
- the expert opinion required by UNESCO by RWTH Aachen
- a "virtual 3D city model" (a film presentation created from it with views of part of the world cultural heritage area including Waldschlößchenbrücke, mostly from a bird's eye view, is made available by the state capital for download, see Waldschlößchenbrücke # web links )
- a visualization by the Berlin office ESKR Ingenieure + Architekten , which created the selected bridge design
The Dresden professors Stritzke, Schnabel, Opitz, Lippold, Weise, Lohse and Rüger accused the Aachen expert opinion of "numerous inaccuracies" in a statement with the participation of ex-building supervisory officer Nieschler . This report by RWTH Aachen became the basis for decision-making at the 30th meeting of the UNESCO Committee in Vilnius. In addition, the delegates received a brochure drawn up by the city administration, which, however, is not based on their own field of view examinations.
Since the visualization created by the design office ESKR Ingenieure + Architekten was only shown non-publicly to the members of the Dresden Elbe Valley World Heritage Board of Trustees , a Dresden daily therefore printed a visualization created from an objective source on the day of the originally planned construction start (March 22, 2006) instead of the hoped-for visualization created by the Green League and wrote in the accompanying article: "Building Mayor Herbert Feßenmayr [...] O-Ton: 'That is not what we want to show'. And shortly afterwards he says: 'This is not what we want to build'. At least the layperson wonders, as he assumes that architects know best what they want to build. By the way, according to these pictures, some members are said to have been unhappy, if not shocked ” .
The expert opinion required by UNESCO by the Aachen city planner Kunibert Wachten , who had already drawn up a similar expert opinion for the Cologne Cathedral for UNESCO , has been available since April 2006. He concludes
- the bridge is an "eccentric" that does not join the chain of Dresden city bridges
- the bridge obstructs some important lines of sight to the silhouette of Dresden and the Elbe valley
- the bridge irreversibly divides the landscape of the Elbe arch into two halves at its most sensitive point
and describes the third of these findings as the decisive one from the expert's point of view.
At its conference in Vilnius on July 11, 2006, UNESCO put the Dresden Elbe Valley on the Red List of World Heritage in Danger . At the meeting, the original draft resolution was tightened by the threat of immediate deletion after it became known that the award of the construction work had already been established as part of the agenda of the Dresden City Council for July 20. Statement by the UNESCO commission: "The committee urged Germany to stop the" Waldschlößchenbrücke "construction project in Dresden and to look for alternative solutions to ensure the protection of the Dresden Elbe Valley's cultural landscape."
Follow-up decisions
Opponents of the bridge, such as Nobel Prize winner Günter Blobel , who personally campaigned for UNESCO to re-examine the Dresden Elbe Valley, see the decision as an opportunity to bring the alternative of a tunnel back into discussion. Such a solution could circumvent the aesthetic problems of the bridge and still meet the citizens' will to cross the Elbe. The traffic problems warned by the opponents of the bridge would, however, also apply to the tunnel.
The opinion of the people of Dresden after the Vilnius UNESCO decision was researched through two representative surveys : Donsbach (TU Dresden) determined in July 2006 the question "And if there is a new referendum - would you then vote in favor of building the bridge?" : 50% for Waldschlößchenbrücke, 37% against, the rest undecided. The Institute for Market Research Leipzig stated a month later (in the MDR “artour” of August 31, 2006): 39% for a bridge at the originally planned location, 46% for a bridge at another location or tunnel, 12% for no new Elbe crossing at all.
Despite the changed framework conditions, the city council is not allowed to revise the decision made by the citizen according to the Saxon municipal code (§ 24). According to the legal commentary by Krieger / Menke / Arens, “a referendum cannot be changed within three years, even if the underlying circumstances have changed significantly since then. This provision is intended to prevent a decision by the people from being undermined by the city council ” .
In order to take account of the changed situation, the demand for a new referendum was made, because only the citizens themselves can change or revoke a decision. Such an approach has often been described as the most democratic and “cleanest solution” . Most of the supporters of the bridge, however, refuse to be questioned again. The lawyer Ulrich Fastenrath (TU Dresden) also considers a repetition with a similar question to be ruled out, since illegal goals would be pursued through projects that disregard the protection of a cultural property subject to the UNESCO World Heritage Convention .
Following the decision of UNESCO, the Dresden city council met in a special session on July 20, 2006. The city council decided to start the search for a compromise between the desire for a bridge and the requirements of world heritage status. For this, the start of construction was suspended. In order not to bypass the existing referendum, the people of Dresden should be given the opportunity to decide again in a new referendum, taking into account all new facts. A city council resolution would be the only possibility to initiate a bridge referendum by February 2008, since according to the municipal code (§ 25) “a referendum [...] may only deal with matters that have not been a referendum within the last three years was carried out on the basis of a referendum ” . The conservative minority in the city council voted against the new referendum, so that the necessary two-thirds majority did not come about.
Then put Feßenmayr Senior Planning Officer on behalf of the now suspended on suspicion of infidelity Mayor Rossberg opposition against parts of the city council decisions one because the building freeze was unlawful. The city council, however, confirmed its decisions, whereupon the incumbent mayor Vogel again lodged an objection on August 10th and handed over responsibility to the regional council (RP).
The regional council assessed the city council resolutions as unlawful and demanded that they be repealed by August 24, 2006, threatening to award the construction works by substitute performance . At the third special meeting on August 24th, the city council decided to withdraw the application for planning approval from the RP. In addition, the Lord Mayor was instructed to immediately lodge an objection to any alternative actions by the RP with the administrative court.
The mayor then submitted the same day deadline objection with the regional council a that the on 25 August 2006 immediate enforcement of the award ordered the works.
City council
The majority (from the SPD , Left Party , Greens and part of the citizens' parliamentary group) want to receive the World Heritage title and demand democratic legitimation through a referendum. But even without a new referendum, one does not feel compelled to award the construction contracts immediately, based on a legal opinion of the TU Dresden , according to which the international treaties between UNESCO and the Federal Republic of Germany oblige the Dresdeners to secure the world heritage status. A referendum that would result in the loss of the title would violate international law and would therefore not be legitimate. The expert opinion of the University of Cologne commissioned by the supporters of the bridge (see section Decision of the first instance ), however, regards this conclusion as incorrect. The Greens are fundamentally opposed to a crossing at this point.
The CDU and FDP and the other part of the citizen faction see the decision of UNESCO as an intrigue of the opponents of the bridge. They warn of the influence of “supranational commissions” and accused UNESCO of blackmail. They accept the loss of the title and justify this with the decision of the citizens in 2005, the time before the World Heritage conflict. The Dresden FDP politician Jan Mücke described UNESCO as undemocratic, "the Dresdeners had finally decided the bridge issue" and pleaded for the confrontation with UNESCO: "The city will always remain a world cultural heritage of hearts" . Saxony's ex-Prime Minister Kurt Biedenkopf also advises renouncing world heritage status. “The tourists come anyway,” said Biedenkopf. The opponents of a new referendum justify their position with the results of several expert reports (see section Administrative Court Dresden ), which show that the UNESCO World Heritage Convention does not apply directly to Dresden from a purely legal point of view, since the Federal Republic has not implemented the treaties into German law.
City administration
As the executive power, the city administration has to ensure that the result of the legally binding referendum is implemented.
"Article 24 referendum
(3) In the case of a referendum, the question is decided in the sense in which it was answered by a majority of valid votes, provided that this majority is at least 25 percent of those entitled to vote. ...
(4) The referendum is equivalent to a resolution of the municipal council. It can only be changed within 3 years by a new referendum. "
The Dresden city administration, represented by the incumbent mayor, feels compelled to contradict the city council's resolutions to postpone construction. She feels obliged by the referendum of 2005 to build the bridge. Only a new referendum could free them from this obligation. However, this did not find the necessary two-thirds majority in the city council .
Regional Council
The Dresden regional council (RP; since August 1, 2008 regional directorate ) is the municipal supervisory authority of the Free State of Saxony. If the city makes unlawful decisions, it is obliged by its legal supervision to intervene.
The RP shares the opinion of the Federal Constitutional Court, according to which the referendum is binding for the administration, whereas the international treaties with UNESCO are of secondary importance. "There are no direct relationships between the state capital Dresden and UNESCO," it says in a press release.
In its actions, the regional council follows the existing legal situation and implements the decision of the OVG Bautzen . This approach is criticized by opponents of the bridge. The German UNESCO Commission describes the RP's stance as “not tenable” and “a declaration of bankruptcy for the World Heritage Program” . She recalled that the chances of the 13 German applicants for the title “World Heritage” decrease if Germany deals with the World Heritage in this way. The Deputy Prime Minister of Saxony Jurk (SPD) criticizes: “I do not consider the action of the regional council to be legally required. In such a difficult situation you shouldn't bang your head against the wall, but should use all discretion ” . Ulrich Fastenrath, professor of international law at the TU Dresden , agreed with this view : "The regional council could have given the public interest in the preservation of the world cultural heritage title more highly [...]" . The RP replied that, according to the OVG, it was “not only entitled to immediate execution in the award of contracts [...], but even obliged” .
Legal proceedings
Administrative Court of Dresden
The Dresden Administrative Court is responsible first . At the request of the state capital Dresden, it initially temporarily stopped the award of the contract and on August 30, the city of Dresden's lawsuit was upheld . In its decision it saw an obligation of the Free State to UNESCO and thus confirmed the opinion of the report by Fastenrath (TU Dresden). Even if the World Heritage Convention applies only to the Federal Republic, Saxony as a federal state is obliged by loyalty to the federal state not to harm the federal government in its international agreements. It should therefore be considered in the discretion “whether the federal government is in danger of a breach of treaty under international law” . The proponents considered this refuted by the legal opinion of Schöbener (University of Cologne). According to this, “a domestic obligation to interpret national legal norms in accordance with international law [...] presupposes that (a) the contract conclusion procedure has been carried out properly in accordance with the constitution (competence to conclude), and (b) the obligations arising from the international treaty in national law Have been implemented in law (transformation competence). Both requirements are missing for the World Heritage Convention ” .
In addition, the administrative court saw a contradiction in the behavior of the Free State of Saxony, which had participated in the application of the world cultural heritage site, but refused to commit itself. In addition, "a new situation has been created" that needs time for negotiations. The resolutions of the city council are "currently not suitable to justify the accusation of culpable delay in the implementation of the referendum on the construction of the bridge" .
In doing so, the court followed the international law-friendly view on the application of the World Heritage Convention (UNESCO World Heritage Convention) in the above-mentioned TU report. However, this was contradicted by Schöbener's report, according to which the Federal Republic of Germany lacks the statutory regulation for a constitutional restriction of local self-government. According to Article 28 (2) sentence 1 of the Basic Law, this is only possible […] within the framework of the laws […]. This does not apply to the international treaties mentioned.
Further reports on behalf of bridge proponents by the lawyer and former Saxon Minister of State Brüggen and Peine (University of Frankfurt (Oder)) also contradicted Fastenrath's report. They stated that the World Heritage Convention for Germany was only a declaration of intent with a wide scope for design and that, from a purely legal point of view, it was not an obstacle to the construction of the bridge and that the resolutions of the city council of August 24, 2006 were illegal. The agreement with the World Heritage Convention itself prescribes in its article 31 the ratification or acceptance of the treaty by […] constitutional measures. According to Article 59, Paragraph 2 of the Basic Law, a treaty law would have had to be passed for this under constitutional law. That has not happened to this day.
Higher Administrative Court Bautzen
After the regional council lodged a complaint against the decision of the Dresden Administrative Court , the Higher Administrative Court (OVG) Bautzen had to deal with the city council resolutions and the alternative implementation. The judges initially made no decision on the matter, but ordered mediation . An amicable agreement should be found with the help of an independent partner . The court justified the unusual way with the fact that no matter what decision is made, it must be unsatisfactory. This dispute is justiciable to an extremely limited extent, and in the conflict between direct local democracy and international law it cannot be avoided that one side is harmed. At the public hearing at which this order was made, the court did not specify the framework for an agreement. The Free State of Saxony, on the other hand, stated that “a modification of the planning [...] must move within the scope of the planning approval decision” .
The following were active as mediators from December 12, 2006 to January 24, 2007:
- Klaus J. Beckmann , head of the German Institute for Urban Studies
- Irene Wiese-von Ofen, alderman a. D. the city of Essen for urban planning, construction and soil
- Karl Ganser , urban planner and former managing director of the international building exhibition, Emscher Park mbH
- Jaroslav Kilián, freelance architect in Slovakia
- Bernd Streitberger, councilor for urban development, planning and building Cologne
The committee met with moderation by Birgitta Ringbeck, representative of the states for the UNESCO World Heritage of the Conference of Ministers of Education, and in the presence of a representative each from the Foreign Office and the Free State. In the expert report that was finally submitted, the group of mediators explicitly denied the OVG's requirements for mediation: Neither the referendum nor the present plan approval are acceptable as a starting point for mediation. The view was also expressed that the planned bridge did not respect the grown cultural landscape in this form and dimension and that a new planning was therefore unavoidable. Even a tunnel in the same place is not compatible with the World Heritage status, as it is to be designed with four lanes for safety reasons and is equivalent to a four-lane bridge in terms of traffic efficiency.
After the failure of the mediation, the Dresden Regional Council applied to the OVG Bautzen on January 25, 2007 to reopen the proceedings. On March 9, 2007, the OVG Bautzen changed the decision of the Dresden Administrative Court in the final instance . The state capital was obliged to build bridges as a result of the implementation of the referendum. The resolution states that the failed negotiations between the city and UNESCO no longer justified any further delay in the implementation of the referendum. The reason given is that “the principle of democracy, which is also to be implemented at the local level, is of decisive importance”. There is no direct legal binding of the World Heritage Convention because it has not been implemented in national law. The Higher Administrative Court is the highest instance of the Saxon administrative judiciary, so the decision is final .
Constitutional courts
The city council majority then asked the mayor to take the constitutional court route. The two constitutional complaints filed by the state capital were
- rejected as inadmissible by the Saxon Constitutional Court and
- not accepted for decision by the Federal Constitutional Court .
Both courts decided that the OVG had made a sufficiently precise assessment and that the city council should not invoke the basic right of general freedom of action in order to deviate from the result of the referendum. Since a municipality is the bearer of state power, an instruction issued by the regional council “is not an application of fundamental rights” . 24 In addition, the Federal Constitutional Court pointed out that even if the World Heritage Convention was fully binding in national law, its content did not necessarily make the referendum illegal. The convention, so the court,
- "According to its conception and wording, it does not offer absolute protection against any change ... The contracting states of the Convention have expressly recognized the sovereignty of the states ... (Art. 6 Para. 1 of the World Heritage Convention); The fulfillment of the protection mandate is first and foremost the task of the contracting states (Art. 4); The international dimension of the protection mandate is concretized in the “establishment of a system of international cooperation and assistance that is to support the contracting states in their efforts to preserve and record [the cultural and natural heritage]” (Art. 7). In view of this international legal framework, it is constitutionally possible that the will of the citizen determined in a formal vote ... prevails in a conflict over the planning development of a cultural landscape. In any case, this applies if a compromise solution was previously unsuccessfully sought in a negotiation process. As a result, the possible disadvantages from the decision - such as the loss of the world heritage status and the associated loss of reputation - must be accepted. ” Rn.35
Mediation attempts and consequences
The chairman of the " Bundestag Committee for Culture and Media" Hans-Joachim Otto (FDP) criticized the UNESCO Commission in September 2006 and justified his criticism with the fact that UNESCO also made mistakes (see communication problem in the nomination process for the Dresden World Heritage ) happened. At a special meeting of the Bundestag's cultural committee on September 28, 2006, which took place specifically to find a compromise in the bridge dispute, UNESCO referred to ICOMOS, who are involved as advisors and experts in the work of the UNESCO World Heritage Committee and who had produced an incorrect report. UNESCO acknowledged that
- "That she was already aware of the intention to build the bridge when she decided to award Dresden the world cultural heritage title" ,
- "That the corridor intended for this was correctly entered in the plans" and
- "That not the city of Dresden, but ICOMOS commissioned by UNESCO [...] is responsible for the information deficit claimed by UNESCO" .
Five weeks after the failure of the mediation , the German Bundestag debated the Dresden bridge dispute again on March 2, 2007.
After the final court ruling of March 9, 2007 , the award procedure , which had been stopped as a result of the UNESCO conflict , was continued by the incumbent Mayor Lutz Vogel informing the losing bidders. After the raised objections were examined by the public procurement tribunal , the orders (“the award”) were pending. The threatened withdrawal of the world cultural heritage title led to the intensification of the dispute.
The Minister of State for the Environment and Regional Development Arnold Vaatz attacked critics, sometimes sharply, as an advocate for the building. In spring 2007 this led to corresponding reactions and to the resignations of the artistic director of the Dresden Music Festival, Hartmut Haenchen and the president of the Saxon Academy of the Arts and chairman of the World Heritage Board of Trustees, Ingo Zimmermann also of the CDU. The dispute in Dresden and Saxony attracted great political and journalistic attention nationwide. At the beginning of April 2007, Federal Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee questioned the provision of federal funding (the GVFG grant of € 80 million covers more than 50% of the total costs ) and offered to share in the additional costs for a crossing of the Elbe agreed with UNESCO. After a legal examination, several federal ministries agreed to the demand that "no [...] funds from the federal budget should be used for the construction as planned" . The Saxon CDU / SPD government alliance was also burdened by the dispute.
Perspectives workshop
From April 28, 2007, the moderated perspective workshop, suggested by the mediators , met several times on Saturdays in the Dresden House of Architects with the participation of representatives from the inviting city administration, the city council groups and UNESCO. However, according to the organizers' wishes, the forum should deviate from the recommendation of the mediators because of the OVG ruling that has now been passed and only deal with possible bridge body variants that are within the specifications of the referendum.
The architectural offices Leonhardt, Andrä und Partner, Ben van Berkel , Dietmar Feichtinger , Frei Otto , Jörg Schlaich , Werner Sobek and Gerkan, Marg and Partner were commissioned to create world heritage bridges. On May 24, 2007 , Volkwin Marg returned the unprocessed order to the Dresden city administration for the last-named architects' partnership , based on whose designs the Berlin-Tegel Airport , the New Leipzig Trade Fair and the Berlin Central Station were built . Marg, who chaired the Waldschlößchenbrücke design competition in 1997 , justified his demonstrative early withdrawal from the current procedure in an open letter . In it, he complains that the task “the design consideration between a bridge and a tunnel for crossing the Elbe at this point” is excluded. Marg speaks out against any Waldschlößchen bridge and in favor of an Elbe tunnel.
On June 9, 2007, the six bridge designs submitted were presented to the public. When comparing it with the implementation competition of 1997, it is noticeable that some of the designs in a similar form and by the same applicants were already submitted and rejected in favor of the current design. Two of the designs - the work of Jörg Schlaich and Werner Sobek - were proposed for presentation at the UNESCO annual meeting in Christchurch / New Zealand. The selection panel saw them as having a good chance of changing the UN organization's mind - according to the press agency [ddp]. The managing director of the International Building Exhibition Emscher Park and mediator Karl Ganser spoke of the planned bridge as a “clear, narrow line” . This is supported by filigree pillars.
The city council decided to send Jörg Schlaich's draft to the UNESCO conference on June 23, 2007 in Christchurch. The regional council rejected it, however, because it could not be implemented within the binding period of the referendum. Since the bridge structure according to this design would cost significantly less than the one that received the award in 1997 , the RP countered its own demand for savings as formulated in the grant notice by rejecting it.
Further compromise search
At its meeting in Christchurch, New Zealand, the World Heritage Committee decided on June 25, 2007 to leave the Dresden Elbe Valley on the Red List for the time being . Dresden should submit the alternative proposals (including a tunnel variant) for examination by October 1st. The withdrawal of the World Heritage title was stipulated in the event that the bridge was built according to the 1997 plans.
While the regional council initiated the construction of the traffic train from June 2007 by awarding contracts by substitute performance , the city of Dresden, on the other hand, again went to the Higher Administrative Court and failed again. The attempt to give the compromise proposal to UNESCO a chance by not creating a fait accompli for the time being failed. Chancellor Angela Merkel also refused to intervene. She spoke up for the first time on July 18, 2007 in the dispute, calling it a "regional conflict" that should be resolved on the ground.
From the end of 2007, in agreement between the city administration and Prime Minister Milbradt, with the participation of Frauenkirchen Building Director Eberhard Burger and the bridge architects, minor changes to the statics, lighting and tunnel portal were incorporated, and the resulting slimmer draft was submitted to UNESCO as a compromise proposal. The prime minister rejected any further rescheduling.
In autumn 2008, the Mayor of Dresden, Helma Orosz , attempted to find a compromise a few weeks after taking office by emphasizing the importance of the bridge referendum of 2005 in a letter to UNESCO boss Bandarin and traveling to Paris for a meeting with UNESCO.
In order to prevent the loss of the World Heritage title, the discussion about alternatives that had been stopped in 1996 has been resumed since the concerns of UNESCO became known. The following were used as impulses:
- the decision of the Saxon Minister of Economic Affairs Jurk (SPD) to cancel the commitment of his predecessor Schommer (CDU) to the Waldschlösschen location and
- the progressive revision of the traffic concept including the Waldschlößchenbrücke in 1994 in view of a new traffic forecast (2006) and the growing fine dust pollution .
The Bund Deutscher Architekten (BDA) published a call for rethinking (among others) by writing in April 2007: “The previously published views of the conspicuously clumsy bridge body reveal the full extent of the destructive encroachment on the cultural landscape : in addition to the infrastructural Furnishing with signal systems and large-format traffic signs will transform driveways and exits as well as the three required tunnel entrances into the UNESCO World Heritage Site to a far greater extent than has previously been publicly stated. Therefore - with all due respect for the vote given by the referendum - the BDA advocates a solution to the Dresden bridge issue that is compatible with World Heritage status. To the triad of same , Elbaue and Elbflorenz extrapolate with a corresponding high-quality bridge architecture, one of the objections of the Unesco World Heritage Commission consider Direction architectural competition is urgently needed. It makes sense to open up the competition specifications for the discussed multi-bridge concept . Because the urban development and traffic-related benefits of this planning variant are convincing: Instead of being directed to an oversized bridge for the Elbe Valley, the inner-city traffic flow would be directed via two smaller bridges to be integrated into the urban structure, and long-distance traffic would be directed to a bridge to be placed outside the world cultural heritage. This decentralized concept does not destroy the world cultural heritage, corresponds to a modern traffic management and avoids the inner-city traffic flow induced by a central bridge. "
While numerous Dresden citizens were open to world heritage-compatible solutions, many of the bridge proponents strictly refused to re-examine alternatives. They invoked the referendum, which - confirmed by court decisions - left no room for maneuver. In addition, planning and approval would take several years. With the expiry of the binding period of the referendum, the argumentation has tightened to such an extent that these sides are now calling for an extended binding period for referendums (5 years) and stricter conditions for referendums. Since the argument of the binding period is no longer relevant, the focus of the opponents of the tunnel is now shifting to portraying the tunnel as practically impracticable, whereby the arguments do not refer to the tunnel planning presented in the referendum. In addition, the Saxon ADAC boss and co-initiator of the Waldschlößchenbrücken citizens' initiative, Nikolaus Köhler-Totzki, filed a criminal complaint against the incumbent Mayor Vogel (independent) and against the building mayor Feßenmayr (CDU), because they had embezzled public funds through the Perspektivenwerkstatt .
Elbe tunnel
The decision between bridge and tunnel , which was expressly left open in the traffic concept, was initially made without thorough discussion in favor of a bridge. The alternative Elbtunnel was examined in more detail for the first time after the regional council requested this in 2003 at the second attempt at planning approval . The possibility of tunneling under the Elbe only received intense attention after the World Heritage title depended on it in the conflict with UNESCO .
Previous investigations
In the period from 1990 to 2007, eight studies were carried out on the possibility of building a Dresden Elbe tunnel. Three of them were commissioned by the state capital Dresden, they were accompanied by the responsible authorities. These are
- Plan template from EIBS GmbH from August 1996: two-lane full tunnel with tram (EUR 124 million costs),
- Plan template from EIBS GmbH from December 2003: four-lane full tunnel with bus guidance (EUR 177 million costs),
- Expert opinion from June 2007 on the plans and statements made by various bodies up to that point (Ingenieurbüro Bung Beratende Ingenieure Heidelberg).
The most detailed investigation is the planning from 2003. It was carried out as part of the planning approval when the regional council Dresden (RP) asked the state capital Dresden to develop a tunnel project parallel to the bridge planning submitted. This requirement was made because the legislature provides for major public projects to be examined in terms of variants and alternatives. On the basis of these variants, it is to be checked whether the planning goals aimed at with the transport train can also be achieved with other solutions. The state capital had failed to do so by then.
The city administration then commissioned the Dresden planning office EIBS GmbH to carry out this feasibility study. In terms of drawing scale and level of detail, it corresponded to the bridge plans submitted to the RP, but, according to the RP, was only about 10 percent of the depth of a completed plan that was ready for approval.
The EIBS study came to the conclusion that tunneling at this point is basically feasible, but also has some disadvantages. The Elbe tunnel would begin on the old town side in the flood-proof area and connect on the new town side to the tunnel already planned for the bridge variant. The RP also stated: “An underground arrangement of the traffic system naturally does better justice to the aspects of town planning, monument protection and the landscape. Visual relationships are not impaired. After completion of the construction project, it is possible to restore the existing spatial situation in the area of the Elbe and the Elbe slope. In terms of environmental compatibility, the tunnel solution with the non-impairment of the Elbe in the final structural state and in terms of traffic noise emissions has obvious advantages over the bridge solution. ... " .
Disadvantages were seen primarily in the higher construction costs and in ventilation buildings that would have to be arranged in the area of the Elbe meadows . A tour for cyclists and pedestrians was - apart from the use of the bus route - not included in the planning. The status of “World Heritage” and the resulting obligations to protect the cultural property did not yet play a role, as the title was only awarded later. RP and city then rejected this variant.
Proponents of a tunnel then asked the Austrian tunnel planners from the engineering office "ILF - Beratende Ingenieure Innsbruck" to check the plans from 1996 and 2003, in particular to see whether the disadvantages described could be avoided. In contrast to EIBS, ILF has much more extensive experience in tunneling, including the construction of the Channel Tunnel between France and Great Britain and the Brenner Base Tunnel . The engineering office "BUNG - Consulting Engineers Heidelberg" provided another expert opinion on all studies available up to that point on behalf of the city administration.
ILF and BUNG also came to the conclusion that a tunnel would be feasible. However, a different construction method was proposed, whereby the construction and maintenance costs for the four-lane variant could be reduced to roughly the level of the bridge-tunnel combination planned at the time. If modern ventilation technology were used, no buildings would be necessary on the Elbe meadows. The impairment of the groundwater would be minimal, since the underground water movements run parallel to the tunnel.
chronology
Planning phase (Elbe tunnel as an alternative)
Since the planning templates for an Elbe tunnel mentioned in the previous section were drawn up, but never shortlisted, the controversy in the early years and before the referendum in 2005 focused on the necessity and sense of the additional Elbe crossing itself. Even back then, individual opinions that were given relatively little attention were in favor of a tunnel, for example Nobel Prize winner Günter Blobel , when he said that the Blue Wonder can be relieved much more effectively through a tunnel between Käthe-Kollwitz-Ufer and Pillnitzer Landstrasse than through the relatively distant one Waldschlößchenbrücke.
In connection with the discussion of the plan approval application, the regional council stated in 2003: "In addition, the publicly discussed alternatives to the Waldschlößchenbrücke, in particular the tunneling under the Elbe [...], were repeatedly introduced into the plan approval procedure by objectors."
Conflict phase 1 (Elbe tunnel as a compromise proposal)
Opponents of the bridge who up until then had fought the project under the leadership of the Green League - mainly for traffic-ecological reasons - brought the Elbe Tunnel back into discussion from 2006 onwards and saw it as a compromise
- on the one hand create the four-lane traffic connection at the disputed location, albeit with a time delay due to planning and possible additional financial expenditure, and
- on the other hand, the cultural landscape quality of the Elbe Valley (for local recreation and as a world heritage site ) would be preserved, although the traffic-ecological disadvantages would remain and would even be increased by the disadvantage of non-motorized road users.
Bridge proponents considered the compromise proposal to be insincere, as they suspected a tactic behind it, with which this Elbe crossing should ultimately be completely prevented. At least they are convinced that the necessary new plan approval would unreasonably delay and make the project more expensive. The proponents of the bridge gave no answer to the motivation for preventing a crossing of the Elbe in general. In the course of the public dispute, their arguments consisted mainly of portraying the Elbe Tunnel as not feasible and - in some cases - of stigmatizing the tunnel advocates with the stigma of unreasonable "stone throwers", so that they talk less about the advantages of their own variant than about the impossibility of other.
Tunnel advocates, on the other hand, found it hypocritical that referring to the Dresden mobility concept , of all people, those who voted in the Dresden city council in 1999 for the cancellation of the tram connection and in 2003 also for the cancellation of the tram option from the Waldschlößchenbrücken planning were advocates of pedestrians and cyclists .
In autumn 2007 , Prime Minister Milbradt did not accept the Green League's proposal to forego all legal action against the Waldschlösschen Elbe crossing if the project was converted into an Elbe tunnel .
- Conflict phase 2 (Elbe tunnel by public petition)
On March 11, 2008, tunnel supporters handed over the first 40,000 signatures to the city administration after the binding period of the old 2005 referendum had expired. These were collected in favor of a new referendum. The question submitted in favor of an Elbe tunnel was described by the regional council as misleading and therefore inadmissible. A current study by the TU Dresden refutes most of the criticisms made against the tunnel solution. The Dresden World Heritage Council also published a supportive statement, whereupon the city administration and the Chamber of Engineers presented their positions.
Since the beginning of April 2008 it has been clear that the citizen's petition quorum (21,021) with more than 35,000 valid signatures has been exceeded significantly. The administration drew up a template that suggested to the city council that the petition should be declared inadmissible due to deficiencies in the content. Tunnel advocates submitted a detailed legal opinion to the contrary. The city council decided on April 22, 2008 with 38 to 30 votes for “permissible”, against which the incumbent mayor Vogel appealed. After the city council repeated its vote the following week and the mayor maintained his objection, the regional council decided on June 12th in favor of the inadmissibility of the new petition. The tunnel proponents failed in the first instance in May and in the second in September 2008 with the attempt to enforce the referendum by an urgent judicial decision. In the event of a new referendum, under favorable conditions (assumption of the additional costs by the federal government, etc.), a pro-tunnel Majority was possible. This was the result of a representative telephone survey conducted by the TU Dresden in August 2008 among more than 700 residents of the state capital.
Tunnel discussion
Proponents of bridges and tunnels referred to different plans: The tunnel plans submitted by proponents of tunnels largely related to the EIBS feasibility study of 2003 and have the following characteristics:
- The construction work started can largely be integrated into the tunnel construction.
- A revision of the plan approval documents would only be necessary for 15% of the planning.
- It is not necessary to demolish existing buildings.
- The exhaust air from the tunnel can be cleaned and the structures required for discharge can be integrated into the surrounding buildings.
- The tunnel construction does not affect shipping traffic on the Elbe.
- The tunnel would have been feasible by 2012.
- The cost of the tunnel can be kept in the range of the cost of the bridge. Direct cost comparisons are only useful if they are compatible.
- A tunnel rise of 5% is sufficient and approvable even with a 3.5 m overburden.
- A tunnel is at least as flood-proof as the planned bridge.
- The maintenance and operating costs would roughly correspond to those of the bridge.
- The tunnel would be financially supported by the federal government in the same way as the Waldschlößchenbrücke.
The points of criticism put forward by the regional council and the citizens' initiative pro Waldschlößchenbrücke related to other, much less favorable plans. This led to the situation that both opponents and proponents of the tunnel did not use the same tunnel for their controversy.
In a technical meeting of the TU Dresden on March 6, 2008, which was attended by more than a dozen recognized experts, the planned tunnel solution was confirmed and summarized in the points listed above. After a discussion between the TU professors Wolfram Jäger and Rainer Schach , who were in charge of the specialist meeting, with representatives of the BUNG engineering office, the city administration and the regional council, the city announced, among other things, that the discussion of the disputed points had shown, in particular, that the completion of the tunnel in 2012 was unrealistic and would be conceivable in 2015 at the earliest. Jäger publicly contradicted this by saying that the results of the specialist meeting had not been withdrawn and that the result of the debate had been misrepresented by the city.
rating
When comparing the alternative options, an Elbe tunnel at Waldschlösschen said that the landscape would be spared and the World Heritage title would not be endangered, as well as because of the identical integration into the road network
- no compromises would have to be made in terms of performance for the motorized vehicle and
- a simplification of the plan approval would be expected.
In addition, advantages were mentioned that a tunnel, unlike the (fork) pillars of the bridge, has no flow resistance and does not represent an obstacle for any floating debris and that with it (if there is no central pedestrian tunnel) the danger of the nearby Elbe ferry being closed does not increase would. However, the bridge planning was also adapted to the findings of the 2002 flood - an already very rare flood of the same magnitude could no longer endanger the Waldschlößchenbrücke.
In favor of another Dresden Elbe bridge (regardless of location), however, the arguments spoke that
- they can also be used by pedestrians and cyclists, as well
- spectacular tunnel accidents in recent years raised awareness of the supposed risks of these traffic routes.
Since the inner city bridges were relieved by the construction of the A17 close to the city than the forecast for the effects of the Waldschlößchenbrücke predicted, those locations are now of particular interest that are particularly suitable as relief or replacement for the Blue Wonder.
There are suggestions for a location for such an Elbe bridge east of the city center
- Laubegast-Niederpoyritz and Thomas-Müntzer-Platz , both from the multi-bridge concept of ex-building mayor Gunter Just , and
- the immediate vicinity of the Blue Wonder (a “sister bridge” as a copy / “quote” or counterpart ), considered upstream in pre- Wende times, proposed downstream in 2006 by Ulrich Thormann.
The extent of the visual impairment and landscape fragmentation (most important UNESCO complaints ) as well as the environmental damage with influencing valley width (Elbe plus Elbe meadows) is between 250 and 450 meters at these four points considered (at the Waldschlösschen almost 800 meters). However, the problem criteria such as traffic effectiveness, environmental protection, protection of residents, landscape (World Heritage) compatibility, etc. have not been examined in detail for any of the alternative locations. In the case of Laubegast, there is also the fact that with the flood of the century in 2002 it became clear that the bridge would no longer be accessible if such an event occurred. In the case of “smaller floods” such as the 2006 flood, however, it would give the district, which is otherwise almost an island, an important connection to the outside world.
With regard to costs, only a few were undisputed due to contradicting estimates:
- There was broad agreement that a four-lane Elbe tunnel at Waldschlösschen would be at least as expensive as the planned bridge. BUNG went in its report u. a. assuming additional tunnel costs of several tens of millions of euros. This additional cost estimate was adjusted several times in the course of the construction progress and became superfluous with the opening of the bridge in 2013.
- Regarding alternative locations, no side has tried to refute a statement that was not contradicted at the bridge workshop in 1996 : Each of the other bridges discussed would be shorter and only make sense with two lanes, and thus significantly more cost-effective. In addition, the newly built bridges in the Saxon cities of Torgau (1993 - approx. € 15.5 million), Meißen (1997 - approx. € 14 million) and Pirna (1999 - approx. € 37 million) were referred to .
More controversy
To the tunnel alternative
With the referendum for the Elbe Tunnel, a competition between both parties developed to influence public opinion and thus the electorate in a possible new referendum. While the tunnel advocates presented the advantages and feasibility of a tunnel and provided information about the importance of the World Heritage title, the argumentation of the bridge proponents ( citizens' initiative for Waldschlößchenbrücke ) was mainly designed to portray the Elbe tunnel as impractical and the opponents of the bridge as unreasonable.
On Germany-wide importance
In an open letter on March 28, 2008 , the federal government stated:
- "Deleting the Dresden Elbe Valley from the World Heritage List would significantly affect Germany's reputation and Germany's relationship with UNESCO."
- "The responsibility for the construction of the Waldschlösschenbrücke [lies] with the state capital Dresden and the Free State of Saxony."
- "The World Heritage Convention was ratified in 1976 according to ... the so-called" Lindau Agreement ", i. H. the countries gave their consent ... at that time. This means that the federal states are also ... bound by the World Heritage Convention. "
Regarding point 3, however, the exact position of the new federal states remains open , because these did not yet exist in 1976 and the Unification Treaty does not contain any relevant regulation. In addition, the legal validity of the Lindau Agreement (its constitutional conformity; see also there) is not undisputed, so that a constitutional dispute may threaten if the federal government should reclaim the € 80 million in funding that was received for the bridge, as was threatened by the then Transport Minister Tiefensee .
On June 3, 2008, the artists Günter Grass , Durs Grünbein , Christoph Hein , Rolf Hoppe , Klaus Staeck , Martin Walser and Wim Wenders published an open letter to the Chancellor in which they appealed “to do everything possible to cause irreparable damage to the one-off Dresden heritage, to prevent our country's reputation as a cultural nation and Germany's reliability in matters of international law ” .
On "Bridge Jihadism"
In view of the growing number of criminal charges against strangers in the vicinity of the construction site (see Waldschlößchenbrücke # construction work ), the Saxon Justice Minister Geert Mackenroth raised the charge in May 2008 that “some opponents of the bridge would have to put up with the question of whether they were the spiritual fathers of those people who commit crimes in the vicinity of the bridge construction site ” . Mackenroth, who spoke of “bridge jihadism ” in this context , was therefore criticized by those who opposed the bridge, who professed non-violence. Eva Jähnigen from the state board of the Saxon Greens replied: "Anyone who compares those who think differently with the attackers of September 11th has to be accused of a disturbed perception."
On the World Heritage compatibility of the Middle Rhine Bridge
Another discourse arose in the summer of 2010 after the UNESCO decision that in the Upper Middle Rhine Valley World Heritage site , where people had feared losing the title for years because of the planned river crossing, the construction of the Middle Rhine Bridge would be allowed while retaining the World Heritage title. According to the Dresdner Presse, "[...] there, and that is the biggest difference, [...] was successfully planned with the landscape, not against it." In addition, the Loreley was more diplomatic: "The Rhinelander have from the beginning worked amicably with Unesco [...] ” .
On the occasion of the floating of the middle section of the bridge
When in December 2010 the prefabricated central section of the bridge was floated in (bridging) , representatives from both camps gathered near the construction site. While the highest representative of the client of the state capital Dresden , Lord Mayor Helma Orosz , spoke of a "technical masterpiece à la color" , those opposing the bridge presented the Brecht quote "Stupidity becomes invisible when it has assumed sufficiently large dimensions."
The unresolved spelling question - Schlößchen / Schlösschen according to the old or new spelling - flickered up again. While the state capital insists on the embossed in the 1990s beta version, distributed the Saxon Ministry of Transport "Bridge souvenirs" of Waldschlö ss chenbrücke .
In the run-up to the traffic release
In July 2011, about a year before the previously planned traffic release and a few weeks before the start of the main hearing of the lawsuit of the environmental associations at the OVG , the Institute for Communication Science at the TU Dresden determined the opinion of the TU Dresden again (as regularly for more than 15 years before) Dresdner zur Brücke through a representative survey. With 75% approval, the previous record of February 1996 (67% approval) was exceeded for the first time.
The planning announced by Mayor Jörn Marx in September 2011 that the renovation and expansion of the southern main access road to Fetscherstraße will not take place until months or years after the bridge has gone into operation is causing displeasure .
In the spring of 2013, in the run-up to completion, discussions began as to whether the city should not have an opening ceremony.
Naming
After the call to search for the official name that the bridge should one day bear, suggestions came from cabaret artist Uwe Steimle ("Luftschlösschenbrücke", "Weltkulturerbe-Brücke"), comedian Mario Thiel ("The Unfinished") and cabaret artist Wolfgang Schaller ( "Sad miracle").
After a long discussion between summer 2011 and January 20, 2012, the Dresden city council decided to use the previously unofficial name Waldschlößchenbrücke as the official name of the bridge.
The bridge dispute as a political issue
Dresden local politics
Main actors
Reservoirs in the bridge dispute were in advance of the citizens 'decision in 2005 constituted groupings "citizens' initiative Pro Waldschlößchenbrücke" (responsible: Nicholas Köhler Totzki / ADAC and lawyer Hans-Joachim Braun) and "coalition against the Waldschlößchenbrücke" (responsible: musician Thomas Friedlaender ). In the years after the referendum, the Green League Saxony e. V. with their “bridge commissioner” Achim Weber († January 8, 2010) and the Dresden World Heritage Movement represented by Thomas Löser .
Polarization of citizenship
After the dispute had simmered for ten years, the 2005 referendum and the escalating conflict with UNESCO in the following year led to the formation of fronts, hardening and polarization, which for a long time divided Dresden's residents. Numerous other forms of political will such as mayor and local elections were overlaid by the topic; Many citizens felt annoyed by years of preoccupation with him and many MPs felt overburdened. And at gatherings such as company and family celebrations, broaching the topic was almost always a taboo and led to e.g. T. persistent confrontations.
In view of the deep division of the Dresden population, the Evangelical Church tried to have a conciliatory effect on the disputing parties by inviting them to appropriate thematic prayer events in the Kreuzkirche . In addition, the two Dresden superintendents Peter Meis and Albrecht Nollau jointly sent open letters on the subject of the Waldschlößchenbrücke to the Saxon Interior Minister Albrecht Buttolo and the designated Dresden Mayor Helma Orosz . In 2006, as representatives of the Catholic Church, Bishop Joachim Reinelt and Vicar General Konrad Zdarsa clearly spoke out in favor of the implementation of the Pro-Brücke citizens' vote. In this context, the latter also resigned his mandate on the Dresden Elbe Valley World Heritage Board of Trustees .
Self-image and conflict-ability of the opponents
In their self-image , representatives of both camps in the bridge dispute saw their own side expressly standing in the tradition of the peaceful revolution of 1989 and the group of 20 and their legacy at risk due to an unfavorable outcome of the bridge dispute. Some, by referring to the achievement of democracy in connection with the referendum , others by emphasizing that " civic engagement [...] is an indispensable asset in a democratically constituted community ... and ...] also a determining factor for the Application for and awarding of the World Heritage title [was]. "
In Dresdner Hefte 94 (see literature ), the journalist Michael Bartsch assessed the conflict resolution of the opposing parties as follows:
- “There are general problems of the young, unfamiliar [...] democracy in the eastern parts of the country. They are behind the defensive hand movements or the resigned to sarcastic remarks when the talk comes today about the bridge dispute in Dresden. Nobody likes to admit their own failure, not even citizens who have given up on finding out more about the complex issues. Instead, the responsibility for the failure of a solution that actually builds bridges is always delegated to those who think differently. "
World Heritage in Saxony
Disadvantages can be identified for new World Heritage applications from Saxon sites ( e.g. Hellerau and Erzgebirge ), since - especially among the politically conservative - the concept of world heritage has been damaged by the confrontation with UNESCO.
Litigation costs
As an inquiry in the Saxon state parliament revealed, the costs incurred and known so far for the legal dispute are
- € 331,000 for the Free State of Saxony and
- € 7,016 for the Green League .
Quotes
- "The loss of the World Heritage title is manageable." - Georg Milbradt during his tenure as Prime Minister of Saxony
- “Unique act of cultural self-mutilation” - Sabine von Schorlemer (2006), later Saxon science and art minister in Tillich's second black and yellow cabinet
- "The totalitarian elites" - Arnold Vaatz Member of the Bundestag, deputy chairman of the CDU / CSU parliamentary group and former Saxon environment minister, on the contradiction of well-known Dresden intellectuals against the implementation of the referendum Pro Brücke
- "I find the whole process [...] such a package of provincialism , it is really very sad." - Udo Zimmermann after taking office as President of the Saxon Academy of the Arts
- "If the bridge had been designed as a tunnel as it is, we Dresdeners would have liked to eat it." - Cabaret artist Uwe Steimle shortly after the start of construction
- “Dresden is of course a world cultural heritage. But of course democracy must take precedence. And when people have voted, when there is a majority, a solution has to be found ” - Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel at a rally for Dresden's mayoral election in 2008
- “The city of Dresden suffers the greatest damage when the word gets around among tourists that there is no traffic in the city of Dresden […]. That would be exactly the consequence if the bridge did not take place. ” - Arnold Vaatz , Deputy Chairman of the CDU / CSU parliamentary group, in an interview with Deutschlandfunk on July 4th, 2008
- "" Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus - justice must be done and when the world perishes because of it. "[...] you can nail yourself to the Waldschlösschenbrücke in Dresden in large letters when the controversial building then [...] cuts through the beautiful Elbe valley. “ - Lausitzer Rundschau on July 4th, 2008
- “Of course we don't know how future generations will assess the bridge structure. With some certainty, however, one can read from the building the arrogance with which politicians, invoking the execution of democratic will , have prevailed against worldly insights , not least to show who is master of the house here and in the expectation that tomorrow the whole world will already be welcomed, which today seems appropriate to local egoism ” - Heinrich Magirius , Saxon state curator a. D.
- "In the end the opponents lost twice, they had to take the bridge and the loss of the world heritage." - Britta Rudolff, professor at the BTU Cottbus
- “Years ago we were deprived of our world title - just because of a common urban destruction measure. Which of course only hurts those who tried to prevent it. Whereas the Dünkeldresdner (vehicle registration number: DD) naturally consider themselves to be of world importance even without a world title ” - Thomas Rosenlöcher in the Dresden Musikfestspiel Magazin 2013
reception
A series of seminars at the Bauhaus University Weimar dealt with the topic from a scientific and urban planning perspective . In terms of journalism and literature, the bridge dispute was taken up by Thomas Rosenlöcher and Patrick Wilden, among others . As a visual artist, Erika Lust responded in 2009 with the temporarily banned painting “ Ms. Orosz advertises the world heritage ”.
The later Saxon Science Minister Sabine von Schorlemer published a résumé of the bridge dispute in the 2009 edition of the German Yearbook of International Law . In her detailed analysis of the conflict with UNESCO, she comes to the conclusion that the attitude of those responsible in Dresden and Saxony is not affected by international law is covered.
attachment
literature
- Michael Bartsch : Dresden Masochism - The irreconcilability of the bridge dispute against the background of a young, unstable democracy - In: Dresdner Hefte 94, ISBN 978-3-910055-90-2 .
- Udo Becker , Günter Arlt : Is there a sustainable transport system for Dresden? - In: Dresdner Hefte 94, ISBN 978-3-910055-90-2 .
- Michael Kilian : The bridge over the Elbe: effects of the UNESCO World Heritage Convention under international law - Entry in: Administrative journal for the states of Berlin ... Saxony ...; LKV 18 from 2008, pp. 248-254.
Web links
- Dresden Transport Scientists: Video of the panel discussion Waldschlößchenbrücke and World Heritage Site (Faculty of Transport Sciences at TU Dresden, January 17, 2007)
Proponents:
Opponent:
- Preserve the World Heritage Initiative (Green League)
- Coalition against the Waldschlößchenbrücke ( Memento from June 19, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
- Association of Citizens' Requests for Tunnel Alternative at Waldschlößchen e. V.
Press:
-
Evelyn Finger in DIE ZEIT:
- Dumm builds well (at the start of construction, November 22, 2007)
- Dresden twilight (to be completed, 23 August 2013)
- SUNDAY: A bridge that divides - The dispute over the Dresden Waldschlösschenbrücke also runs right through the church ( memento from March 24, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) (Ev.-Luth. Landeskirche Sachsens, February 18, 2008)
- Dankwart Guratzsch in DIE WELT: Dresdner Brücke considerably more expensive than planned (March 26, 2010)
See also
- List of Elbe crossings in Dresden
- World Heritage in Germany
- further conflicts known as the bridge dispute
- other public conflicts between building projects and environmental protection: protest against Stuttgart 21 , Stockholm elm war
Individual evidence
- ↑ UNESCO press release: Dresden loses World Heritage status - UNESCO World Heritage Committee will meet in Seville until June 30 , 2009
- ↑ a b c d e f Kunibert Wachten , Chair and Institute for Urban Development and Regional Planning at RWTH Aachen University : The two reports on the visual effects of the Waldschlösschen Bridge and the Middle Rhine Bridge
- ^ Saxon Main State Archives : Rescript Collection Dresden, Rescript of April 26, 1826
- ^ Dresden City Archives : City Council Files, E 52
- ^ City archive of the state capital Dresden: Official meeting report. Secret meeting on September 17, 1908 (PDF 1.0 MB)
- ↑ a b c Ronald Weckesser: "Bridge Workshop" and Peter Herpichböhm: The Bridge Dispute in Dresden ( Memento from September 28, 2007 in the Internet Archive ), Dresdner Blätt'l 11/96 from June 7, 1996 and 17/96 from October 2 1996
- ↑ a b c State capital Dresden: Waldschlößchenbrücke traffic train ( Memento from August 11, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ a b c Excerpt from the minutes of the GRÜNEN LIGA e. V. Saxony of the discussion meeting Waldschlößchenbrücke on September 15, 2003; Location: Regional Council Dresden ( Memento of the original from July 8, 2011 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 13 kB)
- ↑ a b c waldschloesschenbruecke.de: Funding is available for other projects ( memento from January 1, 2012 in the Internet Archive ), February 22, 2005
- ↑ a b c d State capital Dresden: Citizens' decision Waldschlößchenbrücke - voting booklet for February 27, 2005 "To all households" , January 17, 2005 (PDF 1.0 MB), supporters page 1
- ↑ The Bridges Newspaper. Special newspaper of the PDS parliamentary group in the city council on the referendum on the Waldschlößchenbrücke ( memento of September 28, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 292 kB), February 2005, page 8.
- ↑ a b Citizens' Initiative Pro Waldschlößchenbrücke: Frequently asked questions
- ↑ Udo Becker : The Waldschlößchenbrücke traffic planning process - what you definitely have to remember in 2025! ( Memento of July 7, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 181 kB), Student Council for Transport Sciences, January 17, 2007
- ↑ a b c Compilation of the traffic data from the prognoses on which the planning approval decision is based ( Memento of September 27, 2007 in the Internet Archive ); Traffic occupancy 2015: without bridge (PDF; 805 kB) - with bridge (PDF; 777 kB) - difference with-without bridge (each PDF approx. 0.8 MB)
- ↑ Question “Will the bridge become a shortcut route for motorway traffic, so to speak a motorway through the city?” On pro-waldschloesschenbruecke.de
- ↑ State capital Dresden: Answering various inquiries about the Waldschlößchenbrücke traffic train (PDF; 45 kB)
- ↑ Travel time measurements 2005, traffic forecast 2020 and freight traffic census 2005. (No longer available online.) In: dresden.de. State capital Dresden, July 24, 2006, archived from the original on July 8, 2012 ; Retrieved February 19, 2017 . Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. ; on this Dresdner Morgenpost : and City Councilor Stephan Kühn (B90 / Grüne): Evaluation of the travel time measurements , September 18, 2006
- ↑ Wolfgang Blum: Eternally lures the expressway , sueddeutsche.de of January 23, 2006
- ↑ Compilation of the traffic data from the forecasts on which the planning approval decision is based ( Memento from September 27, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) - It is assumed that a newly developed connection to the “eastern city ring” (Wormser Straße) is assumed. The width of the carriageway on Wormser Straße is currently only 4 meters. However, an expansion is not planned, see also Citizens' Decision Voting Booklet , Supporters Page 4.
- ↑ Answer of the mayor on request 0140/2004: Loschwitzer Bridge / Verkehrszug Waldschlößchenbrücke ( Memento from September 28, 2007 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 358 kB), January 17, 2005
- ↑ Michael Kaiser in conversation with Eberhard Katzschner: On the future of the Blue Wonder ( Memento from September 27, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 22 kB), February 9, 2005 and Disy: Dresden's third landmark - the Blue Wonder
- ↑ waldschloesschenbruecke.de: Mayor: Blue Wonder is to be renovated ( Memento from January 1, 2012 in the Internet Archive ), February 24, 2005
- ↑ a b Die Zeit: Visible Bridge - A Dresden Horror Vision , April 6, 2006
- ^ Information from the city administration at the request of the Greens parliamentary group, June 1, 2006
- ↑ Sächsische Zeitung: There is a risk of traffic chaos at Fetscherplatz , October 8, 2010
- ↑ Traffic model for traffic forecast 2025 is ready for use. In: dresden.de. State capital Dresden, October 7, 2010, accessed on February 19, 2017 (press release).
- ↑ City of Dresden: Transport Development Plan 2025plus
- ↑ Dresdner Blätt'l 15/97: Almost complete chronicle of a fraud ( memento of April 29, 2010 in the Internet Archive ), March 21, 1997
- ↑ welterbe-erhalten.de: ( page no longer available , search in web archives: The Chronology )
- ↑ Michael Bartsch in SAX 9.07: "This bridge or none" , September 2007
- ↑ a b c German UNESCO Commission e. V .: The Elbe Valley in Dresden
- ↑ FFH 2: Elbe valley between Schöna and Mühlberg ( Memento from May 7, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ ND 37: Glatthaferwiese on the banks of the Elbe Johannstadt ( Memento from November 27, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ State capital Dresden, city planning office: Land use plan. Explanatory report. Dresden, 1998
- ↑ State Capital Dresden, Office for Green Spaces: Landscape Plan, Part I. Explanatory report - inventory and assessment. Dresden, 1998. p. 43 ff.
- ↑ Urban planning office of the state capital Dresden: ( page no longer available , search in web archives: statement on the location of the planned bridge ), hearing process for planning approval, August 2003
- ↑ welterbe-erhalten.de: Nature - Environment - Traffic
- ↑ GREEN LIGA Saxony e. V .: Statement on the 2nd Tektur transport project Waldschlößchenbrücke (PDF; 22 kB), December 18, 2003
- ↑ a b press release of the GRÜNEN LIGA Sachsen e. V. ( Memento of the original from June 18, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , August 9, 2007
- ↑ ESKR Engineers + Architects: Brief comment on the bird meadow under draft ( Memento from March 19, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ a b Dresdner Blätt'l 18/2004: The Lord Mayor's answer to written request 1296/2003 of March 11, 2003: How often has the Waldschlößchenbrücke transport project been completely or partially rescheduled since the first city council resolution in 1996? ( Memento of December 17, 2005 in the Internet Archive ), November 12, 2004
- ↑ Traffic planning Köhler and Taubmann GmbH Frankfurt am Main / Dresden: Benefit-cost study (NKU) Stadtbahntrasse "Waldschlösschenbrücke" in Dresden ( Memento from July 29, 2007 in the Internet Archive ), 1999
- ^ Sächsische Akademie der Künste: Shattering bridge judgment from the Art Academy ( memento of November 18, 2007 in the web archive archive.today ), June 27, 2006
- ^ Die Welt: Kulturerbe: Architekten gegen Waldschlößchenbrücke , May 4, 2006
- ↑ State capital Dresden: Expert procedure for the integration of bridgeheads on the right bank of the Elbe ( memento of October 29, 2008 in the web archive archive.today ), April 14, 2003
- ↑ Two visualizations of the tunnel portal on the right Elbe: 1 ( Memento of the original from February 22, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. 2 ( Memento of the original from February 22, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , RWTH Aachen, March 2006
- ↑ Living in Dresden: Surprise: Bridge is not beautiful at all ( memento from July 13, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), Heidrun Hannusch in DNN
-
↑ a b pro-waldschloesschenbruecke.de
Changed draft can bring Waldschlößchenbrücke and World Heritage title in line. In: dresden.de. State capital Dresden, January 28, 2008, accessed on February 19, 2017 (press release). - ↑ Regional Council Dresden: Press release 29/2000: Regional Council Dresden provides information on the status of the planning approval procedure for the new construction of the Waldschlößchenbrücke ( memento of September 27, 2007 in the archive.today web archive ), July 14, 2000
- ↑ welterbe-erhalten.de: The noise forecast ( memento of the original from March 1, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 56 kB)
- ↑ Dresden Regional Council: Implementation of the Saxon Road Act - Planning approval for the construction project for the new construction of the Waldschlößchenbrücke traffic train - Application by the City of Dresden from February 18, 2003 (PDF; 261 kB), February 25, 2004
- ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Landesdirektion (formerly regional council) Dresden: Press releases on the Waldschlößchenbrücke
- ↑ welterbe-erhalten.de: GRÜNE LIGA will be involved in the renewed planning approval ( memento of July 7, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), April 13, 2010
- ↑ Free State of Saxony, State Office for Environment and Geology: ( Page no longer available , search in web archives: Little Horseshoe Bat ), January 2006
- ↑ Federal Administrative Court: ( page no longer available , search in web archives: judgment BVerwG 9 A 20.05 (A143 near Halle / Saale) ) (PDF; 375 kB), January 17, 2007
- ↑ Saxon Higher Administrative Court: ( page no longer available , search in web archives: decision Az .: 5 BS 336/07 ), November 12, 2007
- ↑ a b c d Law firm Derra, Meyer & Partner, von Alvensleben: Expert opinion on the admissibility of the Waldschlößchenbrücke referendum, represented by Messrs. Köhler-Totzki, Mücke and Brauns ( Memento of the original from November 29, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: Der Archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 68 kB)
- ↑ Federal Administrative Court: BVerwG 9 A 3.06 (A44 near Hessisch Lichtenau) , March 12, 2008
- ↑ Dresden Administrative Court : Judgment Az .: 3 K 923/04 (October 30, 2008), reasons dated February 20, 2009
- ↑ Welterbe-erhalten.de: Appeal of nature conservation associations rejected, revision approved , December 16, 2011
-
↑ welterbe-erhalten.de: Waldschlößchenbrücke - Federal Administrative Court negotiates in March , article in the Dresdner Neuesten Nachrichten of January 4, 2014
quo-vadis-dresden.de: Oral hearing at the BVerwG on the Waldschlösschenbrücke , December 27, 2013 - ↑ focus.de: Lawsuit on Waldschlößchenbrücke: Court must observe EU nature conservation , January 14, 2016
- ↑ Federal Administrative Court: judgment of July 15, 2016 - BVerwG 9 C 3.16
- ↑ Hartmut Haenchen: Waldschlößchenbrücke traffic train damages Dresden's culture ( memento from January 1, 2012 in the Internet Archive ), February 22, 2005
- ↑ Question “Doesn't the bridge bring a lot of stress to many citizens?” On pro-waldschloesschenbruecke.de
- ↑ brueckenffekten.de: ( page no longer available , search in web archives: the costs of the route are borne by the citizens )
- ↑ Decision of the Finance Committee of the City of Munich, page 3: Property tax B: Frequency of the assessment rates in the 50 largest German cities (PDF; 30 kB), July 27, 2004
- ↑ a b CDU parliamentary group in the Dresden city council: Budget 2005 - more exciting than ever! ( Memento of September 29, 2007 in the Internet Archive ), April 2005
- ↑ CDU parliamentary group in the Dresden city council: Citizens' group with populism instead of realism ( Memento from September 29, 2007 in the Internet Archive ), April 2, 2005
- ^ Citizens' group in the Dresden city council: Open letter from the chairman of Haus & Grund Dresden ( Memento from April 27, 2008 in the Internet Archive )
- ↑ welterbe-erhalten.de: Roßbergs Waldschlößchenbrücke with Dutch ramps ( Memento from July 8, 2012 in the web archive archive.today )
- ↑ Media Service Saxony: Waldschlößchenbrücke: Free State has 90% funding ( memento of the original from November 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 76 kB), August 23, 2004
- ↑ a b NETZEITUNG.DE: Federal government calls for no construction of bridges in Dresden ( memento of April 29, 2008 in the Internet Archive ), April 5, 2007
- ↑ Saxon State Ministry of Finance: Grant notification to the City of Dresden is legally binding ( memento from January 6, 2013 in the web archive archive.today ), press release from April 19, 2007
- ↑ a b c Grant notification of October 28, 2004 from the RP to the city ( memento of the original from March 8, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 523 kB); Green parliamentary group: Press release on the donation notification ( Memento of the original from January 30, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 54 kB)
- ↑ Personal letter from Mr. Gerth / Federal Ministry for Transport, Building and Urban Development from August 14, 2007
- ↑ Dresdner Latest News: Waldschlößchenbrücke: Costs keep rising , October 1, 2018
- ↑ State capital Dresden: Floor plan of the World Heritage Center in Lingnerschloss (planning) ( Memento from February 7, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 152 kB)
- ↑ mdr.de: Chronicle “The long way to the Waldschlößchenbrücke” , MDR
- ^ Dresdner Latest News: A letter will come ... ( Memento from May 20, 2012 in the Internet Archive ), November 17, 2005
- ↑ a b c d Dresden University of Technology: 2 legal expert opinions, Fastenrath, August 9 and 21, 2006 ( Memento from February 12, 2013 in the web archive archive.today )
- ↑ a b German translation from the Federal Law Gazette, 1977, Part II, No. 10: Convention for the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage , UNESCO General Conference in Paris, November 23, 1972
- ↑ ad-hoc-news.de: New government report on UNESCO World Heritage ( memento from April 24, 2008 in the web archive archive.today ), November 30, 2007
- ↑ a b Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung: Völkerrechtsproblem Brücke , 10 August 2006
- ↑ a b Lawsuits against the bridge ( Memento from September 27, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
- ^ Sächsische Zeitung: This bridge remains a castle in the air , May 8, 2004
- ↑ State Capital Dresden: City Council Resolution No. V0107-SR03-04 ( Memento of the original from November 27, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , September 23, 2004
- ↑ Logbook entry on welterbe-erhalten.de: The budget for the bridge for 2004 has already been exceeded ( memento of July 14, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), September 22, 2004
- ↑ a b State capital Dresden: Citizens' decision Waldschlößchenbrücke - official final result (overall and by district) , February 27, 2005
- ↑ a b c d Municipal Code for the Free State of Saxony (SächsGemO) ( Memento of the original from February 20, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , March 18, 2003 / June 11, 2005
- ↑ State capital Dresden: ( page no longer available , search in web archives: brief explanations on the Waldschlößchenbrücke project, annex to the application of the state capital Dresden for recognition by UNESCO as a world cultural heritage site, translation from English with further short comments ) (PDF 6.9 MB) - However, it is not clear from the content of this document which information was actually enclosed with the application and which information was subsequently added. Also noteworthy is the contradiction of the dates mentioned on page 3, which are after the given issue date of the document.
- ↑ ICOMOS expert Ilse Friedrich: World Heritage Elbe Valley Dresden and the Waldschlösschenbrücke - on the preservation and further development of a cultural landscape (PDF; 103 kB), June 13, 2007
- ↑ Citizens' petition for an alternative tunnel at Waldschlößchen e. V .: And the UNESCO was informed !? , July 1, 2008
- ^ Dresden delegation for talks at UNESCO headquarters in Paris. In: dresden.de. State capital Dresden, April 16, 2008, accessed on February 19, 2017 (press release).
- ↑ a b c TU Dresden, Faculty of Architecture and Faculty of Civil Engineering: Technical exam Elbtunnel Dresden ( Memento of the original from January 12, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 54 kB), March 7, 2008
- ↑ Martin Gellermann, adjunct professor at the University of Osnabrück : Waldschlösschenbrücke in Dresden ( Memento of the original from November 28, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 17 kB), May 5, 2009 - Assessment of the judgment of the Dresden Administrative Court of October 30, 2008 - Ref .: 3 K 923/04
- ^ Opinion on the announced withdrawal of the World Heritage title. In: dresden.de. State capital Dresden, March 6, 2008, accessed on February 19, 2017 (press release).
- ↑ a b c Mediation process Dresdner Waldschlößchenbrücke: Result of the expert group ( memento of the original from June 19, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 246 kB), January 24, 2007
- ↑ Der Tagesspiegel: Dresden stands there without a title , June 26, 2009
- ↑ a b welterbe-erhalten.de: ( page no longer available , search in web archives: visualization of the planned bridge and the elevated roads over the Elbe )
- ^ TU Dresden: Opinion on the report on the visual effects of the Waldschlößchenbrücke traffic train on the UNESCO World Heritage Site "Elbe Valley Dresden" (PDF; 120 kB) May 19, 2006
- ↑ State capital Dresden: ( page no longer available , search in web archives: Waldschlößchenbrücke and World Heritage ) (brochure), page 18, March 2006 (PDF 0.7 MB)
- ↑ Dresdner Latest News: "Unsuccessful data comparison", March 22, 2006 (page 15)
- ↑ Dresdner Latest News: Dark red! , July 12, 2006
- ^ Günter Blobel in Dresdner Latest News: "Provincial potentates harm Dresden's reputation", July 21, 2006
- ^ Wolfgang Donsbach in Dresdner Latest News: "Bill without the host", August 1, 2006
- ↑ from Krieger / Menke / Arens annotated edition of the "Municipality Code for the Free State of Saxony" (paperback), Deutscher Gemeindeverlag; Edition: 4th edition (September 2004), ISBN 3-555-54033-5
- ↑ z. B. MdL Ronald Weckesser in his speech to the Saxon state parliament ( memento from April 29, 2008 in the web archive archive.today ) on July 19, 2006 and start trumpeter Ludwig Güttler in “ Mit den Elbauen in der Zwickmühle ( memento of the original from January 19 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. “In Heidenheimer Neue Presse from July 22, 2006
- ↑ a b Dresdner Latest News: "Waldschlößchenbrücke: City Council votes against immediate construction", July 21, 2006
- ↑ a b Lord Mayor of the State Capital Dresden: Contradiction of the Lord Mayor ... regarding ... the resolution "UNESCO World Heritage Dresden Elbe Valley - Preservation of the Elbe Valley" ( Memento from March 6, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 13 kB), July 25, 2006
- ↑ City Council of the State Capital Dresden: Resolutions on UNESCO World Heritage and the Waldschlößchenbrücke ( memento of March 10, 2016 in the Internet Archive ), August 10, 2006
- ↑ Lord Mayor of the City of Dresden: Renewed contradiction by the Lord Mayor ... regarding ... the resolution "UNESCO World Heritage Dresden Elbe Valley - Preservation of the Elbe Valley" ( Memento from March 6, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 9 kB), August 11, 2006
- ↑ City Council of the City of Dresden: Resolution on the implementation of a referendum and withdrawal of the application for planning approval ( Memento from September 3, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 24 kB), August 24, 2006
- ↑ a b c d e Burkhard Schöbener: Expert opinion (PDF; 94 kB), September 20, 2006
- ↑ Dresdner Latest News: "Bridge Meeting: OB contradiction is considered certain" and "The Tücke der Brücke", July 24th and 25th, 2006
- ↑ Andreas Lämmel Member of the Bundestag and Arnold Vaatz Member of the Bundestag: Yes to democracy, no to blackmail , July 15, 2006
- ↑ Website of Jan Mücke MdB: Mücke und die Brücke ( Memento of the original from February 24, 2008 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ Kurt Biedenkopf in Dresdner Latest News: “We have decided, we are the people. Period. ", July 6, 2006
- ↑ Landesdirektion (formerly regional council) Dresden: nature and content of the legal supervision according to the Saxon constitution ( memento from February 17th, 2009 in the web archive archive.today )
- ↑ a b German UNESCO Commission on the decision of the Bautzen Higher Administrative Court , March 13, 2007
- ↑ dpa: Jurk criticizes the state authority ( memento of the original from January 21, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , August 25, 2006
- ↑ a b c Higher Administrative Court of Bautzen: Order Az .: 4 BS 216/06 ( Memento of the original from March 6, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , March 9, 2007 (PDF 1.5 MB)
- ↑ a b Dresden Administrative Court : Order Az .: 12 K 1768/06 ( page no longer available , search in web archives ) Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 819 kB), August 30, 2006
- ↑ Website Brüggen-Rechtsanwälte: Brief report… Waldschlößchenbrücke… (PDF; 750 kB), Dipl. Betriebsw. Brüggen, August 12, 2006
- ↑ Legal opinion on the (in) legality of the resolution of the City Council of the City of Dresden ( Memento of October 12, 2007 in the Internet Archive ), August 16, 2006
- ↑ Attempted agreement on the Waldschlößchenbrücke in Dresden ( memento of the original from February 20, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. Press release of the OVG Bautzen, November 8, 2006
- ^ Sächsisches Oberverwaltungsgericht: Minutes of the "Non-Public Discussion Appointment of the 4th Senate", Ref .: 4 BS 216/06 ( Memento of the original dated December 30, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 230 kB), November 8, 2006
- ↑ Letter from the Free State of Saxony to the Higher Administrative Court of Bautzen ( Memento of the original from March 5, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 306 kB), January 31, 2007
- ^ Constitutional Court of the Free State of Saxony: Decision Vf.53-IV-07 , May 3, 2007
- ↑ a b c Federal Constitutional Court: Decision 2 BvR 695/07 , May 29, 2007
- ^ Sächsische Zeitung: Bundestag mediates the bridge dispute , September 21, 2006
- ↑ Wording of the Bundestag debate on the protection of the Dresden World Heritage ( memento from July 1, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), March 2, 2007
- ↑ - ( Memento of the original from December 3, 2004 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. : The totalitarian elites ( Memento of the original from January 24, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , March 16, 2007
- ↑ http://www.kulturstiftung-sachsen.de:/ Press release of the Saxon Cultural Senate ( memento of October 9, 2007 in the Internet Archive ), April 5, 2007
- ↑ Second prominent CDU exit in the dispute over Waldschlößchenbrücke ( memento of October 10, 2007 in the Internet Archive ), April 4, 2007.
- ↑ Disputes in open letters ( memento of the original dated February 20, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , March / April 2007
- ↑ Reactions to Arnold Vaatz's remarks: from the Saxon Cultural Senate ( memento from June 14, 2007 in the web archive archive.today ) and from cabaret artist Mario Thiel ( memento from September 29, 2007 in the web archive archive.today ), April 2007
- ↑ Nationwide reactions to OVG decision (selection) ( Memento from 7 July 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), 14 March 2007
- ^ Deutschlandradio Kultur: No Sense of Landscape , by Joachim Güntner (feature writer of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung ), March 28, 2007
- ^ German Bundestag: Four lanes from the cultural heritage , Parliament No. 16-17, April 16, 2007
- ↑ ddp: CDU questions the SPD's ability to form a coalition - Jurk defends his approach: Bridge letter burdens alliance ( memento of April 30, 2008 in the web archive archive.today ), April 20, 2007
- ↑ Volkwin Marg: Open letter to the City of Dresden, Urban Development Division ( Memento of the original from February 20, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , May 24, 2007
- ↑ Representations of the Elbe Tunnel by Gerkan, Marg and Partners ( Memento of the original from March 6, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , May 2007 (PDF 2.4 MB)
- ↑ Six variants of the Waldschlößchenbrücke presented. (No longer available online.) In: dresden.de. State capital Dresden, June 8, 2007, archived from the original on February 20, 2017 ; accessed on February 19, 2017 (press release). Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. and welterbe-erhalten.de: June 8, 2007
- ↑ World Heritage - The Waldschlößchenbrücke (letter from Helma Orosz) , August 26, 2008
- ↑ meinDresden.info: Helma Orosz auditioned at UNESCO in Paris ( memento from September 4, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), October 14, 2008
- ^ Sächsische Zeitung: Goodbye Waldschlößchenbrücke? Dresden's alternatives , July 29, 2006
- ↑ State capital Dresden: update of the traffic concept 1994 - state of affairs ( memento of October 30, 2012 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 17 kB) and Dresdner Latest News: “More city, less aisle - traffic is decreasing”, October 27, 2006
- ↑ Association of German Architects: BDA calls for a multi-bridge concept to save the Elbe Valley ( memento of September 28, 2007 in the web archive archive.today ), April 19, 2007
- ↑ The BILD newspaper Dresden determined on June 5, 2007 in the TED with 1500 callers: 43% for an Elbe tunnel, 29% for a bridge and 28% against any crossing at the Waldschlösschen.
- ↑ a b welterbe-erhalten.de: The tunnel as an alternative
- ↑ Regional Council Dresden, planning approval decision of February 25, 2004, point 6.2, page 21 - type of Elbe crossing
- ↑ ILF - Consulting Engineers Innsbruck, Report March 2002 April 2004
- ↑ BUNG Consulting Engineers: Statement on the feasibility studies Elbtunnel EIBS GmbH from November 2003 and Citizens' Initiative Traffic Flow from March 2002 ( Memento of the original from December 8, 2015 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 177 kB), June 8, 2007
- ↑ Peter Heinze: Video presentation in the city archive (including thoughts on the course of tunnels near the Blue Wonder ), May 2007
- ↑ a b c Citizens' Initiative Pro Waldschlößchenbrücke: Tunnel? - Proponents of tunnels do not want to cross the Elbe!
- ↑ association "citizens' Tunnel Alternative am Waldschlößchen e. V. “: Citizens' initiative
- ↑ Fachrat Dresdner Welterbe: ( Page no longer available , search in web archives: Statement on the press release of the Dresden Regional Council of February 7th, 2008, which is directed against the information sheet of the association "Citizens' initiative tunnel alternative at Waldschlösschen" )
- ↑ State capital Dresden: Correction to the leaflet “The Elbtunnel connects Dresden” ( Memento from May 24, 2010 in the Internet Archive ) (PDF; 37 kB), February 11, 2008
- ↑ Saxony Chamber of Engineers: Tunnel at Waldschlößchen is not a real alternative to a bridge ( Memento from May 11, 2008 in the Internet Archive ), 2008
- ↑ Resolution proposal for the city council for the decision on the referendum "World Heritage Preserved by Elbe Tunnel at Waldschlößchen" introduced into the course of business. In: dresden.de. State capital Dresden, April 7, 2008, accessed on February 19, 2017 (press release).
- ↑ Law firm STURM RECHTSANWÄLTE: Legal opinion on the admissibility of the citizens' petition “World Heritage Preserved by Elbtunnel am Waldschlößchen” ( Memento of the original dated December 2, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 3.4 MB), April 18, 2008
- ↑ Dresden Administrative Court : The court rejects the preliminary approval of the citizens' petition for an Elbe tunnel at Dresden's Waldschlößchen ( memento of the original from December 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , Press release of May 20, 2008
- ↑ Saxon Higher Administrative Court: ( page no longer available , search in web archives: decision Az .: 4 B 209/08, 7 L 259/08 ), September 29, 2008
- ↑ Institute for Sociology at TU Dresden: New telephone survey on Elbe crossing ( memento of the original from December 2, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 27 kB), August 21, 2008
- ↑ A possible tunnel at the Dresden Waldschlößchen until 2012 is utopia. In: dresden.de. State capital Dresden, March 17, 2008, accessed on February 19, 2017 (press release).
- ↑ Wolfram Jäger: Press release ( Memento of the original from December 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 5 kB), March 18, 2008
- ↑ "The tunnel solution results in improved flood protection compared to the bridge" ( memento of the original dated December 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF; 61 kB), on page 5 in the EIBS report on the assessment of the effects of the Waldschlößchenbrücke construction project on the flow conditions of the Elbe during floods by the Institute for Hydraulic Engineering and Technical Hydromechanics of the TU Dresden (author Horlacher and Carstensen)
- ^ General development plan 1967, extracts in Anette Dubbers: Blasewitz - From the history of a Dresden district , Michel Sandstein Verlag, Dresden 1997, ISBN 3-930382-14-8
- ↑ Living in Dresden: Blue Wonder 2 - an alternative? ( Memento from July 15, 2012 in the web archive archive.today )
- ^ Press and Information Office of the Federal Government on behalf of the Federal Chancellor: Re: Transforming the World Heritage Convention into national law , March 28, 2008
- ↑ Open letter from artists to the Federal Chancellor ( Memento of the original from March 6, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , June 3, 2008
- ↑ WELT ONLINE: Holy War for the Waldschlösschenbrücke , May 8, 2008
- ↑ No bridging drama on the Loreley - world cultural heritage is not up for discussion , State Secretary Hofmann-Göttig on February 2, 2008 on Deutschlandradio Kultur
- ↑ Johanna Lemke, Oliver Reinhard: Not all bridges are the same ( memento of the original from February 20, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , in: Sächsische Zeitung , August 4, 2010.
- ↑ Stupidity becomes invisible ( memento of July 29, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), December 18, 2010.
- ↑ Dresden Bridge Rhetoric , blog of DNN journalist Christoph Springer, December 2010
- ↑ Dresdner Latest News: 75 percent approval for the construction of the Waldschlößchenbrücke ( memento of July 24, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), July 27, 2011
- ^ Sächsische Zeitung: Das Patchwerk von Bauchef Marx , September 15, 2011
- ↑ Sächsische Zeitung: Protest against the celebration of the bridge opening ( memento of the original from July 6, 2014 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , May 4, 2013
- ^ Waldschlößchenbrücke in Dresden - name under discussion. In: dresden.de. State capital Dresden, September 16, 2011, accessed on February 19, 2017 (press release).
- ↑ ( page no longer available , search in web archives )
- ↑ ( page no longer available , search in web archives )
- ↑ http://www.sz-online.de/_tools/galerie/fotos.asp?artikel=2864968&bild=3 ( Memento from September 14, 2012 in the web archive archive.today )
- ^ Sächsische Zeitung: City council decides on the final name for the new Elbe bridge , January 20, 2012
- ^ Citizens' initiative Pro Waldschlößchenbrücke
- ↑ Imprint of the coalition against the Waldschlößchenbrücke ( memento from July 17, 2012 in the web archive archive.today )
-
^ Obituary for Achim Weber (Green League)
So may God bless us with discomfort (Pastor Manfred Bauer at the memorial event for Achim Weber on January 20, 2010 in the Dreikönigskirche ) - ^ Press release from the Dresden World Heritage Movement of April 16, 2009
- ^ Sächsische Zeitung: The majority of Dresden residents consider the World Heritage title to be dispensable , June 20, 2009
- ↑ A dispute lasting several years in the now closed forum of the DNN ( Memento from August 31, 2013 in the web archive archive.today )
- ↑ elydia.de: Preserving Creation - Praying for Reconciliation ( Memento of August 3, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), August 27, 2007
- ↑ elydia.de: Superintendents write an open letter ( memento from August 2, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ), July 1, 2008
- ↑ ( Page no longer available , search in web archives: print of the article "You have to go over seven hurdles" from the FAZ on www.frauenkirche-drvoigt.de )
- ↑ 22 Dresden associations and initiatives: Open letter to the Prime Minister of Saxony, Mr Georg Milbradt ( Memento from May 29, 2010 in the web archive archive.today ), March 19, 2008
- ↑ DIE ZEIT: "We are the Ore Mountains!" , August 29, 2011
- ↑ quo-vadis-dresden.de: Press release of the World Heritage Movement Network , November 5, 2011
- ↑ quo-vadis-dresden.de: A ghost is around , November 28, 2011
- ↑ http://dnn.de/Dresden/Lokales/Waldschloesschenbruecke-Freistaat-muss-331.000-Euro-fuer-Rechtsstreit-zahlen
- ↑ Slimming diet for the bridge. FAZ , January 28, 2008, archived from the original on February 20, 2017 .
- ↑ Sabine von Schorlemer: Die Dresdner Brücken-Posse (PDF; 34 kB), published in: Blätter für deutsche und internationale Politik 51 (2006) 11, pp. 1312-1315
- ↑ Open letters from Arnold Vaatz and Lars Rohwer and the replies from Hartmut Haenchen ( Memento of the original from February 20, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. , March 25, 2007
- ↑ Deutschlandradio Kultur: Udo Zimmermann: Construction of the Waldschlösschenbrücke testifies to provincialism , June 10, 2008
- ↑ DasErste.de: Stollen: A pastry against the Saxon misery , December 16, 2007
- ↑ rhein-main.net: Merkel defends the Dresden referendum , June 19, 2008
- ↑ Deutschlandfunk: CDU politician Vaatz continues to plead for the construction of the bridge through the Elbe Valley , July 4, 2008
- ^ Lausitzer Rundschau: Dresden and the Waldschlösschenbrücke - Law must be done , July 4th, 2008
- ^ Sächsische Zeitung: Magirius: Dresden sinks into cultural mediocrity , March 16, 2009
- ↑ Frankfurter Allgemeine: World Heritage - “It is a picture book of human history” , March 31, 2012
- ^ Uni Weimar, Professorship of Design and Housing Development - Hilde Barz-Malfatti: Part 1 ( memento from February 12, 2013 in the web archive archive.today ) and Part 2 ( memento from September 13, 2012 in the web archive archive.today ) of the seminar series “Against the Wall - UNESCO and the Dresden Bridge Dispute " (2007/2008)
- ↑ Thomas Rosenlöcher: You saw up your grandchildren! , February 7, 2008
- ↑ Patrick Wilden: Die Luftschlößchenbrücke , April 8, 2007
- ↑ Wilfried Hanisch: annotated short version (German) of the article "Compliance with the UNESCO World Heritage Convention: Reflections on the Elbe Valley and the Dresden Waldschlösschen Bridge" (Sabine von Schorlemer in German Yearbook of International Law ISBN 978-3-428-13132- 7 ; PDF; 227 kB)
- ↑ a b Landeshauptstadt Dresden: Dresdner Hefte: Volume 2008 ( Memento of the original from February 20, 2017 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link has been inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice.
- ↑ Chair of Prof. Dr. Michael Kilian on request
