Home From Home

Home From Home Integration of Refugees through Architecture in Germany

Milena K Heuer

MASTER’S IN ARCHITECTURE MArch I - 2018|2019

Architectural Research: Humanities Dissertation (MArch 7017)

Home From Home

Integration of Refugees through Architecture in Germany

Milena K Heuer

Submitted to the School of Natural and Built Environment Queen’s University Belfast

Word Count: 9960 April 2019

Architecture is a discipline directly engaged with shaping enclosure, of erecting and toppling barriers or - more explicitly - of extending and limiting ‘freedoms’.

E. Sean Bailey & Erandi de Silva

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank my supervisor Dr. Gul Kacmaz Erk for all her support and input in writing this dissertation. Her passion for the subject matter, her dedication to her students, and her supportive feedback is inspiring and appreciated. Thanks to my fellow students for constructive criticism and the common enduring.

I would also like to extend my gratitude to the architecture offices Mosaic Architekten BDA, dreigegeneinen architecture, and CSMM architects for sending me relevant and very helpful material, as well as Florian Nagler Architekten GmbH for directing me in directions to find material.

Finally, I would also like to thank my parents. Thanks to my father and his insights on the refugee situation in Germany, and thanks to my mother for sharing her experiences with refugees in Germany.

Fig. 1. Locations of Case Studies

SchleswigHolstein SchleswigHolstein

MecklenburgHither Pomerania MecklenburgHither Pomerania

Hamburg Bremen

Hamburg Bremen Lower Saxony

Berlin Berlin

Lower Saxony Hanover Hanover North Rhine-Westphalia

Brandenburg Saxony-Anhalt

Brandenburg

Saxony-Anhalt

North Rhine-Westphalia

Saxony

Thuringia Hessia

Saxony

Thuringia

Hessia Rhineland-Palatinate Rhineland-Palatinate Saarland Bavaria

Saarland Baden-Wuerttemberg Baden-Wuerttemberg

Bavaria Munich Munich

City-State Hamburg

City-State Berlin

City-State Hamburg

City-State Berlin

Federal State Capitals Munich + Hanover Federal State Capitals Munich + Hanover

Abstract Architecture is largely irrelevant to the great mass of the world’s population because architects have chosen to be.

Bruce Mau The drastically increasing number of refugees in Europe from 626.960 in 2014 to 1.322.844 in 2015 (Eurostat, 2018) can be understood as the start of the European refugee crisis. Out of the 28 EU countries Germany has been hosting the highest number of refugees, with a total of 1.413.127 at the end of 2017 (UNHCR, 2018). The task to accommodate the vast number of refugees was immediately responded with emergency shelters, which carry various issues to integrate newcomers to the German culture and society.

This research will investigate ideas and solutions to create a better architecture of arrival, permanent affordable housing, and architecture as a tool for integration in Germany. A clear understanding of decisions and progress should prove helpful in guiding present and future development of similar nature in the ongoing process of integration.

‘Refugee architecture’ has become a commonly used term that describes architecture built or prepared for refugees. But what is the difference between architecture and ‘refugee architecture’? Does the term stand for temporary architecture? The term implies ‘refugee architecture’ being a specific typology designed for an explicit group with exceptional needs and values (Maak, 2016).

Architecture in its very core values aims to provide shelter and a space for people to inhabit. There are many different definitions for architecture; different architecture typologies aspire to fulfill diverse requirements. ‘Refugee architecture’ however does not have a clear definition. The term is rather broad and could describe various typologies of architecture: temporary installments or flexible architecture assembled differently in the future; perhaps it aims to be architecture of arrival. In this research different typologies of ‘refugee architecture’ will be studied, such as large-scale emergency camps, temporary refugee shelters, and refugee homes. However how do we understand the difference between ‘refugee architecture’ and ‘residential architecture’? Both built environments are merely providing shelter and a space to dwell in. Is ‘residential architecture’ providing a home, while ‘refugee architecture’ is providing shelter? This research will examine examples of ‘refugee architecture’ in Germany and should prove valuable in directing to thoughtful future solutions to integrate and house refugees.

In this dissertation, two city-states, Hamburg and Berlin, will be examined as well as Bavaria and LowerSaxony, with examples from the federal state capitals Munich and Hanover. From each geographical location two examples of accommodation with different characteristics, defined under different typologies, will be studied and compared.

Integration through design with present-day resources possible or is it a utopian illusion?

Do the architectural qualities of asylum-seeker accommodation in Germany imply social hierarchy to the German public and refugees?

How can architecture enforce integration of refugees in the German society?

CONTENTS Abstract I - IV

List of Figures

1

Chapter I - Introduction

3 - 12

Chapter II - Refugees Welcome: The Refugee Crisis in Germany

14

Chapter III - Temporary and Permanent Accommodation for Asylum Seekers

16 - 21

Chapter IV - Activist Architects in Germany: Designing a Comprehensive City

23 - 53

Chapter V – Architecture of Arrival: Examples of Refugee Accommodation

- 29 23

Hanover: ‘MUF (Modulare Unterkünfte für Flüchtlinge)’ [Modular Units for Refugee Housing]

30 - 39

Munich-Moosach: ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’ [Living next to Dantebad Pool]

40 - 47

Berlin Mitte: ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’ [Home Märkisches Ufer]

48 - 52

Hamburg-Neuland: ‘MUF (Modulhäuser)’ [Modular Houses for temporary Refugee Accommodation]

53

Place and Non-Place

56 - 58

Chapter VI – Conclusion

59 - 63

Bibliography

65 - 80

Appendix

LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 1.

.

Locations of Case Studies, Author, 2019.

Fig. 2.

Foreign Population in Germany, Author, 2019, Information: Statistisches Bundesamt, 2017

Fig. 3.

Where do They come from?, Author, 2019, Information: Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2016, Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2017, available at: https://www.bamf. de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Broschueren/bundesamt-in-zahlen-2016. pdf?__blob=publicationFile, p. 12, accessed Feburary 1st 2019

Fig. 4.

Asylum Application Process in Germany, Author, 2019 + Friedrich, J., Haslinger, P., Takasaki, S. & Forsch, V. 2017, Zukunft: Wohnen: Migration als Impuls für die kooperative Stadt, Jovis Verlag, Berlin; 4.

Fig. 5.

Königsteiner Schlüssel (Königsteiner Key) 2016, Author, 2019, Information: Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2016, Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2017, available at: https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Broschueren/ bundesamt-in-zahlen-2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, accessed Feburary 1st 2019

Fig. 5B

Königsteiner Key – Applications for Asylum by Federal States, Author, 2019, Information: Das Bundesamt in Zahlen 2016, Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2017, available at: https://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/ Broschueren/bundesamt-in-zahlen-2016.pdf?__blob=publicationFile, accessed February 1st 2019

Fig. 6.

Minimum Requirements for Housing in Shared Accommodation, Author, 2019 + Friedrich, J., Haslinger, P., Takasaki, S. & Forsch, V. 2017, Zukunft: Wohnen: Migration als Impuls für die kooperative Stadt, Jovis Verlag, Berlin; 4.

Fig. 7. + 8.

Assembly of Modular Units in Hanover, Mosaik Architekten BDA, Photo: O. Mahlstedt, available at: http://www.mosaik-architekten.de, accessed November 2018

Fig. 9.

Hanover 1:100000 with Site highlighted red. (Green highlighted sites in Appendix.), Author, 2019

I

Fig. 10. + 11.

Shared Outdoor Spaces in Hanover Accommodation, Mosaik Architekten BDA, Photo: O. Mahlstedt, available at: http://www.mosaik-architekten.de, accessed November 2018

Fig. 12.

Shared Interior Spaces in Hanover, Communal kitchen, Mosaik Architekten BDA, Photo: O. Mahlstedt, available at: http://www.mosaik-architekten.de, accessed November 2018

Fig. 13.

Siteplan Hanover MUF 1:10000, Author, 2019

Fig. 14.

Plan + Section Hanover Accommodation 1:500, Mosaik Architekten BDA, 2019, email attachment

Fig. 15. + 16.

Roofterrace ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’, Florian Nagler Architekten Gmbh, 2016, available at: http://www.nagler-architekten.de/projekt-daten/projekt-ansicht/wohnenam-dantebad/, accessed, December 2019

Fig. 17.

Exterior Corridor leading to apartments, Florian Nagler Architekten Gmbh, 2016, available at: http://www.nagler-architekten.de/projekt-daten/projekt-ansicht/wohnenam-dantebad/, accessed, December 2019

Fig. 18.

Munich 1:150000 with Site highlighted red. (Green highlighted sites in Appendix.), Author, 2019

Fig. 19.

View at ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’ from Football Field, Florian Nagler Architekten Gmbh, 2016, available at: http://www.nagler-architekten.de/projekt-daten/projekt-ansicht/ wohnen-am-dantebad/, accessed, December 2019

Fig. 20.

Siteplan Munich ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’, 1:10000, Author, 2019

Fig. 21.

Section ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’ without scale, Münchner Parkplatzwunder (Munich parking wonder), Baunetz, 2017. available at: https://www.baunetz.de/meldungen/ Meldungen-Florian_Naglers_aufgestaendertes_Wohnhaus_5065205.html, accessed January 2019

Fig. 22.

Interior view facing outwards ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’, Florian Nagler Architekten Gmbh, 2016, available at: http://www.nagler-architekten.de/projekt-daten/projektansicht/wohnen-am-dantebad/, accessed, December 2019

II

Fig. 23.

Exterior perspective ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’, Florian Nagler Architekten Gmbh, 2016, available at: http://www.nagler-architekten.de/projekt-daten/projekt-ansicht/wohnenam-dantebad/, accessed, December 2019

Fig. 24. + 25.

Living above Parking, Florian Nagler Architekten Gmbh, 2016, available at: http:// www.nagler-architekten.de/projekt-daten/projekt-ansicht/wohnen-am-dantebad/, accessed, December 2019

Fig. 26.

Axonometric ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’, 2017. Münchner Parkplatzwunder (Munich parking wonder), Baunetz, available at: https://www.baunetz.de/meldungen/ Meldungen-Florian_Naglers_aufgestaendertes_Wohnhaus_5065205.html, accessed March 2019

Fig. 27. + 28.

Plan Drawings without scale ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’, Münchner Parkplatzwunder (Munich parking wonder), Baunetz, 2017. available at: https://www.baunetz.de/ meldungen/Meldungen-Florian_Naglers_aufgestaendertes_Wohnhaus_5065205. html, accessed March 2019

Fig. 29.

Perspective, Baunetz, 2017. Münchner Parkplatzwunder (Munich parking wonder), available at: https://www.baunetz.de/meldungen/Meldungen-Florian_Naglers_ aufgestaendertes_Wohnhaus_5065205.html, accessed January 2019

Fig. 30.

Berlin 1:150000 with Site highlighted red. (Green highlighted sites in Appendix.), Author, 2019

Fig. 31.

Siteplan Berlin-Mitte ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’, 1:10000, Author, 2019

Fig. 32.

Front View ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’, Sevilgen, B., Dreigegeneinen, 2019. Email attachment, January 12th, drei@gegeneinen.eu

Fig. 33. -37.

Living in ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’ – Shared Kitchen and Semi-Private Bedroom, Sevilgen, B., Dreigegeneinen, 2019. Email attachment, January 12th, drei@gegeneinen.eu

Fig. 38.

‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’ on the Spree River, dreigegeneinen.eu, Röder, N., Conversion of listed mass-wall building, DAM, available at: http://www.makingheimat.de/en/ refugee-housing-projects/database/umbau-denkmalgeschuetzter-massivbau-berlin, accessed November 2018

III

Fig. 39.

Plans without scale ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’, Sevilgen, B., Dreigegeneinen, 2019.

Email attachment, January 12th, drei@gegeneinen.eu

Fig. 40.

Dining Area ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’, Sevilgen, B., Dreigegeneinen, 2019. Email attachment, January 12th, drei@gegeneinen.eu

Fig. 41.

Outside View from Field at Container Estate, Reinig, J., Container Estate Hamburg, DAM, available at: http://www.makingheimat.de/en/refugee-housing-projects/database/containersiedlung-hamburg, accessed January 2019

Fig. 42.

Hamburg 1:150000 with Site highlighted red. (Green highlighted sites in Appendix.), Author, 2019

Fig. 43.

Courtyard of Container Estate, Reinig, J., Container Estate Hamburg, DAM, available at: http://www.makingheimat.de/en/refugee-housing-projects/database/containersiedlung-hamburg, accessed January 2019

Fig. 44.

Siteplan Hamburg-Neuland with MUF Container Estate, 1:10000, Author, 2019

Fig. 45.

Plans without scale Hamburg-Neuland, Container Estate Hamburg, DAM, available at: http://www.makingheimat.de/en/refugee-housing-projects/database/containersiedlung-hamburg, accessed January 2019

Fig. 46. + 47.

Glances of Hamburg-Neuland, Reinig, J., Container Estate Hamburg, DAM, available at: http://www.makingheimat.de/en/refugee-housing-projects/database/containersiedlung-hamburg, accessed January 2019

IV

Chapter I

Introduction

There are 68.5 million compulsorily displaced people worldwide, of which 40 million are internally displaced. 25.4 million are refugees and 3.1 million are asylum-seekers (UNHCR, 2018).

Refugees and Asylum-seekers are often confused and mixed up, however, the difference is important for legal and political reasons: Refugees include individuals recognised under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees; it’s 1967 Protocol; the 1969 OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa; those recognised in accordance with the UNHCR Statute; individuals granted complementary forms of protection; or those enjoying temporary protection.

Asylum-seekers are individuals who have sought international protection and whose claims for refugee status have not yet been determined, irrespective of when they may have been lodged. (UNHCR, 2018) In Germany as well as in many other host countries the aim is to integrate newcomers into their society. The Cambridge dictionary offers two definitions of the term to integrate: to ‘mix with and join society or a group of people, often changing to suit their way of life, habits and customs’ and ‘to combine two or more things in order to become more effective’.

This dissertation will investigate how refugees arrive in Germany and the political and social consequences of their arrival. Furthermore it will discuss the aim of integration of refugees in Germany through an architectural lens. The literature review is to examine the political, legal, cultural and social aspects of refugee life in Germany. The research will later be used as a context to understand the life of refugees in German refugee accommodation. All four case studies, built between 2013 and 2016, will be analysed at three different scales through mapping. At an urban scale at 1:150000 for Munich, Hamburg, and Berlin, and 1:100000 for Hanover, as well as on a more site related scale of 1:10000, and lastly at an architectural, or human, scale.

The four locations were chosen as all states follow different federal laws for refugee accommodation requirements. City-states had bigger issues in the past with housing refugees, as they are of higher density and cannot allocate refugees to other cities or villages. This dissertation seeks to find sustainable solutions of accommodation, which help the newcomers to settle in and integrate in their environment.

1

Chapter II

Refugees Welcome: The Refugee Crisis in Germany

2

At the end of 2017, the German population was 82.52 million, of which 10.623.940 were foreign, meaning they do not carry a German passport and are not considered as federal German citizens (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2017). 15.8 percent, or 1.680.700 of these people were seeking for protection (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2016). Of these protection seeking people, 1.154.364 were accepted as refugees and 177.700 asylum applications were denied, leaving a total of 348.640 applications pending (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2017). As long as the asylum application is being processed, asylum-seekers receive permission to stay. Along with this permission to remain, they are entitled to government aid such as medical care, viands and accommodation (Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge, 2016).

Providing accommodation for such a high number of people arriving over a short period of time (just over the years of 2015 and 2016 a total of 1.222.194 people applied for asylum, which only records the registered asylum seekers) was entirely the responsibility of the German government; the approach towards the task was optimistic, as the German chancellor stated ‘Wir schaffen das’ (‘we can do it’). However, faced with such a major challenge the German government had to fall back on the creation of emergency shelters, such as converted commercial buildings, school gymnasiums, tennis bubbles, quickly installed container villages, tent cities or airplane hangars (Djahangard et al, 2017). Also barracks were customised to host the newcomers and hotels were rented out; these emergency accommodations sometimes could host five hundred to one thousand people (Carstens, 2015). Once these were filled with refugees the German government began to erect exhibition sites one camp bed next to the next camp bed with barely 20 cm in between and no space for privacy or individuality; ten thousand immigrants were thought to remain there for weeks, even months (Carstens, 2015).

Fig. 2. Foreign Population in Germany Asylum Applications Denied 177.700 Asylum Applications Accepted 1.154.364 Asylum Applications Pending 348.640 Total 10.623.940

3

The term ‘refugee camp’ is coined with implications of being forced migrant accommodation in the ‘Global South’, such as Africa and the Middle East, while in the ‘Global North’, such as Europe, the term ‘ asylum centre’ or ‘refugee accommodation’ is used (Meeus et al, 2019, From forced migration to forced arrival, Kreichauf, 2018, p 250). ‘Terms such as asylum center would downplay the objectives of these places and their living conditions (Kreichauf, 2018). Largescale accommodation centers located on open sites may seem to be designed in order to offer assistance and shelter, yet they are designed in a way that leaves no options for refugees than to remain (Kreichauf, 2018, p. 252). The design aims to contain the inhabitants, and therefore control. Kreichauf states ‘theoretical concepts of the refugee camp as a socio-spatial entity were developed based on camps in African countries and the Middle East […]’ (Kreichauf, 2018, p. 252). Yet the difference in ‘refugee camps’ is only marginal, and spatial qualities are alike.

Kreichauf explains the conceptualised characteristics as follows: Camps are designed in a way they separate populations and the camp inhabitants; meaning the refugees, and the local citizens, the outside population. The boundaries create a clear distinction between the inside and the outside, whether it is through social forms of containment or even physical barriers.

But not only in architectural terms camps are exceptional, but also in legal terms, as they are commonly governed by different legal institutions and instruments and are treated differently than the exterior surrounding and its local citizens. Camps are spaces of ‘permanent temporality’, as they are thought to be temporary solutions, but yet their length of existence and the time one remains in one is indefinite. ((Kreichauf, 2018, p. 253).

4

Fig. 3. Where do They come from?

Number of Asylum Applications in Germany in 2016

Number of Asylum Applications in Germany in 2016

1. Syria - 266.250 2. Afghanistan - 127.012 3. Iraq - 96.116 4. Iran - 26.426 5. Eritrea - 18.854 6. Albania - 14.853 7. Residual - 14.659 8. Pakistan - 14.484 9. Nigeria - 12.709 10. Russian Federation - 10.985

0 from 1 to under 500 from 500 to under 3000 from 3000 to under 5000 from 5000 to under 10.985 Top-Ten Countries of Origin

5

The German Institute for Human Rights (Deutsches Institut für Menschenrechte – DIMR) criticised a lack of hygiene and missing privacy within refugee accommodations (Zeit Online, 2017). Soon after refugees were placed in these camps news about mass brawls within these camps shocked the German public. In the refugee camp Kassel-Calden it came to a mass brawl between Albanians and Afghans after a young Albanian man passed an elderly Afghan man in the food line (Carstens, 2015). Security staff could not get the brawl between seventy men on the one side and three hundred men on the other side under control and police forces were called multiple times in that day. Eventually the situation escalated when refugees had organised irritant gas and attacked the police. One hundred police forces, twelve ambulance vehicles, the fire department, a rescue helicopter and the Special Deployment Commando (Spezialeinsatzkommando – SEK) were in action to get the situation under control (N24 Nachrichten, 2015). In another refugee camp in Suhl a dispute on questions of faith escalated, and when police forces arrived they were attacked again. Citizens nearby described civil war like states (HNA, 2015). In Leipzig two hundred men were involved in a fight due to sexual harassment of an Afghan man and a Syrian woman (Carstens, 2015). In September and October 2015 throughout Germany, the media are reporting escalating situations in refugee camps, be it due to religious disagreements, ethnic clashes or discrimination and sexual harassment against women. Rainer Wendt, the chairman of the German police union, and the Red Cross report on organised clans and brutal criminal structures in refugee camps (Carstens, 2015). Women are being forced to conceal and in some cases women have been sexually abused; men are being ordered to pray; Muslims refuse to use toilets that Christians also use (Carstens, 2015).

Some politicians and police officials demanded that ethnic and religious groups must be separated in order to avoid such violent outbreaks (Carstens, 2015). However, this idea was rejected because otherwise parallel societies could arise (Carstens, 2015). One could go further and argue that creating separate camps could lead to ghettoisation especially once refugees leave the provided accommodation and start their independent lives in Germany. Among other things, the architectural quality of accommodation could lead to conflict reduction.

10.000 People

Fig. 4. Asylum Application Process in Germany

ca 2000 People no exact data Free choice of residence + work permit Rejections or formal decisions Still in the decision phase

6

Fig. 4. Asylum Application Process in Germany Initial registration with the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees [BAMF] + Allotment according to the Kรถnigsteiner Key

Asylum application, collection of data and personal interview Decisions following Dublin Convention

Examination international protection

Three years residence permit

Permanent residence permit

Deportation (when country of residency is safe)

Legal action, until two weeks after deportion possible One year residence permit, 1707 subsidiary vulnerable

Rejections and formal decisions

7

Examintaion, every two years

Final examniation after seven years

Changing the architectural qualities of the accommodation is simple enough to be done, considering the impact that an improvement could have. Just the size of a camp would have to be reduced to create a better atmosphere; the accommodation could be more hygenic, with better sanitary facilities etc., and privacy increased. The caring incapacitation imposed by the German state leads to aggression, depression and boredom. Large-scale refugee camps are spaces of control in which refugee lives are supervised by institutions, which makes camps to spaces of impoverishment and despair (Herz et al, 2013). Architectural improvement and infrastructure could reduce aggression, apathy, and depression. Refugees would need to be treated with respect and included in the process of creating their new homes, which would also help against boredom and could be the first step of integrating refugees (Carstens, 2015). One who feels comfortable is grateful, not aggressive; those who meet foreign cultures and religions without pressure may more likely become curious instead of violent (Funk, 2015). ‘Intercultural openness and successful integration must be lived, every day (Funk, 2015).’

Those provisional solutions were only intended to be temporary, and the challenge to create efficient, affordable, and especially rapidly installable solutions were welcomed by many architects and designers (Kühl and Behrens, 2018). The refugee crisis in Europe has led to a shift in global acknowledgement that design/architecture for refugees is an urban challenge, rather than an issue taken on in creating isolated refugee camps. In 2017, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) Filippo Grandi recognised the trend that most of the world’s refugees are fleeing to urban areas, and even more than half of the world refugees live in cities (Kühl and Behrens, 2018).

At the 2016 Venice Architecture Biennale, the Deutsches Architekturmuseum (DAM) curated in the German Pavilion ‘Making Heimat. Germany, Arrival Country’, which showcased architectural solutions for post-disaster accommodation that stresses flexibility, efficiency, affordability and of course quality of design. The exhibition was followed up with an open DAM database, depicting not only work of the exhibition but also projects finalised or proposed in Germany between 2015 and 2017 concerning refugee housing (Kühl and Behrens, 2018). These projects illustrate different solutions and different ways in which architects are working with governmental clients to contribute to social equity through design and infrastructure. Together with the German government, a prototype for Gemeinschaftsunterkünfte (collective accommodation) was developed (Kühl and Behrens, 2018).

8

Since 2015 the country has gained significant experience, refugees arriving today are already received with better conditions. Along with the issue of how to accommodate refugees raises the issue of where to accommodate and place them. The German federal system for allocating refugees to states, the Königsteiner Schlüssel (Königsteiner Key), determines how many asylum seekers a federal state must receive. This is based on tax revenue (2/3 share in the rating) and the population (1/3 share in the rating). The quota is recalculated annually (BAMF, 2018). The system endeavours to be equitable, efficient and just by distributing refugees in accordance to tax revenues and total population. Due to the inherent straightforwardness of this allocation system inflicts a significant problem on large cities and city-states, as it does not take higher population densities, secondary migration patterns and unique urban housing conditions into consideration (Cities and Refugees - The German Experience, 2016). Asylum seekers arriving in any German state are initially accommodated in a state-run reception centre until the Königsteiner Key allocates the newcomer to a centre in the municipalities who are in responsibility of the entrant.

9

SchleswigHolstein 3,4%

Bremen >1%

MecklenburgHither Pomerania 2%

Hamburg 2,5% Berlin 5%

Lower Saxony 9,3%

Saxony-Anhalt 2,8%

Brandenburg 3%

North Rhine-Westphalia 21,2% Saxony 5%

Thuringia 2,7%

Hessia 7,4%

Rhineland-Palatinate 4,8% Saarland 1,2% Bavaria 15,6% Baden-Wuerttemberg 12,9%

Fig. 5 Königsteiner Schlüssel (Königsteiner Key) 2016

10

The lack of affordable small apartments in cities is an urgent issue to be dealt with. Refugees have poor chances in the competition for these apartments according to a study by the Berlin Institute for Integration (BIM) (Djahangard et al, 2017). Landlords are alarmed about the refugees’ knowledge of laws regarding German apartment living (Djahangard et al, 2017). Today people are more mobile than ever before in human history and the trend of migration will merely become more significant. Fast developing technologies, the increase in world population, the changing climate and political indifferences are all leading towards higher trends in migration. The world’s population is growing rapidly every year; according to a 2017 United Nations report the global population counts currently 7.6 billion, but is expected to grow to 8.6 billion in 2030, 9.5 billion in 2050 and 11.2 billion in 2100 (UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2017).

In 2013, Benjamin Strauss of Climate Central estimated that 710 million people lived within 10 meters of sea level, and 1.3 billion within 25 meters, the height with which the oceans may rise depending upon different scenarios of melting polar ice caps (Chillymanjaro 2017). Add to that estimates of 100 million people lacking housing and approximately 1 billion people having inadequate shelter (“Downsizing Globally” 2017), out of a total of 1.9 billion households (“Global Homelessness Statistics” 2017), and we seem poised for a massive amount of human migration over the next century, with an equally extraordinary impact on architecture as it gets appropriated by diverse people and adapted for uses not originally intended (Karim, 2018, What we can learn from refugees, Fisher, 2018, p 403).

This illustrates that not only chosen migration will play a significant role in the future, but also forced migration will become an even more important role in future societies. Rather than seeing the refugee crisis as a problem, architects and planners could understand this immense migration as a learning opportunity. If architects start developing solutions now we will be better prepared for the vast number of future environmental refugees.

11

North Rhine-Westphalia Baden-Wuerttemberg

SchleswigHolstein

Lower Saxony

MecklenburgHither Pomerania

Hamburg Bremen

Bavaria

Berlin

Lower Saxony

Hessia

Hanover

Rhineland-Palatinate

Brandenburg Saxony-Anhalt

North Rhine-Westphalia

Schleswig-Holstein

Saxony

Thuringia Hessia

Berlin Saxony

Rhineland-Palatinate

Saxony-Anhalt

Saarland Bavaria

Brandenburg

Baden-Wuerttemberg Munich

Hamburg Thuringia Bremen

2016

Fig. 5B Kรถnigsteiner Key - Applications for Asylum by Federal States

Mecklenburg-Hither Pomerania

2017

Saarland

2018 Fig. 5B Kรถnigsteiner Key - Applications for Asylum by Federal States

12

Chapter III

Temporary and Permanent Accommodation for Asylum Seekers

In Germany many architects understood that refugees today might just be a small number of the refugees that will be coming in the future, and understood to learn from the crisis and change the way of design thinking. For many the motto now is to move away from star architecture for very few people, but towards an affordable and dignified architecture for many in the urban centres of the world (Friedrich et al, 2017, p 17). Architects, planners and politicians begin to understand that installing cheap, temporary solutions to provide shelter quickly was an insincere solution to the problem. They begin realising that creating architecture for refugees is not a temporary issue, but a general issue of deficient low cost housing (Friedrich et al, 2017, p 18).

The question of how to define humane living conditions was raised, and how to supply humane architecture for different cultures. Humane living conditions do not only depend on culture but also development. In Europe the entitlement for space has drastically changed. In 1990 German citizens were entitled to 34,8 square metres living area per person, while in 2017 they were entitled to 46,5 square metres per person, this growth is also due to the increase in one- or two-people households (Statistisches Bundesamt, 2017). Refugees on the other hand have governmental entitlement to 8 square metres living area per person, this can vary based on gender, age and living situation (Friedrich et al, 2017). However ‘simple living’ concerns everyone, including refugees and low-income and middle class citizens, who are the growing majority of today’s society.

Germany has a shortage of 350.000 residential units each year. Including refugees the shortage reached 450.000 units per year in 2015. In 2016, 250.000 residential units were built (Friedrich et al 2017, p 28). Not only architectural expectations are evolving but also the expectation of where to live have changed. Paradoxically more and more people want to live in urban areas where the housing is limited while in rural areas 1.7 million units are vacant (Friedrich et al 2017, pp. 28).

Placing refugees in rural areas in the countryside would be a fairly simple solution, because they can start inhabiting already existing vacant housing units. This might seem to be a reasonable solution of locating refugees, however might contradict with the goal of integrating them into a new culture and society as most of those areas are almost deserted and are occupied by very few elderly Germans. Some refugees arriving do have a rural background; placing those in rural areas in Germany could be a logical solution. Placing refugees in those deserted areas far away from urban areas would begin to segregate populations. The German government however does not desire a segregation of populations and the German public is even worried and afraid of a ghettoisation. If the aim is to integrate refugees, placing them in deserted areas contradicts that goal, even if it might appear simple, the fear is that it could lead to two separate populations.

14

Chapter IV

Activist Architects in Germany: Designing a Comprehensive City

15

The aim of the German government is to ‘integrate’ the arriving populations in German society.

However ‘integration’ is a rather broad term that is quite hard to define, as it is used to describe opposing meanings. In some academic and political circles cultural heterogeneity and ethnic diversity have been comprehended as pressures to Western liberal values.

In general, the majority of the immigrant population in Western countries can be identified as ethnically and racially different from host country nationals. For some, this ethnic and racial diversity has raised serious concerns about the national security, identity, and social cohesion of the host societies.

The rise of insurgent parties in the 2014 European parliamentary election echoed these anxieties.

European far-right parties politicize immigration as a threat to European identity and national security. […]

First, the majority of immigrants do not look, speak, or in general live like nationals in the host society. There is an unwavering belief among some nationals that many immigrant cultural values are irreconcilable with the liberal values that Western societies identify with. This common opinion crystallizes when it comes to the issue of integration of Muslim immigrants in Western European countries. As well as creating anxieties over security, the Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoon affair and numerous other terrorist attacks like the recent Orlando Nightclub and Charlie Hebdo shootings hardened some Westerners’ belief that Muslim cultural values can clash with liberal rights such as freedom of expression and pose a major threat to and eventually preclude Western value structure. The common perception is that these immigrant groups, because of their different culture, will never integrate into the host societies, instead constituting a marginalized and perhaps violent minority that could breed hatred for Western liberal values.

In addition to concerns over national security and illiberal cultures of immigrants, debates over immigration have also revolved around the issue of the future of national identity in the face of cultural and ethnic diversity. While host countries expect their immigrants to adapt to the host culture in time, they have also come to recognize that adaptation is not a one-way street, but requires the host society to change as well. As the numbers and concentration (and hence the visibility) of ethnic immigrants increases, the perceived threat to national identity and social cohesion of the host society also increases. The connection between national identity and social cohesion can be explained in terms of the Western interpretation of citizenship based on national identity and commonality as the foundation of democracy. (Goskel, 2018)

According to Goskel (2018) the concerns mentioned are the basis for the prevailing debate against immigrants in the host countries, and lead to alarmed Western societies about the existence of their non-native populations. Gloskel (2018) explains further that the term ‘integration’ has become the distended resolution to those apprehensions.

16

‘Integration’ however is a term that is quite hard to understand due to the fact that the term itself is rather broad; therefore different terms such as ‘adaptation’, ‘inclusion’, and ‘incorporation’ have been suggested to substitute the term ‘integration’. The term ‘integration’ sustains its eminence amongst policy makers and academics due to its abstract meaning and suitability for various schemes and programs (Hamberger, 2009, pp. 2-4).

In history, political approaches towards the social and political integration of newcomers have revolved around the discussion between two opposing concepts: multiculturalism and assimilation. Multiculturalists argue that the ‘integration’ of newcomers can only succeed when ethno-cultural identities are accepted and cherished. Only then immigrants are able to embrace a mutual identity with the nationals and become complete members of the society.

Assimilationists assume that newcomers can only ‘integrate’ into a new society and culture, to become full members, when they identify as nationals of the host country by leaving their ethnocultural identity behind. According to Hamberger ( 2009) European research treats the terms ‘integration’ and ‘assimilation’ as nearly identical. Hamberger (2009) states that in Europe a ‘well integrated’ immigrant is one who assimilated to the host cultures way of speaking, thinking and behaving.

According to the German Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF, 2018) integration is defined as the following: Integration is a long-term process. Its goal is to involve all people who live permanently and legally in Germany in society. Immigrants should be given full and equal participation in all areas of society. It is their duty to learn German and to know, respect and obey the constitution and laws. Again the definition of ‘integration’ is not very specific. Reading between the lines the term ‘integration’ can be understood as a form of ‘assimilation’.

Over the course of the ‘refugee crisis’, well over one million people came to Germany to escape war and persecution in their home countries. Pictures of arriving trains full of hopeful people, volunteers and warm welcomes were dominating the German media. But also skeptical thoughts whether Germany can handle the situation characterise the debate of the German society. Since then, the correct management and treatment of refugees has been a highly discussed topic in German politics and society. The idea that refugees have to be integrated into the German society as fast as possible seems to be the main shared solution in politics and society. However many are worried that some refugees are not ‘integratable’ due to different cultural values and dissimilar levels of education.

17

German politics focuses on education and work when it comes to integrating in Germany and becoming part of German society. Bundestag and Bundesrat (German Federal Council) adopted an integration law in the summer of 2016 to direct towards a quick ‘integration’. The law includes faster admission to language and integration courses, as well as better economic perspectives.

(Supposed) cultural differences play a big role for us when it comes to belonging. So it is only logical that successful integration is often understood as a complete adaptation of those to be integrated. The fact that cultural differences are perceived as such and not as cultural diversity could also be due to the fact that Germany still does not see itself as an immigration country, even though Germany has been an immigration country for decades. It is always anticipated that the newcomers will be leaving again and not remain. In the discussion about integration, the concern about alien influences almost habitually echoes. Integration is a dynamic process that affects the host country as well as the newcomers, and also both parties shape that process. And only with this understanding integration that each of us benefits from - and with it, all refugees, can be designed.

Understanding what ‘integration’ means for the German society and in German policies, Toma’s comprehension of ‘integration’ is rather general, but proves helpful to understand ‘integration’s’ meaning in an architectural way. Toma divides the process of integration into its social and physical elements: Spatial integration must be anticipated in order to facilitate social integration. It is essential for a successful integration to confront both social and physical requirements in order to enable longlasting effects for both the integrating and existing population for sustaining larger-scale urban identity. Sustaining connections to the existing urban context is vital to both advocating a sense of place for new inhabitants but also a tolerance and openness by existing residents towards newcomers. To ensure social as well as physical integration, securing provision of housing plays a significant role (Vaudetti et al, 2018, Integrative refugee housing, Toma, p 118).

18

Social integration requires a mutual process of interaction, communication, tolerance and acceptance between the refugees and the ‘natives’. When the ‘native’ population is open to change and willing to support integration, the first milestone of a successful social integration is set. In order to achieve political and economic integration, which are components of social and cultural integration, permitting citizenship for the newcomers is fundamental. However social integration is deficient on itself, as proper and unabridged integration needs not only those social elements encountered, but also the establishment and provision of quality housing that allows a relationship and creates a linkage to the physical and social environment. The way a structure relates visually and functionally at urban and architectural scales in addition to holding connectivity to the existing urban fabric and infrastructure, while also being adaptable within changing conditions is understood as physical integration according to Toma (Vaudetti et al, 2018, Integrative refugee housing, Toma, p 118).

When Angela Merkel opened the borders in 2015, everyone was welcomed and let into the country, and no one knew who those people were and what background they had. They often did not even carry passports and claimed to have lost them, unlike their mobile phones. What kind of education they had was not known, only what they said about themselves. Gradually it became apparent that the promise of politics and economics of countless skilled workers coming into the country could not be correct. The extent to which a school degree in Syria or Afghanistan can be compared to a German degree is questionable. According to individual critics such as Bassam Tibi, a professor from Göttingen and then Harvard, of Syrian descent, the majority of the refugees come from the educationally distant stratum of his native country, that he recognises their language as highly undeveloped and uneducated; he considers most of them not integratable (Vis à vis, 2018). Tibi is concerned about the cultural narratives that co-exist and speaks of cultural ignorance on the Syrian side, and how the German authorities subordinate themselves (Vis à vis, 2018). Tibi worries about racism and misogyny, and furthermore that the cultural narrative cannot coexist, and if politics and German behaviour towards cultural indifferences and issues does not change, the German society does not only begin to reactivate their own values but eventually will have to give up their values and standards (Vis à vis, 2018).

Independently of how one defines ‘integration’ it has to be supported and promoted from both parties (the newcomers and the natives). If not both population groups are working on one form of ‘integration’ the very idea of it is doomed to failure.

19

SchleswigHolstein

MecklenburgHither Pomerania

Hamburg Bremen Berlin

Lower Saxony

Hanover

Brandenburg Saxony-Anhalt

North Rhine-Westphalia Saxony

Thuringia Hessia

Rhineland-Palatinate Saarland Bavaria Baden-Wuerttemberg Munich

Binding Minimum Standards

Recommended Minimum Standards

No Minimum Standards

Fig. 6. Minimum Requirements for Housing in Shared Accommodation

20

The four case studies were selected to illustrate a variety of different approaches by designers.

Located in various locations in Germany, each geographic location has its own unique challenges: While Lower Saxony and Hamburg both have no minimum requirements, Berlin has recommended minimum requirements, and Bavaria has legally binding minimum requirements to facilitate refugees. All four case studies are located in urban areas, where housing is rather problematic due to the density of the population. The two city states Hamburg and Berlin are both urban and highly populated cities, as are the capitals Hanover and Munich; however the metropolitan area of both city states are large and offer spaces on city borders. Nonetheless in all four case studies architects were eager to find qualitative successful solutions to the housing problem. After introducing the projects the idea of non-place in contrast to place will be applied to each project to help understand the architectural qualities of each accommodation better.

Marc Augé, a French anthropologist, constructed the idea of place in contrast to non-place.

Non-places are mono-functional areas in urban and suburban areas such as shopping malls, highways, train stations and airports. The difference to the traditional, anthropological place is the absence of identity, history, and relation, as well as a communicative desertion. Identity, relation, and history characterize a place, so a space that has no identity and cannot be called either relational or historical defines a non-place according to Augé. Non-places do not create a sense of belonging, identity and relation, non-places therefore cannot be places that one considers home or a place to stay. For Augé, the non-place, in contrast to the place, represents a weakening of the functions, he describes how the space of the non-place does not create a particular identity and relation, but loneliness and similarity (Augé, 1995).

21

Chapter V

Architecture of Arrival: Examples of Refugee Accommodation

Hanover ‘MUF (Modulare Unterkünfte für Flüchtlinge)’ [Modular Units for Refugee Housing] The federal state capital of Lower Saxony, Hanover, has taken in 4000 refugees in 2015, relied on a “three-pillar model” with dormitories, residential projects and apartments. In 2016, 300 more refugees were expected to come to Hanover every month, 16 sites for modular buildings and 13 housing projects with “contingents” for refugees were planned. Hanover has imposed specifications on itself for choosing locations for refugee housing; there should be not more than one hundred residents living together in one facility, the location should be in close proximity to the residential area, the location had to be reachable on foot and by public transport, and supply stores with goods and services had to be nearby (Cachola Schmal et al., 2017; Kreykenbohm, 2016; Kleilein, 2015, Marlow, 2019).

In March 2015 MOSAIK office was asked to design three container facilities for the city of Hanover. The local office accepted the commission and their attitude toward the task was to improve the situation of the refugees through their architectural knowledge. However they were commissioned to design three temporary refugee-housing facilities for 100 people each, the office decided for an alternative design to container structures. The decision to create an alternative design with wood was made early on in the design process (Kleilein, 2015; Marlow, 2019).

Fig. 7. + 8. Assembly of Modular Units in Hanover

23

Fig. 9. Hanover 1:100000 with Site highlighted red. (Green highlighted sites in Appendix.)

24

Corridors have been omitted in the floor plans: You enter the apartments through the kitchen, three or five rooms can be connected to a unit with one or two bathrooms. For this purpose, the room next to the living room has been furnished with a double door. Model for the facility is the Danish TinggĂĽrden settlements south of Copenhagen in 1978, with their striking single staircases from the apartments on the first floor directly into the garden - in Hanover, because of a second escape route, the garden steps had to be abandoned, instead, a wide arcade connects the upper apartments, which also serves as an escape route (Kleilein, 2015). The floor plans consist of accommodation units with three and five rooms for a total of 96 residents. Spread over three two-storey buildings, they form a U-shaped courtyard, which is shielded from the street by a fourth structure. Here, common areas and offices are contained for the condominium operator.

The designers deliberately omitted a corridor, as they were hoping the residents could encounter one another in the space outside the entrance (Kreykenbohm, 2016). In the beginning, the rooms had to be occupied double with refugees, in the long run also students and families with low income should move in (Kleilein, 2015). The dimensions of the residential units correspond to 2.7 metres at twelve metres, the maximum container dimensions. The modules were prefabricated in the factory along with installations, heating, bathroom, kitchen, and facade panels then laid on strip foundations in Hanover (Kreykenbohm, 2016). Only porches and staircases made of steel and the outer wood panelling were mounted on the construction site. The massive wooden construction is made of cross-laminated timber (Cachola Schmal et al., 2017; Kreykenbohm, 2016; Kleilein, 2015; Marlow, 2019).

Fig. 10. + 11. Shared Outdoor Spaces in Hanover Accommodation

25

The self-imposed specifications for the choice of a site by the city of Hanover helped finding a site that promotes a geographical integration. The accommodation is located quite central, and not only in walkable distance, but residents also have very good access to public transport.

Although ground is valuable in cities, and most land is purposed already, therefore the site found for the refugee accommodation is central and is part of a residential area. Situated on a green field and in-midst beautiful, large trees the buildings are located on the edge of the residential area. The trees might protect the residents from noises and prying glances from the major roads nearby. As the facility was designed to also accommodate students and low-income families in the future, the edged location of the site is less relevant. However, the idea to group refugees and low-income families might be problematic, as the project would become a space for lower-income classes. Having students also move in could improve the situation. It would still be a social housing in some sense, as all residing groups would have similar income levels, however, the social demographics would become more variable. The idea of mixing population and creating a social engineering project in a way would promote the integration of refugees.

The facility is integrated well into the urban fabric of the city and can help promote the integration of newcomers. Sustainability plays an important role in every project; the decision not to design a temporary facility is an ecological approach that saves money also in the long run. Facilities designed quickly and for short periods of time often are even more expensive, as the disassembly often is not taken into account.

Fig. 12. Shared Interior Spaces in Hanover, Communal kitchen

26

In his revision of the project Peter Haslinger states: One of the things that initially strike one when approaching this housing facility for refugees is the lack of a fence around the site. The purpose for such fence is normally not to confine the refugees and asylum applicants, but rather to protect the local residents. A fence is a clear symbol in housing for refugees, asylum seekers, asylum applicants, and migrants. It is a [political] statement embodied in an architectural element: a fence. Architecture says something about us, about our society, our engagement, our values, our perspectives for the future. (Cachola Schmal et al., 2017) Yet, what does this say about society and the general impression of refugee accommodation that comes to mind, when not having the accommodation fenced in, or the population fenced out?

The missing fence is a statement that works both ways and might be a fundamental key towards a successful integration. Refugees will not feel fenced in or even imprisoned, and locals will not feel like that they will need protection. For both groups, a missing fence can symbolize a step towards each other, which will hopefully lead to a willingness to work on integration together.

The layout of the facility on an architectural scale also seems to be quite successful. Seventeen square metres living space per person also seems to allow for enough freedom to arrive in Germany and to develop on a personal level. Each unit is equipped with a kitchen, which means that the residents are self-supportive and do not rely on catering services like in many other accommodations. Here they do have the opportunity to not only be self-sufficient but also cook food from their home countries and their cultures. Refugees get the opportunity to remain a piece of their home and heart, as food always is a big part of culture and feeling of home. The kitchen is also another community space that operates at a smaller scale. The small central building is set up as a large community space for the entire facility, but the kitchen and living room in each unit becomes a smaller space for semi-private encounters. The various gradients of public, semi-private, and private spaces are important for every human being, perhaps even more so for traumatised refugees. The living quality of the accommodation does not only promise to be signifcantly higher than in steel containers, but also the expense was significantly lower. It is probably due to the success of this first project that MOSAIK office was commissioned to build another two wooden module residential complexes in Hanover.

27

Fig. 13. Siteplan Hanover MUF 1:10000

28

Fig. 14. Plan + Section Hanover Accommodation 1:500

29

Munich-Moosach ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’ [Living next to Dantebad Pool] Again, time and speed was a key element for the project. In January 2016, Florian Nagler and his office had been commissioned a feasibility study for the urban plot on Homerstreet in Munich, next to the swimming pool Dantebad. From the very beginning the political pressure on program and project was high (Paul, 2017). This is illustrated by two details: it took just two weeks from the submission of the documents to the granting of the building permit, and the planning process was coordinated directly by the mayor’s office. Only six weeks after the preliminary construction inquiry was submitted to the local construction commission the project was launched. During the construction phase, the high pace of the planning phase was maintained: just six months passed from the granting of the building right in June 2016 to the almost finished project in December.

Only weather-related external work was not completed before and was finished in April 2017 (Paul, 2017).

Florian Nagler designed for the 4,200 square metre area a nearly 110-metre-long four-storey timber hybrid construction with south-facing access to the pergola. The special feature of the design is the fact that the building is raised up. Thus, the ground floor remains free and can continue to be used as a parking lot. The architects managed to obtain 107 parking spaces from the originally 111 parking spaces - and to build an additional 100 flats. The house touches the ground only with two stairwells and the two head buildings, in which rooms for technology, storage, bicycles and waste are housed. The arrangement of the parking places dictated the grid layout of the building. Inside the column, grids are three apartments each, with the two outer narrower than the middle one. The middle apartment jumps back a little to the east, thus creating a sheltered vestibule on the arcade for the surrounding apartments. Additional meeting facilities outside the apartments offer the common areas on the southern front, the launderette and the walkable roof, that serves as a terrace. The roof terrace offers play areas and a garden for the residents to use (Paul, 2017.

Fig. 15. + 16. Roofterrace ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’

Fig. 17. Exterior Corridor leading to apartments

30

Fig. 18. Munich 1:150000 with Site highlighted red. (Green highlighted sites in Appendix.)

31

The construction is largely made of wood. The ground floor consists of cast-in-place reinforced concrete columns and a floor slab of precast concrete. The arcades are made of pre-fabricated reinforced concrete elements. On the west facade, one can read the wooden frame modules very well. They were prefabricated as well, including windows and exterior wall cladding, and each houses three apartments. The apartment partitions and staircases were made of solid wood, as well as the ceiling elements, which were made of cross-laminated timber. Due to the construction method, it was completed in only eight weeks. The consciously robust selected materials are easy to maintain: the stair elements are precast concrete elements, the galvanized steel elements, the wooden ceilings of the apartments were left natural, and the cladding elements can be exchanged individually (Paul, 2017.

Structurally, the project can be read as a reinterpretation of Le Corbusier’s Unité d’Habitation (Paul, 2017). For the city of Munich, the design is a novelty: already used land is being utilised twice. For cities and conurbations, where the ground is in short supply, a very promising solution.

This only works however if parking is not bound as usual under building law (Paul, 2017.

Fig. 19. View at ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’ from Football Field

32

Fig. 20. Siteplan Munich ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’, 1:10000

33

The building is located next to the pool Dantebad, which is opposite of the football club ‘SC Friendship’ (SC Amicitia 1919 Munich e.V.). It is also located adjacent to the residential areas of Moosach and Neuhausen-Nymphenburg. This type of superstructure is only necessary for already well-developed locations. There, however, the resistance of the local residents is immense (Paul, 2017). After the citizen protests emanating from the residential areas nearby, the planners decided, instead of the originally planned 100 one-bedroom apartments, to offer 14 family apartments with two and a half rooms, and to occupy the house only 50 per cent with refugees and to rent 40 per cent of apartments to women (Paul, 2017). This contributed significantly to calm the citizens; meanwhile, the football club, which initially feared ‘an impairment of club operations’ and even an ‘uncontrollable social hot spot’, is significantly engaged in the integration of refugees (Paul, 2017).

The building houses 129 people with twenty-three square metres living space per person which is well above the average 8 square metres per person that are legally binding and allows each individual enough space to arrive in Germany. As the building is supposedly not only housing refugees but also accommodating people with low incomes, the question arises, whether this becomes a social housing project. One could argue that integration would be more successful if all social classes and demographics would share housing; this, however, can only be possible if all social classes and demographics would be willing to share living with each other. Which would very likely lead to a different political and social system in Germany. The fact that the building is not thought to be a temporary structure is the projects’ success. The building is designed to be a part of the urban fabric, and the refugees and locals will be neighbours, not only temporarily, but also possibly permanently. This little detail could allow for the willingness to form a friendly relationship. It might even help refugees as well as locals to understand and accept the situation and the new surrounding as a permanent new environment with permanently new neighbours.

Fig. 21. Section ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’ without scale

34

Fig. 22. Interior view facing outwards ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’

Fig. 23. Exterior perspective ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’

35

Fig. 24. Living above Parking

36

Fig. 25. Living above Parking

37

Fig. 26. Axonometric ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’

38

Fig. 27. + 28. Plan Drawings without scale ‘Wohnen am Dantebad’ Groundfloor

3. Floor

Fig. 29. Perspective

39

Berlin Mitte ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’ [Home Märkisches Ufer] A different approach to refugee accommodation is to reuse and adapt already existing structures.

The dreigegeneinen office converted an existing Baroque townhouse, in a thriving neighbourhood to a temporary home for refugees. In this location and behind this facade you certainly do not expect refugee accommodation. The refugee accommodation in Berlin-Mitte is not only located central but also in a high-priced location, in midst hotels and embassies with a view of the television tower, and important Berlin landmark, a castle and a view of the fisher island, as well as being located on the shore of the Spree Canal. The site is very unique, and it seems rather uncommon that refugees are housed in such prime location (Dreigegeneinen, Cachola Schmal et al., 2017).

A private real estate developer however converted a landmarked townhouse into housing units for fifty-six refugees. While some elements might still remind of the former use as offices, the atmosphere in the building has shifted. The souterrain is accommodating the shared spaces of the building. While in German Democratic Republican times the space was utilized for a restaurant, now it serves as a communal kitchen. The worn down stone floor and the wooden tables, as well as the direct exit to street still remind of a restaurant layout. Today however families cook side by side on one of the four stoves, and the laundry room as well as the large fridges in the dining room give away the new character and use of the building. Three or four rooms per floor have been furnished to as two-bed, three-bed, or four-bedrooms, so that ten to eleven residents share the newly mounted sanitary amenities. Each floor is equipped with another room that has been furnished as a smaller community room, to use as semi-private space. Here children can do their homework or play, and adults can socialise. The architecture does not only offer a home to feel welcome in, but it also offers the opportunity for the residents to look after themselves. The near surrounding offers leisure activities, as well as transportation services to anywhere one could wish to travel to (Dreigegeneinen 2019; Cachola Schmal et al., 2017; Sevilgen, 2019).

40

Fig. 30. Berlin 1:150000 with Site highlighted red. (Green highlighted sites in Appendix.)

41

Doris Kleilein in her revision of the project notices how the reuse of the building and its history are influencing its inhabitants today: The Märkisches Ufer is a place where there is still something to discover for local residents and newcomers alike: here, old Berlin resembles Amsterdam, and you have to look more closely to see the numerous fractures in the history of the city.

The years 1740 and 1969 engraved on the plaster facade of the “Haus Märkisches Ufer” refer to a special peregrination. The Baroque townhouse was originally erected around 1740 on the opposite side of the water as part of the Fischerkiez (fishermen’s neighborhood), which, after being damaged during the war, was largely demolished in the nineteen-sixties to make room for the high-rise residential buildings on the Fischerinsel (fishermen’s island). It was one of eight townhouses that were moved and “rebuilt” on the Märkisches Ufer, though not entirely true to the original. The Rococo facade with portal and flight steps framed by sandstone was simplified, and connections to the neighboring “Ermelerhaus”, which was in turn converted into the “art’otel” by Nalbach + Nalbach in 1997, were created. The history of the building may be of marginal interest to the current residents, but it is actually of special significance for the new use. To this day, the emergency escape routes from the second and third floors lead over the sweeping Baroque staircase of the neighboring hotel, while the art-loving hotel guests have to go through the refugee accommodation in case of fire. The doors therefore stand open (Cachola Schmal et al., 2017).

‘The doors therefore stand open’, since the building is historically and physically interwoven with the urban fabric and the connecting architecture. The building is already integrated within its site, but with it the residents of the building are welcomed with open doors. The doors might stand open due to emergency escape laws, but yet it still seems to be an important signal sent out.

People are accommodated and no one fears to leave the doors open and let the newcomers into the life at Märkisches Ufer. The small number of inhabitants is manageable for the surrounding and the building itself. However fifty-six people living in a house of that size can only work over a short period of time. Each person has 15,6 square metres of living space, which is quite prevailing considering the location. However sharing a four-bedroom as a family or individual seems to be only manageable over a short period of time (Dreigegeneinen; Cachola Schmal et al., 2017; Sevilgen, 2019).

42

Fig. 31. Siteplan Berlin-Mitte ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’, 1:10000

43

Fig. 32. Front View ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’

44

Fig. 33. – 37. Living in ‘Haus Märkiches Ufer’ – Shared Kitchen and Semi-Private Bedroom

45

Fig. 38. ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’ on the Spree River

46

Fig. 39. Plans without scale ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’ Souterrain

Groundfloor

1. Floor

Fig. 40. Dining Area ‘Haus Märkisches Ufer’

47

Hamburg-Neuland ‘MUF (Modulhäuser)’ [Modular Houses for temporary Refugee Accommodation] City-state Hamburg was in severe need for housing and accommodation. A temporary container estate was the response of Plan-R architecture office as a prompt solution. A facility with six buildings was established, later another nine buildings were appended. A site that was planned for industrial buildings was repurposed to house refugees. Neuland is a borough of Hamburg, east of Hamburg-Harburg and south of the Elbe river. The accommodation is located east of a major road and in midst of an industrial-commercial area. But not only refugees are accommodated here, also a German Schrebergarten colony found its place within all the commercial spaces. A Schrebergarten is a fenced-in piece of land as a garden, as part of garden colonies or arcaded colonies. Allotment gardens are managed by clubs and the area or the garden is leased cheap to the members. Schrebergarten are very common in cities in Germany; citizens can enjoy nature and plant fruit and vegetables (Cachola Schmal et al., 2017; Plan-R, 2018).

Plan-R office designed the accommodation as modular buildings. Each house consists of eighteen containers and has a gable roof. As they decided to use the container method, yet they were aiming to create not just shelter but home. On their website they state ‘Despite the temporary container construction, the buildings look like real ‘houses’.’ The buildings are connected and entered through a central opening, which also contains a central open staircase. Each module house accommodates four residential units with three to four rooms, a kitchen, and sanitary facilities. Each housing unit offers sixty-two to seventy-seven square metres of space. As the accommodation houses approximately three hundred residents it offers 15,5 square metres of living space per person (Cachola Schmal et al., 2017; Plan-R, 2018).

Fig. 41. Outside View from Field at Container Estate

48

Fig. 42. Hamburg 1:150000 with Site highlighted red. (Green highlighted sites in Appendix.)

49

In Hamburg approximately one hundred twenty module buildings based on this concept by Plan-R were built across eleven locations, likely because it can be built rapidly. The container method allows putting up a complete building in one week. Recently shipping containers have become popular prefabricated housing solutions: they are cheap, installed quickly, and sustainable, can be reused, and are adaptable and movable. Many countries have begun housing students, people with lower incomes and now refugees in container accommodation. Are the steel frame boxes the collective accommodations for the poor of the future? One container is too small to house more than one individual or one couple, when the shape of the container is changed however cost savings begin to disappear. Melding different units together, creating interesting stacking arrangements, or even just stacking high enough, new supportive structures are necessary, insulation is another issue to be dealt with which is increasing the cost. Shipping containers are made for shipping, not to house humans, and as soon as a shipping container is adapted to accommodate people the cost will add up. The container village in Hamburg-Neuland by Plan-R does offer fairly nice emergency accommodation. However simply adding a pitched roof, and windows to make it look like ‘proper houses’ may seem like a poor solution, as a pitched roof does not make a home alone (Forrest, 2015; Cachola Schmal et al., 2017; Plan-R, 2018).

Not only the selected site, but also the temporariness of the architecture let the refugee accommodation seem like an unwanted prosthesis of the space. Neither physical nor social integration can occur in the place.

Fig. 43. Courtyard of Container Estate

50

Fig. 44. Siteplan Hamburg-Neuland with MUF Container Estate, 1:10000

51

Fig. 45. Plans without scale Hamburg-Neuland, Container Estate Hamburg Groundfloor

1. Floor

Fig. 46. + 47. Glances of Hamburg-Neuland

52

Place and Non-place Augé’s theory of place and non-place makes the accommodations appear in a different light and allows analysing the spaces with deeper humanitarian insights. Augé’s theory of place and nonplace however is rather subjective; individuals can understand the same space as place and nonplace. Generally all four accommodations serve well as shelters, especially as when considering the emergency situation. Compared to many other shelters and collective accommodations the four examples mentioned are rather successful. With the aspect of integration in mind the accommodation in Hanover, Berlin-Mitte, and Munich-Moosach all offer a place of belonging and create a new home integrated physically and socially, while Hamburg-Neuland’s accommodation seems to somewhat create a non-place. Here an important part plays how the site is situated in the urban fabric. Eventhough Hamburg-Neuland’s refugee accommodation is located near the Hamburg-Harburg train station, the surrounding does not allow the inhabitants to socialize much, as they do not have any neighbours, other than car dealerships and perhaps the Schrebergarden owners, which likely are only there on some weekends.

As an outsider the accommodations in Berlin, Munich, and Hanover all offer a home with a sense of belonging, which can be defined as a place according to Augé’s theory. Hamburg however does not promise the quality of a place, but rather a non-place. It seems as if the accommodation is an unwanted prosthesis. Without neighbours, and with the very noticeable sense of temporariness, the accommodation does not offer a welcoming home and prevents integration, and therefore an easy arrival.

53

Chapter VI

Conclusion

Architecture is always political.

Richard Rogers

The very idea of refugee accommodation seems to be almost absurd, considering the aim of the German politicians and society is to integrate the refugees. If the aim is integrating the newcomers, providing the same rights, such as the permit to pursue to work, may contribute to the integration process of the two societies. Many refugees are not able to perform every job, due to missing education and even if they are trained for certain jobs, due to language barriers.

Rather than creating refugee accommodation as a new typology of architecture, equal standard of affordable housing may be incorporated, and the social and cultural impacts of refugees may be considered. Segregating refugee groups and moving them in with each other is likely to create a ghettoisation, even when they are close to residential areas.

Large-scale camps are likely to lead to conflict and friction between inhabitants. Many factors such as missing privacy, poor living conditions, monotony and trauma cause inhabitants to be emotionally unstable. Replacing the idea of a temporary ‘camp’ as a quick fix, which implies largescale accommodation with rather poor conditions, with the idea of permanent accommodation might offer the opportunity for a movement of mass integration. Changing terminology might help changing the idea and understanding of the architectural needs. Changing the attitude of the host population, as well as creating a new sense of welcoming towards the foreign population, may contribute in setting up societies for one modern multicultural society.

Designing in a sustainable manner is becoming increasingly important for todays’ and future generations. Rather than creating temporary accommodation, which will be dismantled in the near future and only serve as a shelter rather than a home, designers might want to think about long term solutions. The issue of low-cost housing will be prevailing in the future. While the inhabitants might evolve and change, the buildings’ purpose could remain.

Architecture has the power to trigger certain behaviour patterns. The spaces in which humans dwell affect their emotional state; size, shape and surrounding affect ones feelings, maybe even through smell and memories. If one feels safe and at home, the emotional state is calm and relaxed, while if one does not feel welcomed and perhaps observed one is not relaxed, but tense and easily triggered. Since architecture has the power to influence human behaviour, it also has the responsibility to create spaces in which the inhabitants feel comfortable and enjoy dwelling. The power architecture holds, makes it an art form that is highly political. The spaces architects create will influence humans inhabiting the space. Architecture becomes a space, which is performing the designers’ intentions.

56

Structures that are integrated into the urban fabric are likely to integrate its habitants into the social community; choosing a site may have a significant impact on physical and social integration. Designing buildings for one social group is likely to create social segregation. The German values and ideas about the term integration and the German objective to integrate its newcomers into their society may be considered as physical integration, such as integrating accommodations into the urban fabric, as well as the social aspects of integration. It may be beneficial to mix social groups more with each other.

Answering the question whether a mixture of different social groups is at all possible cannot be done without further study. Maybe only if one understands architecture not as a single building but as part of the urban fabric, mixing social groups spatially, therefore architecturally can be accomplished. Architecture as an individual project cannot function as a home to house several social classes: Creating different spaces for different social groups could cause social segregation, even though physical integration might be provided. However creating equal spaces could lead to social classes with higher income not willing to dwell in spaces that are the same as for people with lower-incomes. Socialism is not the established political system; therefore equal spaces cannot be the solution to create mixed group housing.

Understanding architecture as a single fragment of the urban fabric, like the architects in Munich, Hanover, and Berlin did, architecture can create the possibility for social groups to live next to one -another and could possibly generate a socially and physically mixed urban fabric. Even though the architecture itself houses one specific social group, it functions as a particle of the urban fabric and the greater whole. Affordable housing in the centre of global cities is an increasingly important issue to be dealt with by architects in the twenty-first century. As the gap between the rich and the poor is widening at great speed, perhaps architects can consider the refugee crisis as a learning opportunity to understand how a comprehensive and inclusive city can be designed.

57

Studying the four chosen case studies in different cities helped to develop an understanding of different urban fabrics and the architecture within it. Any architecture is different in itself, as well as significantly influenced by its surrounding conditions. This investigation also illustrates that if city councils, architects and planners, and anyone part of the project, work together to create a solution, projects can be realised much faster, cheaper and more efficient. This can be seen especially in the projects in Munich and Hanover. Originally eight case studies, two from each location, were chosen for analysis. Due to time and word limitation four case studies had to be left out, those can be found in the appendix. For further studies however it might offer more in-depth analysis to compare examples from the same city as well as in comparison to other cities. Studying examples from the same location, with not only similar conditions, but with the exact same political and environmental conditions may result in an even greater understanding of intelligent use of resources as well as ways of integrating architecture and its inhabitants into the existing urban fabric. For this dissertation, I also have chosen four successful and unusual refugee accommodations, which illustrate some of the best solutions to the issue of affordable housing. However for a future study looking at less successful, more average solutions can help architects to design in the future.

58

Bibliography Agier, M., 2011. Managing the undesirables: Refugee camps and humanitarian government, Polity, Cambridge.

Aquilino, M.J., 2010. Beyond Shelter: Architecture and human dignity, Metropolis Books, New York.

Architecture for Humanity, 2012. Design like you give a damn [2]: Building change from the ground up, Abrams, New York; London.

Augé, M., 1995. Non-places: Introduction to the anthropology of supermodernity, Verso, London.

Benjamin, A.E., 2002. Refugees, cosmopolitanism, and the place of citizenship, Architectural theory review: journal of the Department of Architecture, the University of Sydney, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 101-116.

Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF), 2016. http://www.bamf.de/SharedDocs/ Anlagen/DE/Publikationen/Broschueren/das-deutsche-asylverfahren.html, accessed on October 20th 2018 Bundesamt für Migration und Flüchtlinge (BAMF), 2018. https://www.bamf.de/DE/Service/Left/ Glossary/_function/glossar.html?lv3=1504494&lv2=5831826, accessed on January 30th 2019 Cachola Schmal, P., Scheuermann, A., Elser, O., Klement, A., Madole, R. & Deutsches Architekturmuseum, 2017. Making Heimat. Germany, Arrival Country: Atlas of refugee housingFlüchtlingsbautenatlas, Hatje Cantz Verlag, Berlin; 4.

Carstens, P., 2015. Flüchtlingsunterkünfte: Warum die Fäuste fliegen (Refugee accommodation: why it is becoming violent), Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), https:// www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/fluechtlingskrise/fluechtlingsunterkuenfte-langeweile-undgewalt-13837682.html, accessed January 3rd 2019 Charlesworth, E.R., 2014. Humanitarian architecture: 15 stories of architects working after disaster, Routledge, Abingdon.

59

Djahangard S., Elger K., Elmer C., Olbrisch M., Schaible J., Schlossarek M., Schmidt N., 2017.

Integration by the Numbers Germany’s Ongoing Project to Welcome Its Refugees, Spiegel Online http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/integrating-refugees-in-germany-anupdate-a-1147053.html, accessed October 18th 2018 Dreigegeneinen, 2019. MUF-Haus Märkisches Ufer, available at: https://www.dreigegeneinen. eu/de/architektur/sonderbauten/item/143-haus-maerkisches-ufer, accessed March 1st 2019 Eurostat, 2018. Asylum and first time asylum applicants - annual aggregated data (rounded), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction. do?tab=table&plugin=1&pcode=tps00191&language=en, accessed January 5th 2019 Forrest, A., 2015. Living in a steel box: are shipping containers really the future of housing?, The Guardian, available at: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2015/oct/09/living-steel-boxshipping-containers-future-housing, accessed March 2nd 2019 Friedrich, J., Haslinger, P., Takasaki, S. & Forsch, V., 2017. Zukunft Wohnen: Migration als Impuls für die kooperative Stadt (Future Living: Migration as stimulus for the cooperative city), Jovis Verlag, Berlin; 4.

Friedrich, J., Takasaki, S., Haslinger, P., Thiedmann, O., Borchers, C. & Adolf, M., 2015.

Refugees welcome: Konzepte für eine menschenwürdige Architektur (Refugees welcome: Concepts for humane architecture), jovis Verlag, Berlin; 4.

Funk, K., 2015. Sortierung ist keine Lösung – gebt Flüchtlingen ausreichend Platz (Sorting is no solution – more space for refugees), Stern, https://www.stern.de/politik/probleme-influechtlingsunterkuenften--trennung-ist-keine-loesung-gegen-gewalt-6475098.html, accessed January 2nd 2019/ Goskel, G.U., 2018. Integration of immigrants and the theory of recognition – ‘just integration’, Springer Nature, Cham Haak, J., 2018. Tempelhoferfeld: So leben die Flüchtlinge im Containerdorf (Tempelhofer Field: This is how refugees live in container villages), Berliner Zeitung, available at: https://www.berliner-zeitung.de/berlin/tempelhofer-feld-so-leben-die-fluechtlinge-imcontainerdorf-30519934, accessed, March 2019 60

Hamberger, A., 2009. Identity, integration and citizenship: Immigrant integration: Acculturation and social integration. Journal of Identity and Migration Studies, 3(2) Hamburger Abendblatt, 2015. Flüchtlinge können Wohnschiff in Hafen beziehen (Refugees can move into house boat in the harbour), Hamburg, available at: https://www.abendblatt. de/hamburg/article137199580/Fluechtlinge-koennen-Wohnschiff-im-Hafen-beziehen.html, accessed March, 2019 Herz, M. & ETH Studio Basel, Contemporary City Institute, 2013. From camp to city: refugee camps of the Western Sahara, Lars Müller, Zürich.

Hessische Niedersächsische Allgemeine (HNA), 2015. Massenschlägerei in Flüchtlings-Zeltstadt in Calden. [online video] available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=pG9eJYe2PAU, accessed January 6th 2019 Karim, F. (Ed.), 2018. The Routledge Companion to Architecture and Social Engagement.

Routledge, Part 8, Engagement in Emergency, Fisher, T., What we can learn from refugees, pp. 399-411.

Katz, B., Noring, L., Garrelts, N., 2016. Cities and Refugees-The German Experience, Centennial Scholar Initiative, The Brookings Institution Kleilein, D., 2015. Bezahlbares Wohnen in Holzmodulen (Affordable housing in wooden modules), Bauwelt (48, 2015), Berlin Kühl, K. & Behrens, J., 2018. Spaces of Migration: Architecture for Refugees, Architectural Design, vol. 88, no. 4, pp. 86-93.

Kreykenbohm, S., 2016. Holzmodulbauten zum Wohnen (Modular wood units for housing), DBZ (Deutsche Bauzeitschrift), Hannover Maak, N., 2016. Gimme shelter: refugee architecture in Germany, Harvard design magazine, no. 42, pp. 16-23.

Marlow, K., Mosaik Architekten BDA, 2019. Email attachment, January 14th, kay.marlow@ mosaik-architekten.de 61

Meeus, B., Arnaut, K. & van Heur, B., 2019. Arrival infrastructures: migration and urban social mobilities, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, Switzerland; 4.

Neill, W.J.V. & Schwedler, H., 2007. Migration and cultural inclusion in the European city, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke.

N24 Nachrichten, 2015. Gewalt in Flüchtlingsheimen (Violence in refugee accommodation), [online video] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQZCA6TxcbA, accessed January 6th 2019 Paul, J., 2017. Wohnen am Dantebad in München (Living next to the Dantebad pool), Bauwelt (10, 2017), Zürich Plan-R Architekturbüro Brüdigam + Reinig, 2018. Modulhäuser (Modular houses), Germany, available at: http://www.plan-r.net/files/oekologie_10.html, accessed March 1st, 2019 Schwarz, K., CSMM-architecture matters, 2019. Email attachment, January 14th, katja. schwarz@cs-mm.com Sevilgen, B., Dreigegeneinen, 2019. Email attachment, January 12th, drei@gegeneinen.eu Siddiqi, A.I., 2017. Architecture Culture, Humanitarian Expertise: From the Tropics to Shelter, 1953–93, Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, vol. 76, no. 3, pp. 367-384.

Statistisches Bundesamt, 2017. https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/ GesellschaftStaat/Bevoelkerung/MigrationIntegration/Schutzsuchende/Tabellen/ StaatsangehoerigkeitSchutzstatus.html, accessed on October 18th 2018.

Statistisches Bundesamt, 2017. https://www.destatis.de/DE/ZahlenFakten/GesellschaftStaat/ EinkommenKonsumLebensbedingungen/Wohnen/Wohnen.html#Tabellen, accessed on November 14th 2018 UNHCR, 2018. http://www.unhcr.org/uk/figures-at-a-glance.html, accessed on October 18th, 2018 62

UNHCR, 2018. http://popstats.unhcr.org/en/overview#_ ga=2.209253393.2075584853.1539859316-408799637.1539626072, accessed on October 18th 2018 Vaudetti, M., Minucciani, V., Canepa, S. & Onay, N.S., 2018. Suspended living in temporary space: emergencies in the Mediterranean region: international conference proceedings, 9 October 2017, Politecnico di Torino, Turin, Italy, LetteraVentidue Edizioni, Siracusa, Italy; 4 Vis à vis, Gespräch mit Bassam Tibi zum Thema Islam und Islamismus (Conversation with Bassam Tibi about Islam), 2018. 3sat, Mainz, available at: https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=lj9yNVA3e4c, accessed February 16th, 2019 World Population Prospects: The 2017 Revision, UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2017. https://www.un.org/development/desa/publications/world-population-prospectsthe-2017-revision.html, accessed November 5th 2018 Würschinger, K. & Dean, C., 1994. The architecture of refuge, Architectural review, vol. 194, no. 1170, pp. 13-14.

Zeit Online, 2017. Unterbringung von Flüchtlingen in Deutschland bemängelt, Deutsche Presse Agentur, https://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2017-12/fluechtlinge-unterkunftdeutsches-institut-menschenrechte-verstoss, accessed January 3rd 2019

63

Appendix

Hanover ‘MUF (Modulare Unterkünfte für Flüchtlinge)’ [Modular Units for Refugee Housing] Typology: temporary, possible permanent use Site: central, residential Number of residents: 96 residents Modular units: 3 storey residential modular units Residents: asylum seekers, refugees with recognized status Date of completion: December 2015 Construction time: 1 month Lifespan: minimum of 20 years, subsequent use possible as student dormitory Commissioned by: Building Department City Hannover Architect: MOSAIK Architekten BDA, Hannover Building Method: Prefabricated wooden room modules (solid wood panels) Construction Costs: approx. 1,600 euros/m2 Living Space per Person: 17 m2 (Cachola Schmal et al., 2017)

MOSAIK architects built further refugee accommodations following the same design and planning. The modular units were installed at five locations in Hanover. The map depicts those locations: the red marker symbolises the case study described in the main text, while the green markers locate three of the other installed accommodations. The one left out is a specifically designed accommodation for under age asylum seekers. The project chosen is the closest to the city centre, however all four projects are fairly well embedded in the urban fabric and very well connected to its neighbourhood as well as any necessities.

65

Hanover

DorotheenstraĂ&#x;e

PodbielskistraĂ&#x;e Baumschulenallee

66

All images of Hannover Studies: from http://www.mosaik-architekten.de, by O. Mahlstedt

Baumschulenallee, Hannover

Baumschulenallee, Hannover

67

PodbielskistraĂ&#x;e, Hannover

DorotheenstraĂ&#x;e, Hannover

68

Munich-Haidhausen, Bavaria ‘Gemeinschaftsunterkunft’ [Collective Accommodation] Typology: Adaptive Reuse Site: Central Number of residents: 102 residents Modular units: 16 apartments Residents: asylum seekers Date of completion: May 2015 Construction time: 1 month Commissioned by: Government of Upper Bavaria Architect: Modal M GmbH, Munich Building Method: Conversion of a listed building Construction Costs: n.s.

Living Space per Unit: 18 m2 (Cachola Schmal et al., 2017)

The renovated, landmark protected building accommodates 102 asylum seekers and is located in the center of Munich (Cachola Schmal et al, 2017).

69

Munich

Munich-Haidhausen

70

CSMM- acrhitecture matters, Image: Christian Krinniger (Schwarz, 2019)

Munich-Haidhausen, View from Streetcorner

71

Munich-Haidhausen Drawings by CSMM- acrhitecture matters (Schwarz, 2019)

5 Geschoss

4 Geschoss

3 Geschoss

2 Geschoss

1 Geschoss

0 Geschoss

5 Geschoss

4 Geschoss

3 Geschoss

2 Geschoss

1 Geschoss

0 Geschoss

-1 Geschoss

-2 Geschoss

04 Schnitte und Ansichten nach der Sanierung

72

Berlin Tempelhof ‘Massenunterkunft Tempelhofer Feld’ [Mass Accommodation Tempelhof Field]

Typology: Tempohomes Number of residents: 900 residents Modular units: steelframe containers Residents: asylum seekers

The container settlement on Tempelhofer Feld was Berlin’s largest community shelter for refugees. Hundreds of containers were assembled on the airfield in such a way that 256 individual apartments, a school, three sports fields, a laundromat and a kind of village square were created. The shared accommodation covers an area of ​​74,200 square metres, which is a good ten football fields. It’s a real little town. Bridges run over plumbing and power lines, because the airfield is a listed building and was not allowed to be permanently changed for the construction of the settlement. Barrier-free therfore was not considered in the planning process. White lines continue to run over the brittle asphalt that used to lead the path for aircrafts and utility vehicles.

The new settlement was simply overlayed on the historic airfield. The flooring for sports surfaces was poured onto the asphalt. The containers are standing on stilts. The children’s playgrounds on pedestal buildings.The construction cost summarized up to 17 million euros. According to the Tempelhof law however, everything must be gone by the end of 2019 (Haak, 2018) .

73

Berlin

Berlin Tempelhof

74

Berlin, Tempelhofer Field Source: Sabine Gudath (Haak, 2018)

75

Berlin, Tempelhofer Field Source: Jรถrg Carsensen, dpa

Berlin, Tempelhofer Field Source: Sabine Gudath (Haak, 2018)

76

Hamburg-Harburg ‘Wohnschiff’ [Residential Ship] Typology: Residential Ship, temporary Number of residents: 216 residents Modular units: ship Residents: asylum seekers

In a short time, new capacity had to be created. The 110-metre long ship offers 216 residents shelter. Three decks with single and double cabins, communal kitchens, laundry and group rooms are available. Passage doors allow families to share multiple booths (Hamburger Abendblatt, 2015).

Residential Ship Source: Hamburger Abendblatt, 2015

77

Hamburg

Hamburg-Harburg

78

Source: Hamburger Abendblatt, 2015

Residential Ship, Hamburg-Harburg

Source: Hamburger Abendblatt, 2015

Residential Ship, Hamburg-Harburg

79

Residential Ship, Hamburg-Harburg

Source: Hamburger Abendblatt, 2015

Residential Ship, Hamburg-Harburg

Source: Hamburger Abendblatt, 2015

80

82

THEY TOOK YOUR HOME FROM YOU NOW THEY CALL YOU REFUGEE Home is a language you grew in your mouth that now no longer exists anywhere but inside your heart and head.

Home is where you had to teach your children how to run from men who are dressed in war and blood.

Home is now legend a story of where you grew up, happy and safe before they set your entire world aflame.

Home is where you ran to the sea because the place you once belonged to, now no longer remembers your name.

Home was your refuge.

Now, after cruelly taking from you they call you a refugee.

Nikita Gill

83