Architecture is participation by Rafael González

ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION

The spectacular demonstrations held against the renovation project for the Stuttgart Central Station “Stuttgart 21” weren’t the first time in Germany it became clear that people not only want to have a say in the design of their built environment, but that they want to participate in it as well. Our democracy is experiencing change. Established political decision-making structures are being questioned, new participation processes in the design of public buildings are being tested, and a new design planning culture is being demanded. What does this mean for city planning, urban development, and architecture? How should planners and architects respond to these challenges? What do they mean for the architect’s understanding of their professional role? Architects can no longer ignore these questions without being accused of arrogance. Whether or not they open up to a participatory process has become an existential question, because users’ knowledge about the use and experience of spaces offers fundamental insight for architects throughout the design process. But what does participation mean precisely? Does it waste or save time? Does it cost or save money? How does participation work? Where and when is the user involved? How do the desires of users become built spaces? What effect does participation have? Does it create user identification with the architecture? Does it create social cohesion? Who is afraid of participation? Architecture Is Participation gives possible answers to these questions. The book is divided into three parts: the introduction gives an overview of historical and current participative design strategies. Next, the design methods of Die Baupiloten architectural office are explained in the form of method modules presented as a kind of game manual. These modules cover a wide range of participation possibilities, which above all consist of communication about and through atmospheres. Finally, the international projects designed and built by Die Baupiloten office using these methods are presented. They show how sophisticated architecture, which is highly regarded by its users, can emerge through participation. Architecture is Participation addresses everyone who is situated in a democratic design and build culture and wants to know exactly what participation in architectural design and planning is all about.

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Susanne Hofmann, Berlin, 2014

PARTICIPATION AND ARCHITECTURE THE POTENTIAL OF A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS Democratic societies, which consist more and more of emancipated people, strongly demand participation in the design of their built environment. Participation is becoming increasingly relevant for the architectural design process, while at the same time, the role of the architect as an expert is being called into question. Architects frequently have to contend with allegations that their work is too detached from client and user expectations, and only follows their own principles. Whether architects isolate and thus expose themselves to accusations of arrogance and self-indulgence, or whether they open up to users in a participatory design process has become an existential question. For if it is assumed that the quality of architecture is evaluated based on its sustainable usability and the degree of the user’s identification with the building, then high priority must be given to users’ participation in the design of their environment. Laypeople’s understanding of the use and experience of space presents the architect with a foundation of knowledge for the architectural design process. Therefore, the process should be built upon a viable communication between architect and users. In the general practice of an architectural firm, working with users should be considered an essential part of the design investigations, and thus an extension of the architect’s sphere of activity. Because this is not stipulated in the German Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers (HOAI), it is not accordingly remunerated, and must therefore be negotiated separately with the client. The German Federal Building Code only requires that people be informed about the project (Building Code § 3.1), but does not stipulate or plan for their participation. As a result, participation as a potential for better and more appropriate architecture is seldom used, or is performed in a casual and poorly planned manner, which only confirms prejudices regarding its ineffectiveness. Token participation, participation as an end in itself, participation not being economically viable—these are just some of the concerns surrounding participation processes. Not only do increasing protests against construction projects call for early user involvement, but well-planned participation can also contribute significantly to a high-quality built environment and an increased sense of belonging. As a result, the issue of participation plays a central role in wide-ranging discussions among experts about the use of “Stage Zero,” which serves as a preHOAI work stage. For the building of schools, the Montag Stiftungen (Montag Foundations) define Stage Zero as the “preparation and development stage … for the educational, spatial, economic and urban requirements in each school building project ... [it] includes a thorough assessment of all relevant data, the development of robust usage scenarios and organizational models for the pending construction project.”[1] Yet, Stage Zero is usually considered in isolation from the rest of the design process, with other architectural firms or project developers assigned this task, rather than the architect responsible for the project. For instance, the Montag Stiftungen recommend external, separately commissioned school design consultants. Our particular approach to participation provides close collaboration between user, client, and architect through several stages of the design process. For the architect, openness to the users’ wishes is a prerequisite for targeted communication and observation of their everyday life. Strategic processes have to be designed to overcome communication barriers, and put into place user-specific, low-threshold levels of interaction that could potentially be developed by a “translator.” This can be a specially trained staff, or—when working with adolescents—young

people who are in touch with their world, and thus able to mediate between them and the architect. User participation should be understood as part of the foundation of a design proposal, not as an irritation or “dilution” of the “pure” idea. It provides a robust foundation leading to a design that is highly relevant in terms of use, and to an increased sense of belonging. Significant conflicts that otherwise wouldn’t arise until construction or after completion of the building can be identified during the design stage. A key element is the established trust between user, client, and architect—whose relationships with each other should be evenly balanced, as in an equilateral triangle. A basic requirement here is the willingness of the client, the responsible body, or simply the investor to engage in participatory methods and consider user participation worthwhile. At the same time, users also need to believe in their own self-efficacy. Only when these conditions are met can the collaboration between the architect, user, and client be productive. The precise exploration of users’ needs and ideas regarding the use of buildings, as well as effectual communication between laypeople and architects are important foundations for the design quality and sustainable use of buildings, which is expressed by the satisfaction of their users. The increased identification with the building contributes to a sense of well-being, which in the example of schools and kindergartens, results in an added pedagogical value. Identifying with the building can also improve social relations—for example, in housing. Through the increased user satisfaction with a building that responds to their demands, it can potentially lead to a more careful use of the space and thereby reduce repair and renovation costs. Hence, participation also has an economically relevant added value. While participation may be a challenge for society in general, in the manageable group of people involved in a building project, agreement that minimizes the potential for conflict and the associated costs and time can be reached. The extent to which users are involved in the design and building process, how and which processes they participate in, and who is actually defined as a user determines the intensity and quality of the participation process. Several groups may use a public building in different ways, but they should all have a say when it comes to the future of their built environment. People’s often implicit knowledge about spatial qualities and their demands on the use and the experience of space is a social potential that must be taken into account in architecture. Participation is also a challenge for architects and their designs, because potential conflicts between stakeholders and their differing needs entail risk and uncertainty. Therefore, consensus—and the question of whether it is achievable or desirable—is a key issue in participation theories. The role the architect plays in a participatory design process is at issue, like that of the future user, because participation is still perceived by many architects and clients to be disruptive as well as too timeconsuming and costly. Consequently, participation is not least a challenge to the self-image of architects, because a participatory design and building process may demand new production methods and new building aesthetics. In return, we can expect an architecture corresponding more to usage requirements than conventional approaches based frequently on assumptions of usage. Even if the intention of the latter may seem considerate, the problem with this approach—apart from the danger of not considering the actual users’ interests—is that to the users it is always somewhat overbearing and confining, sometimes even aggressive. Essential here is a transparent and well-mediated design approach that makes the importance of the “people” (in the sense of the Austrian sociologist Helga Nowotny) visible in the design process.[2]

To discuss this in more detail, a glimpse into the history of participation and its potential is presented below, and the question of specific user and architectural knowledge and what successful communication in a participatory process looks like is examined more closely. In addition, the potential of a successful participatory process is presented in reference to Die Baupiloten’s method and realized projects, which works by employing communication about and through atmospheres.

PARTICIPATION IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS —A REVIEW

Yona Friedman, 1974 MY GUIDE: HOW CITY DWELLERS CAN PLAN THEIR BUILDINGS AND CITIES THEMSELVES A. Another story of the residents of another new district. B. Each of us had an idea of our own home. C. But our architect didn’t even listen to us. He had studied how the “average man” behaves

“The authority and the elitist status of the architect” are not going to last any longer. Already in the nineteen-sixties, this statement attested to a mindset that vehemently abandoned “aesthetic expert knowledge” and, among other things, led sociologist Lucius Burkhardt to call for the inclusion of the user in the planning processes.[4] In this context, some forty years later, British architect and author Jeremy Till talks about users’ desires encroaching upon the comfort zone of architects.[5] That they would adhere to an idealized—one might even say narrowed—idea of the principles of durability, utility, and beauty established by Vitruvius, which would be challenged in its purity by a participatory process. The principle of usefulness, at any rate, is undermined when the communication process between architect and client or users is dysfunctional, and architects believe they know what users need better than the users themselves. Therefore, Till calls for a credible integration of users’ requirements and their concerns.[6]

DESIGN TRANSPARENCY

In the current German debate, the participation of architectural laypeople in shaping their built environment is still limited to citizen participation in urban regeneration and development processes, such as public hearings.[3] Participation in the architectural design of their immediate environment often remains ignored. Architects barely participate in these debates, frequently retreating with their design expertise and limiting themselves to the moderation or organization of architectural processes and related decisions. Hence, design is often considered a field of subordinate aesthetic choices. But how can we design and build architecture that fulfills the Vitruvian principles of durability, utility, and beauty? A utility that is not only measured in terms of functionality, but also in terms of enhancing atmospheric qualities that support the use and give users the opportunity to identify with the architecture? All of these issues raise specific questions for the design process: 1. How can the insights gained from user participation be integrated profitably in the architectural design process? 2. What form should the communication take between users, clients, and architects, so that this process is a productive one and architecture laypeople feel they can participate on equal terms? 3. And how can the design be realized so that the users’ wishes are really fulfilled—without substantial curtailments and despite other parameters, such as low construction budgets, building regulations, and mandatory standards?

The “Design Methods Movement” represents an important attempt to integrate participation in a systematic planning process. Founded in the US during the early nineteen-sixties in Berkeley, California—by the British and US-American architects Christopher Alexander, Bruce Archer, John Chris Jones, and German design theorist Horst Rittel, among others— the Design Methods Movement embraced the desire to integrate users’ needs in the design, and to make them transparent in a participatory process. Generally, the British—but also the German debate in the late nineteen-sixties and the early nineteen-seventies—was driven by the question of how a design methodology could be made accessible to laypeople through a process of systematization. The aim of a design striving for objectivity and high rationality of thought presented an opportunity to defy subjective, emotional, and intuitive factors in order to make the design process comprehensible to outsiders—in other words, the users. The representatives of the Design Methods Movement agreed that the opacity of the design process prevented participation. It was thought that using computers could give a larger group of participants direct influence on the design of their environment, or even enable them to design entire buildings. Till criticizes the approach of the Design Methods Movement, because he sees a fundamental contradiction between the seemingly authoritarian aesthetics and high economic and technical expense on the one hand, and the social reality on the other.[7] A transparent design process alone was not enough to enable laypeople or users to participate, since the drawings and technical information produced in a streamlined planning process are ultimately

reflective process. That implies: the users of architecture—which generally includes all members of society, and especially those who are affected by the design—can contribute along with the client to the substantial knowledge gained during the design process. According to Nowotny, they are stakeholders with diverse knowledge who actively contribute their expertise. Nowotny refers to knowledge acquired in exchanges in such groups as “socially robust” and describes the space of the exchange as the “agora;”[44] by which she means a social space based on the perception of a classical Greek city market square whereby, in the original democratic sense, the wishes, desires, and needs are articulated resulting in different visions, values, and alternatives.

Architects ought to recognize these scientific findings and take them seriously. Their efforts to communicate their architectural philosophies through the effective use of popular media, through increased marketing efforts, or initiatives in school education fail if it is simply about trying to educate laypeople to conform to architects’ ideas. Initiatives aimed at strengthening the sense of space and the engagement with space are more promising, because they respond to the laypeople’s understanding of architecture and its appropriation, rather than trying to educate them.

SHARED REALITIES & STORYTELLING SOCIALLY ROBUST KNOWLEDGE

Applied to the architectural design process, user participation can contribute socially robust knowledge to the design—i.e., Mode 2 Knowledge—as well as a shared understanding of the users’ needs and expectations. If one accepts the agora as the basis for participatory design, the question of the architect’s role arises once more. They are the mediator and translator in the design process for the architectural requirements and wishes stipulated by the agora, whereby a new dimension in the participatory architectural design can be achieved. The decisive factor is communication between the architect and users, which allows users to articulate their wishes and ideas, thus enabling the architect to comprehend and thereby integrate them into the design. At the same time, the architect should be given the opportunity to comprehensively convey their design approach to the users, in order to lay the foundations for a successful participatory design process.

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ARCHITECTS AND USERS The relationship between people and their built environment is determined by experiences of appropriation and the use of buildings. The users must, however, be in a position to feel able to formulate their demands regarding spatial aspirations; the architect, in turn, must be able to present the appropriate design responses. To this end, they might have to look for adequate new forms and means of communication, because looking at the prevailing communication between architect and client or user, there are a number of shortcomings to eliminate or overcome. In general, the understanding is based upon architectural drawings, models, and the discourse about the design. Yet, in most cases this only represents an image of a space, not its intended effect. There are fundamental problems affecting the communication between architects and laypeople, including: their differing knowledge of construction, divergent assessments of architectural qualities, and a clichéd preconception of the respective partners. Studies from psychological, sociological, and pedagogical points of view have dealt with architecture, space, its experience, and its appropriation by laypeople, and found that this harbors particularly relevant insights for architectural design. Sociologist Daniela Rätzel discovered in her studies that the general difference in their respective approaches is that architects predominantly dealt with the materiality and building conditions in order to initiate the design process, while in contrast, the user initially explored the room or building’s atmosphere and then considered the programming of the spaces.[45] Users initially always construct a situational social space from the physical space.[46]

In this sense, the close proximity of the architects to everyday life is stipulated by Giancarlo De Carlo as an essential part of co-housing projects. This is evident in the “Sarg Fabrik”—a project in Vienna implemented by BKK-3, a group of Austrian architects. The design-build program “Rural Studio,” launched by Samuel Mockbee in 1993 at Auburn University in the US, encourages living close to the client for several weeks to understand their needs and determine their wishes. However, it is not always feasible to facilitate such an intense proximity between architect and their clients, meaning that alternative communication strategies need to be developed in order to derive the users’ wishes and translate them into architecture. Alternative methods have therefore emerged, such as games developed for the urban planning area, the aforementioned AOC’s planning games, or the “playing cards” from the German-British architectural firm offsea (office for socially engaged architecture). Digital data processes have become viable for participatory tools, since the significant evolution of computer technology from the nineteen-sixties and the Design Methods Movement. Equally vital is what Jeremy Till refers to as “urban storytelling,” through which the layperson’s knowledge is imparted.[47] Nowotny also considers the story an important communication tool in the agora as a complex exchange on a narrative basis. In the context of urban storytelling, architects are able to leave their detached, spectator position and interact with the users in a social relationship. The stories that result from such talks should be recorded, in Till’s opinion, and made the foundation of the design process. Therefore, the selection of tools and methods of communication that can capture and communicate differing perceptions of reality is decisive for the participatory design process. The objective is to arrive at a “shared reality” or “shared realities.” Imaginings and ideas are compiled, resulting in a collective story and a shared reality. This is not about compromising, finding the lowest common denominator, or establishing what is common to each, but developing a nuanced approach to “making best sense” out of the differing desires.[48] It can be assumed that lowering the barriers to participation or involvement has as much to do with a genuine thematic debate and the appropriation of knowledge, as with the essential enjoyment of participation itself. The playfulness of this process not only facilitates participation, it also sets the necessary creativity free. Since the aforementioned spatial atmospheres play a major role, particularly in the layperson’s expertise, describing these atmospheres is crucial to the communication between architects and users. Since spatial atmospheres are an everyday phenomenon, there is a strong consensus from both sides about the experience of space. This enables the architect to comprehensively understand the users’ wishes and simultaneously helps achieve a necessary level of abstraction that provides room for interpretation in the

Construction Start

COMPLETION

LPH 8

Tender Documentation

LPH 6/7

Technical Design

LPH 5

Developed Design

LPH 3

Concept Design

LPH 2

FICTION

PROCESS

WORK STAGE

PARTICIPATION

U3 F7

A3 W1

2009

F4 12

01 2010

02 2011

particularly important that the answers have an element of spontaneity and intuition, so that subconscious ideas may be brought to light. In addition, any initial communication issues may be resolved; any participants behaving dismissively, initially can be encouraged to enter into the conversation. The use of atmosphere workshops allows for the discussion of spatial qualities without involving specific design decisions. It’s about the impression of locations, how they are perceived or the memory of them, with the aim of gathering users’ first impressions, facilitating communication between them and the architect, and above all, creating a foundation of trust.

2012

USERS’ EVERYDAY LIFE METHOD MODULES TIMELINE PLANNING PROCESS LICHTENBERWEG KINDERGARTEN, LEIPZIG AS RESULT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND FEEDBACK PROCESSES, THE AIM IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A JOINT STORY ARISING FROM AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRAGMATIC REQUIREMENTS AND FUNCTIONALITY, WHICH AT THE SAME TIME BECOMES A BASIS FOR THE ARCHITECTURE. IT IS CONTINUALLY MIRRORED IN THE FACTUAL REQUIREMENTS AND FURTHER DEVELOPED. IN THIS PROCESS, THE DESIGNS GAIN THEIR CONCRETE FORM. THE DIAGRAM SHOWS, FOR EACH PROJECT, THE SPECIFIC PROCESS IN THE COMPARISON OF METHOD MODULES, THE MOMENT OF THE STORY FORMULATION, AND THE INDIVIDUAL work stages (LPH#) ACCORDING TO the german fee structure for architects and engineers (HOAI).

ATMOSPHEREs METHOD MODULES

The workshops that take place at the beginning of the participatory design process use atmosphere to create a common language between the users and architect, and hence build trust and openness between them. Working with atmospheric representations (collages, models) and the verbal exchange regarding them, circumvents the established architectural codes of communication through technical drawings, plans, and models. Thus, it is possible to communicate more directly about architecture and its real and desired qualities. Using images and imagination, ideas about such qualities can be developed further, and eventually form the basis for a viable design concept that the user can identify with. Different tools may be used to attune users to the participatory design process. For example, with the aid of presented visual material, a common language can be developed.A1 The images and their relationship with each other help the user to find atmospheric descriptions that provide a basis for communication with the architect on equal terms. The method of strolling, leisurely walking through space without a previously defined goal, is also a useful tool to get started. By combining detailed photographs of a place, its atmospheric qualities can be abstracted, visualized, and communicated.A2 Capturing a place or situation in detailed images, and assembling them into an integrated representation can provide a narrative for communication. These “mood boards” arising from the atmospheres workshops are documented by the architect (or moderator of the process), combined into a more coherent, precise concept, and explored even further using various media. The location and perception of the atmospheric effects are mapped. Documenting the atmospheres is essential to their perception, because it reflects and reinforces them in a permanent process, and it also establishes the foundation for their communication. An interview can also be a useful method for their exploration.A5 The so-called activating survey should not be designed as a means of data retrieval, but as social interaction. It is

The observation, or rather, monitoring and documenting of the users’ daily routines, forms the second important category of method modules for the participatory design process. One option, for instance, is to accompany the users in their everyday life, and to record different events in order to draw conclusions with reference to the architecture. This might entail moving into a residential complex that is to be renovated, or long-term monitoring of a group to gain more specific, reliable insight into their personal preferences.U1 Another method is to not only accompany or interview the users, but also invite them to reflect on their everyday life, by presenting and documenting their favorite locations and meeting places themselves. U4 Accompanying and observing the user in an environment unfamiliar to them can bypass behavior typical of the everyday and reveal new preferences.U5 The aim of the Users’ Everyday Life workshops is to learn about their everyday environments and discuss them collectively. The findings from the workshops are integrated into the design work, and at the same time, form a further basis of communication between the architect and the users. It may serve as confirmation of the findings from the Wunschforschung or atmospheres workshops, or help to correct them. The collective exploration of users’ everyday lives helps to eliminate stereotypes on both sides. In any case, it presents an expansion of the designer’s knowledge. In particular, the modules Move In U1 and Explore Everyday Locations U2 lead to more intense contact with the user, and strengthens their trust in the architect. However, it remains a challenge for the designer to combine the individual findings in order to form a broad basis for the design.

WUNSCHFORSCHUNG METHOD MODULES

The Wunschforschung method modules in the participatory design process aim at collectively developing a story—a narrative that acts as the conceptual basis of the architecture. The workshops on users’ desires or needs offer a multitude of options regarding media and method, and can be employed early in the design, at the feedback stage, or as last-minute workshops. The aim is to learn more about the desires of users regarding their future living, learning, or working environment. The wishes are conveyed by means of creative processes, and are less concerned with requirements reduced purely to function, but instead focus on the atmospheric qualities. For many of these workshops, specific games are created, with which the users’ wishes for certain atmospheres are developed, collated, and spatially assigned.W7 During the games, differing interests and desires can be evaluated and negotiated.W8, W9 Other method modules

ARCHITECtURE IS PARTICIPATION — CONCLUSION The perception of spatial atmospheres and their analysis and communication, are closely interrelated. At times, we only become aware of them when we try to identify and communicate them, in other words, when we talk or write about them, or convey them through other media. Architects can take advantage of this by consciously employing atmospheres in the design process, by defining the existing atmospheres in the places and spaces which they design for, and by being aware of what atmospheric changes they plan to implement in their projects. Atmospheres can be formulated, designed, and created. We were able to try out and redevelop different methods in numerous participatory design processes, which function at various levels of communication—from pure text and images, to atmospherically tangible environments. The experience of spatial atmospheres does not happen only in physical spaces, or architecture; it can also be created in our imagination with the aid of words, pictures, music, models, and spatial installations. This is essential to the work of architects, who can use the ability to design and build atmospheric spaces. But they are not the only ones who possess, or are able to develop, this type of imaginativeness. In this respect, they are thinking ahead; they are “pre-sensors” for the use of spaces in place of the user, who not only has to take possession of the product, but also empathize and identify with it. In the words of Walter Benjamin, “buildings are appropriated in a twofold manner: by use and perception—or rather by touch and sight.”[69]

Users are experts in this sense. Even if they haven’t studied architecture and aren’t immediately aware of it, they understand which kind of environments they need in life in its various facets; during work, school, kindergarten, and in other circumstances. They are well-equipped to formulate ideas about a desirable world, determine its atmosphere, and exchange ideas, in particular with an architect. The architect can use this to their advantage, by developing a system of communication built on the comparison of different atmospheres. The age of users, their social status and cultural background only play a role in how the method modules are set and differentiated. The methods must be adapted to the specific situation; any attempt to develop a panacea will fail. Important elements of this communication are, on the one hand, the abstraction of imagined atmospheric worlds, and, on the other hand, specific desires related to atmospheres. A narrative is compiled, leading to the development of an architectural concept: form follows fiction. From this, the architects are able to arrive at complex and detailed resolutions from which programmatic requirements can be integrated into the project. The fiction developed with the users—with the narratives based on their desires condensed within— as well as the resulting concept, form the backbone of the design which, in consequence, is able to adapt to new requirements without disappointing the users. Feedback and evaluations of various projects have confirmed the success of this method: the users’ degree of identification with the finished building is high. In the context of my professional practice and recently concluded study reform project Die Baupiloten, I have developed a participatory design process that gives the user and the client the opportunity to develop and communicate their own ideas about the future architecture and, in particular, about its atmospheres. Imaginary worlds are invented in a deliberately playful manner; they transcend everyday life and the actual situation, and they are recorded in various collages, models, narratives, or three-dimensional installations. It is a sensitive dialogue between the users and the architect; the latter’s response based on their expertise and competence in spatial design on an atmospheric level. A prerequisite for a constructive dialogue of this kind is a foundation of trust between the two, where each respects the others particular knowledge, expertise, and respective roles. Atmosphere as a participatory design strategy is not a nightmare, it has incredible potential for the productive and meaningful participation of everyone involved.

Neighborhood Battle, design seminar Social Club Wedding, Berlin, 2011 Posters with concept designs for different locations in Brunnenkiez were put up for discussion during a walking tour of the neighborhood. This enabled the students to see how each concept was receieved by the residents.

METHODS AND INSTRUCTIONS

The method modules presented here—each of which is coupled with an example workshop carried out by Die Baupiloten—are divided into four areas that build on or complement each other: A1 – A5 U1 – U5 W1 – W9 F1 – F8

ATMOSPHERES USERS’ EVERYDAY LIFE WUNSCHFORSCHUNG FEEDBACK

Their overriding importance for the design process is described in detail in the first part of the book. They can be combined, and some can also be easily modified for use in other stages. The workshops can be carried out in several small groups or rounds. In most cases, the architect acts as the moderator , who actively gathers the emerging suggestions and ideas, and feeds them back into the process. It is also important that they carefully record the resulting ideas, expressed wishes, and developing stories in order to make as thorough an evaluation as possible. This can be done qualitatively and/or quantitatively. An interpretative-explicative evaluation by means of an exhibition can also be useful. The “Atmosphere as a Participatory Design Strategy” method modules are varied and diverse, because different kinds of participation are suitable for different users, different locations, and different projects. The type of materials and means used and produced (collages, movies, pictures, games, etc.) must also be adapted to suit the participants and the project. The choice of method modules also depends on the pre-determined time frame and the available budget. The pictograms to the right clearly illustrate for which participants and target group the workshops are recommended, and which material should be used or prepared. For some workshops, “Wünschepostkarten” A5, questionnaires F6, or planning games W7– W9, F7 were developed, and their production is explained in the conclusion of this methods chapter. The pictograms provide information on the occupational structure of the workshops, such as their recommended size, their possible linkage with a design stage according to the German fee structure for architects (HOAI), and their average duration. The method modules are to be understood as suggestions, which can be adapted and further developed as you wish for your own projects.

Have fun and gain lots of insight!

In projects with youth, implementation as part of a live project at a university is very valuable. Students are at a similar age, and thus share similar experiences.

YOUNG PEOPLE

CHILDREN FROM 4Y, 6Y, 8Y

The workshops are differentiated according to age groups: from four, six, and eight years old. In order to express themselves, some young children prefer having somebody they know present, as this gives them a feeling of security.

NOTEPAPER, PEN

Taking notes during the workshops is recommended. Just as interesting as the individual work results are the many comments and stories that are provided or told during the process.

CAMERA

Like the written record, the photographic documentation is very insightful and important for the evaluation. The results from the planning games should always be photographed from above, from the bird’s-eye view, so to speak.

VISUAL MATERIAL

Images with strong spatial effects thematically appropriate to the workshops and from the non-architectural world, preferably in A4 size. Good sources are nature magazines or the Internet.

MATERIALS

Ordinary materials such as glue, scissors and cardboard. Simple modeling materials such as colored or reflective acrylic, sponges, wooden sticks, cotton balls, string, and beads. Found materials, such as bottle caps, corks, fabric, scraps, et cetera.

SPECIAL MATERIALS

Materials that have to be prepared or may need to be customized—such as scale figures, architectural models and modules, specific (model) building materials—or things that have to be specially obtained (e.g., postcards).

GAME SET

The production of the game sets is described on p. 110. The game sets can be specified according to the project and the location. Custom developed and produced games can be ordered from Die Baupiloten.

die BAUPILOTEN STUDY REFORM PROJECT, TU BERLIN

The number of students involved in a study project, in which more aspects of the design can be explored in a large-scale needs and desires research project and therefore more impressions can be collected and more insight gained. Brackets indicate cooperation with a university other than the TU Berlin.

GROUP SIZE

A lot of individual work can also be carried out discursively in pairs. For the planning games and some of the workshops, specific group sizes per moderator are recommended. In larger groups, more rounds and—if necessary—more game sets should be made available.

MODERATOR/ARCHITECT

The moderator is usually the project architect. Through the participation, they get a very good feeling for the project user group, and thus important insight for a holistic design process.

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF PARTICIPANTS

Workshops ranging in size from twelve to twenty people have proved to be very feasible. With more than twenty people, a second moderator is usually recommended. Planning games are most productive with one moderator per team of about six participants.

Design stage ACCORDING TO HOAI

The workshop modules are assigned a specific design stage, and within these stages the different modules can be combined. In addition, some can be lightly modified for use in other stages.

TIME FRAME

Many of the workshops developed for young people are suitable for adults. It should be established beforehand if the participants are interested in craft/creative workshops, or whether a more reserved, challenging alternative is preferred.

ADULTS

90 min

All time designations recommend an average time frame in a group of a maximum of twenty participants with no preparation time. This includes the entire course of the workshop, which can be spread over several days as individual steps if required.

EXPLORE ATMO

INTRO

EXPLORE ATMO is a strolling photographic approach to discover the atmospheric qualities of a place. The aim is sensitization towards atmospheric qualities by naming them and processing the photographs into collages or montages.

PROCESS

EXPLORE A LOCATION BY TAKING A STROLL, TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF ITS ATMOSPHERIC QUALITIES AND PROCESSING THEM INTO ATMOSPHERIC MONTAGES

STROLL: Drift through the city with the aim of discovering a location that is perceived as special. The following aspects are important: visible qualities (materials, colors, light, architecture), invisible qualities (movement patterns, memories), variable qualities (use, influence of users), and point in time (weather, time of day).

• • - •

- -

• •

1 DAY

MODULE

1 DAY

PROJECT

HOW DO YOU FEEL UNDER A SYCAMORE TREE?

120 min

PHOTOGRAPH ATMO: Photograph the location in the areas where its character or atmosphere is particularly prevalent. Print the photographs. ARRANGE ATMO: Select and arrange the photos so that an overall atmospheric impression is conveyed. This impression might seek to convey a change in atmosphere, to juxtapose two very different atmospheres, or to convey multiple atmospheres in a single montage. DESCRIBE ATMO: Find five descriptive adjectives and a stimulating title for the atmospheres detected.

BEWITCHED ENCHANTED MYSTERIOUS

60 min

100 min

HOW DO YOU FEEL UNDER A CHESTNUT TREE?

PRESENT/DISCUSS ATMO: Present the panels individually. All of the participants should find adjectives. REVIEW ATMO: Compare the adjectives given with those from the creator and check the extent to which the communication about the perceived atmospheres was successful.

COZY PLEASANT AGREEABLE COMFORTABLE SHELTERED

TIP 1: Instead capture film or audio of atmospheres. Create fifteen-minute videos with visuals and verbal atmospheric descriptions. Summarize the key statements about the atmospheric qualities into a one-minute clip and present for discussion.

DESIGN

TIP 2: This method module is also suitable as a design tool—for example, to explore the site in a more nuanced manner.

The material created in the workshop forms a basis from which the user can communicate with the architect about their perception of atmospheric spatial qualities. In addition, it also helps the user to increase their awareness of the atmospheric qualities of spaces. Architectural concepts can also be initiated, reviewed, and differentiated with the help of this method module.

HOW DO YOU FEEL UNDER A CHERRY TREE?

GENTLE SOFT PEACEFUL DELICATE MILD

EVANGELICAL SCHOOL BERLIN CENTER Ten pupils explored their favorite location, Monbijou Park, accompanied by Die Baupoliten student Laura Larraz. They initially looked for descriptive words for the park’s general qualities (happy and relaxing) and then they differentiated between the atmospheric moods underneath the different types of trees. They chose these perceived “special” qualities to be included in the transformation of their school. 50

DESIGN BERLIN 4.2008

MOVE IN

INTRO

MOVE IN is the architect’s experience of the users’ everyday lives, which is more in-depth than a mere observation. The aim is to develop personal perceptions of the users’ everyday life and activities, and to identify, set aside, or prevent stereotypes from emerging in the first place.

PROCESS

SLIP INTO THE ROLE OF THE USER AND EXPERIENCE THEIR EVERYDAY LIFE

PREPARE: Select an appropriate residence. SLIP INTO THE ROLE OF THE USER: For one day and one night, move into the residence to be examined, and live according to the everyday rituals of the user: use all areas and test desired activities such as cooking, relaxing, working, et cetera. If roommates share the living space, then in the ideal situation they will be present.

•

• •

•

1 DAY

MODULE

2 DAYS

PROJECT

m 1 DAY 1 NIGHT

RECORD EXPERIENCE: The entire daily routine should be logged with a written and photographic record: where does one linger with others and where are the private areas? Which activities does one choose for which location? How does one move through the building? Record other spatial and building-relevant use criteria, strengths and weaknesses.

DESIGN

CREATE RESIDENCE DIARY: Compile the experiences on several notecards A5. You should categorize the information. For example: 1. objective data such as size, rooms, and number of residents; 2. daily routine and noteworthy events; 3. description of strengths and weaknesses, sketches, and photographs.

120 MIN

The architect can better comprehend the user’s way of life and specific appropriation of space than with a mere observation or through hypothetical considerations about functional processes. Different activities as yet unknown to the architect are revealed and can be considered in the planning, just as incorrect usage assumptions can be revised in a timely manner.

STUDENT RESIDENCE SIEGMUNDS HOF As part of the design seminar “Move in Together 2010,” the Die Baupiloten students lived for a weekend in different student residences around Berlin and recorded their experiences in the form of notecards with photos of special moments. The so-called residence diary clearly visualized the character, strengths, and weaknesses of the residence and sharpened the design decisions (J. Lehrer). 60

RECONSTRUCTION RENOVATION BERLIN 11.2007 P. 140 61

BUILD YOUR THING

INTRO

BUILD YOUR THING is a creative hands-on workshop. Here the ergonomic and haptic design takes priority instead of the spatial atmosphere. The aim is to learn more about the immediate physical and sensory needs of the user. The resulting furniture or module could potentially become a basic module for the final design.

PROCESS

BUILD CUSTOM FURNITURE OR MODULES using PREPARED OR FOUND MATERIAL

PREPARE: Organize a workshop and ensure there are the appropriate technical and material facilities available. Define a simple brief—e.g., create a piece of furniture for a desirable activity. Select materials that can be used directly, simply, and quickly. The preparation or procurement of found or recyclable materials can also be a part of the assignment. STRIKE A POSE: In sketches, illustrate the specific posture for which a piece of furniture/module should be built, or have the posture photographed.

• • - •

6 Y

• •

1 DAY

MODULE

2 DAY

PROJECT

1 DAY

Deep-sea swing

Exercise island

Climbing chair

Climbing glacier

BUILD MODULES: Build a life-size module for the desired posture and test it first-hand. REFINE POSTURE: Develop the module. If necessary, modify it until an object emerges that can be used for the desired activity. ILLUMINATE MODULES: Experiment with the module in its “proper light.” How is it meant to be experienced during use, and how is it perceived by onlookers? BUILD RELATIONSHIPS: Consider the relationships that the different modules could have with one another to create social situations or boundaries which offer privacy. POSITION MODULES: In what place and position is the module most successful or does it function best? PRESENT MODULES: A final exhibit makes it possible to present, test, and if necessary improve the modules.

Research capsule

Oasis

Space capsule

Tension bridge

Movement concentrator

DESIGN

TIP: A desired spatial situation can also be assembled very quickly from found objects. This allows a sense of scale, incidence of light, et cetera to be tested simply and effectively. (Suitable for children over six years old.)

The physical objects allow the architect to gain a deeper insight not only into the users’ desires, but also into their real physical needs. This leads to an ergonomic, user-oriented design, which is spatially optimized for its occupation. In addition, the prototypes get the user to reflect and convert their needs into a physical object that will help them identify with the completed project.

Scream machine

Observation lounger

CARLO SCHMID HIGH SCHOOL Together, seventh to eleventh graders helped influence the design of their school in several steps with the support of Die Baupiloten students. To give the somber building a more social atmosphere, they developed a variety of situations for learning islands, which they built as life-size models: “That is a nice feeling, to contribute something yourself that can brighten the school routine.” (Pupils Louisa and Jenia, 17Y) 78

CONVERSION Berlin 11.2008

TEST SCENARIOS

INTRO

TEST SCENARIOS is an exploration (building) game that uses spatial game modules in a specific architectural scale. The aim is to enable users to adjust their needs and desires within the future built environment, using these building blocks, which transfer easily into the design process because of their scale.

PROCESS

USE ARCHITECTURAL MODELS, GAME MODULES, AND SCALE FIGURES TO CREATE AND REVIEW DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR THE DESIGN PROPOSAL

PREPARE: Architectural model 1:20, game modules 1:20, model figures 1:20 (preferably, the participants themselves). For larger projects, however, a smaller scale may be used. PRESENT MODEL: Present the architectural model and individual game modules in terms of their functional and atmospheric qualities. Spread out the scale figures and other model-building material (e.g., reflective materials, colored acetate, colored sponges).

• •

6 Y

• •

•

60 MIN

MODULE

•

60 MIN

PROJECT

40 MIN

EXPERIMENT WITH MODULES: Spin, turn upside down, exchange, supplement, or combine game modules in new ways; illuminate with different light sources and experiment with shadows, et cetera. They can be separated from the architectural model and arranged differently; additional game modules can be added. ACT OUT SCENARIOS: Test and record quick variations for evaluation later: where is the atmospheric focus of the scenarios? Is there an inviting, cozy, and familiar mood created, or is the character of the scenario for example cool, minimal, or industrial? INHABIT SCENARIOS: Place scale model figures in the composite model. How many fit? And during which activity? Act out usage processes. REVIEW SCENARIOS: Do the main functions, activities, and atmospheric qualities work together? Are the proportions, sequencing, and zoning of the resulting spaces correct? Is the effect a desirable one? What is missing? DESCRIBE AND NAME SCENARIOS: Put the alternative scenarios into words and identify their differences, similarities, and emphases; consider the extent to which the different model scenarios could be combined. Is there a hierarchy among the favorites? Should some be excluded? After that, find a stimulating title.

DESIGN

LINK STORIES: Think of some conceptual stories to link the favorite scenarios.

20 MIN

The desires of the user and the concrete design model are synchronized, in order for the user’s needs to integrate better into the ongoing design process. In addition, the emphasized haptic qualities of the produced scenarios engage the user with the more physical and intuitive aspects of the design. Good guiding principles and character can be developed here for the design proposal.

LE BUFFET KIDS RESTAURANT From the space modules with reflective elements, colored acetate, and material samples derived from their world of desires W2, the children assembled their own play area for the restaurant. They examined the potential of the modules and their physical and visual relationships with each other and then began to put it all together based on their own desires and imagination, experimenting with light and material. “We would like to look out from high above.” (Josefine, 7Y and Laura, 8Y) 96

CONVERSION Cologne 3.2014

EVALUATE DESIGNS

INTRO

EVALUATE DESIGNS is an effective decision tool, which works well for very large groups. The aim is to comparatively evaluate different proposals of a new design through project-specific, targeted questions. The strengths of each proposal can be identified and compared, so that the evaluation of the questionnaire results can form a solid decision-making basis for the next stage of the design process. With a fixed, uniform catalog of questions, it is possible to transform users’ desires and insight into an objective collection of data for use by the architect.

PROCESS

FILL OUT QUESTIONNAIRES TO EVALUATE THE DESIGN PROPOSALS OR SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THEM

PREPARE: Create questionnaires (P. 111). PRESENT DESIGNS: Present all designs and their different aspects to be evaluated; queries are allowed. Each participant receives a questionnaire.

•

8 Y

• •

• -

• •

∞

90 MIN

MODULE

120 MIN

PROJECT

m 90 MIN

ASSESS DESIGNS: After each presentation, note the strengths and weaknesses: for example, strengths: “grass,” “natural materials,” “warmth,” “the feeling of being on a farm.” Take plenty of time to consider which parts of each proposal are desired for which aspects of the design. REVIEW ASSESSMENTS: After all of the proposals have been evaluated review the answers once more as a whole. Are the evaluations justified in comparison? Improve and amend, if necessary. DISCUSS ASSESSMENTS: Describe the first impressions of the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal, and use them to identify the group preferences. EVALUATE: At the end of the workshop, evaluate in detail the results of the session and the impact they might have on the design process.

TIP 1: Questionnaires with yes/no answers can be posted publicly—e.g., with representations of the design proposals. The assessment can be done with colored adhesive dots: for each question, each group representative receives the corresponding colored dot in half the number of proposals. It is possible to give all the dots of one color to one proposal. (P. 111)

DESIGN

TIP 2: As part of a school project, the questionnaires can be developed with the pupils, evaluated, and provided to the architect as “objectified user knowledge.”

The user knowledge and the appraisal of the user/decision-maker can be integrated into the design. This is an important decision-making tool, which could prove invaluable when there are several proposals to choose from in a design process.

HELLWINKEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The teachers at the school were presented with alternative designs that were then put up on the wall for discussion. They assessed each project in writing using a concise questionnaire regarding the aspects previously agreed upon with the school management—such as the connection to exterior space and the type of specialized facilities available. The idea of integrating different environmental features into the school was very well received. 102

CONVERSION WOLFSBURG 7.2012 P. 120 103

108 109

PRODUCTION OF GAME SETS

PROJECTS EC: EDUCATIONAL CENTRE / ES: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL / HS: HIGH school / KG: KINDERGARTEN / S·#: Student housing / ##: PAGE NUMBER / co: cooperation / CH: chair of architectural design and construction (visiting Professor Dr. Susanne Hofmann)

JFK INSTITUTE

230

URBAN GARDEN LOVERS S13

ALBERT SCHWEITZER HS

Le Buffet KIDS restaurant

87 | CO | CH

130

126

168

EVANGELICAL SCHOOL HS

Kotti 3000

Social Club gallery

NEIGHBORHOOD Donaukiez

AGING IN NEIGHBORHOOD

BORNBROOK HS

TEAM PLAYERS’ HIGH-RISE S12

194

140

222

99 | CH

134

PETTENKOFER ES

SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIA

ECO-POP SIEGMUNDS HOF S#

new school FAMILY SERVICE

Hermann von helmholtz HS New Lynn School ES

ADOLF REICHWEIN ES, KG

RISING EDUCATION

living IN RURAL AREAS

110

234

105

166

170

AEDES EXTRA FANTASIES

TAKA TUKA LAND KG

CARL BOLLE ES

CARLO SCHMID HS

CHILDREN’S DISCOVERY CENTER Karlsruhe CIVIC CENTER

MITMOABITWOHNEN

LIFE AT A SMALL FOREST S10

PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S4/7

63 | 65

170

164

214 SCHADOW HS

VACATION HOUSE MUDGE ISLAND TRAUMBAUM KG

bis 2004

156

STAGE trees

204

116

Get Involved, Biennale

6 NIGHT SENSATIONS

LICHTENBERGWEG Kg

51 | 81 | 101

210 ERIKA MANN ES I

174

2005

H100 LECTURE HALL

2006-08

ERIKA MANN ES II

Heinrich-schütz-StraSSe EC

BUILD THE SCHOOL

NIKOLAUS AUGUST OTTO HS

CULTURAL CENTER At AEG

PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S5/6

MUSIC AND FITNESS S11

208

190

226 | CO | CH

198

120

GALILEI ES

PAPENTEICH HS

NIDO PICCOLO KG

learn-move-play-ground

UMEÅ, COMMUNITAS

HEINRICH NORDHOFF HS

HELLWINKEL SCHOOL ES

2008

2008-09

2010-12

2012

2013

2014

ab 2015

117

RENOVATING BUILDING NEW CONVERTING

138

139

NEW BUILD |LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN

LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN

Construction Start

COMPLETION

LPH 8

Tender Documentation

LPH 6/7

Technical Design

LPH 5

Developed Design

LPH 3

Concept Design

WORK STAGE

PARTICIPATION

U3 F7

A3 W1

2009

174

LPH 2

FICTION

The new kindergarten for 100 children was designed so that the existing, dense population of mature trees remained largely intact, and varied playing areas with different sheltered places and courtyard situations were created. There is a synergy between architecture and education in the building in accordance with the Saxon education plan. Both in the interior and exterior spaces, different spatial experiences and learning environments were created with lots of opportunities for communication, visual references, and views through the building. The kindergarten is divided into three playhouses and is one to two stories. Pure circulation areas have been largely avoided in favor of an extended educational and social zone.

Councilor for Urban Development and Construction a.D., Prof. Dipl. Ing. Martin zur Nedden, City of Leipzig: â&#x20AC;&#x153;As a result of the exemplary character of this user participation model, and their increased identification with the kindergarten, the participants gained important educational value beyond the improvements in the quality of their environment.â&#x20AC;?

PROCESS

Leipzig

F4 12

01 2010

02 2011

09 2012 175

NEW BUILD | LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN

Form follows Fiction

LOOKOUT CLOUDS

SOUND SHELL

OBSERVATION PERISCOPE

RAINBOW

The ideas and stories derived from the worlds created by the children were explored through a series of sketch models and sections at a 1:200 scale. Attempts were made, for example with the “Rainbow World,” to consider the ephemeral qualities the children desired—such as heat and warmth, or cold—in the architecture. Some of the Ideas from the workshop began to inspire the basic concepts of the building structure. The idea of a “Volcanic Landscape” and a “Rainbow Garden” turn up in the massive masonry of the main building and in the lighter wooden adjoining group classrooms.

LOOKOUT CLOUDS

LIGHT GAME

MOBILE WALL

FOYER 180

EXERCISE SPACE

GARDEN GALLERY

GROUP SPACES

RAINBOW STAIRS

EDUCATIONAL AREA 181

CONVERSION | SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIA

SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIA

Construction Start

LPH 8

Tender Documentation

LPH 5

LPH 6/7

Technical Design

Developed Design

LPH 3

Concept Design

PARTICIPATION

COMPLETION

WORK STAGE

2005

194

LPH 2

FICTION

The cafeteria was built as part of the new master plan for the redesign of TU Berlin’s main building. It connects the two courtyards of the listed building and gives them new purpose. The lining of the cafeteria’s ceiling is the centerpiece of the design and consists of eight luminescent textile elements: “light drops,“ which ensure the basic lighting of the cafeteria and also focused lighting of the individual tables. They are also acoustic absorbers. The color of the light drops is determined by the season—the warmer the outside temperature, the cooler the light color. The red-orange trays, stools and chairs can be carried into the courtyards in good weather, as so-called “climate change elements.”

Student Jonas Galler, 10th Semester, Technical University of Berlin: “The ‘Sheet Lightning’ café is my favorite place. There you have sun as well as shade.“

PROCESS

TU Berlin

03 2006

02 2007

02 2008 195

CONVERSION | HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL

HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL

Construction Start

COMPLETION

LPH 8

Tender Documentation

LPH 6/7

LPH 5

Technical Design

Developed Design

LPH 3

Concept Design

WORK STAGE

PARTICIPATION

F7 W6 W2 05 2011

198

LPH 2

FICTION

The conversion and expansion of the cafeteria, as well as the two-story atrium that serves as the central lounge and study area for the senior class, was the result of findings from participation workshops. The atrium was zoned into desired areas: the “marketplace” with its raised platform is a gathering place, and class results are presented on the leaf-like partitions in the group work area. Pupils can work together at a large table, while in the “Quiet Study Zone,” they can work alone on large cushions or relax. The “Homework Zone” is on the bridge. Part of the furniture, a meandering wooden ribbon, marks the classroom area. In the cafeteria, trapezoidal tables with 200 seats are freely arranged around orange amphitheater-like seating.

Pupil Darla Skoracki, 6th grade, Heinrich Nordhoff High School: “When you go to the cafeteria and the doors are open, it is pleasantly calm. The pupils sitting at the front are the ones who don’t necessarily have to study. But at the other tables people are studying. The A,C-Building needs a common area like this.”

PROCESS

Wolfsburg

F3 06

03 2012

01 2013

06 2014 199

MINIMAL INTERVENTION – MAXIMUM EFFECT | FAMILY SERVICE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

FAMILY SERVICE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Construction Start

COMPLETION

LPH 8

Tender Documentation

LPH 6/7

LPH 5

Technical Design

Developed Design

LPH 3

Concept Design

LPH 2

FICTION

For a private elementary school, administrative offices were converted into learning, exercise, and rest areas tailored to the children‘s needs. The space, which one enters immediately after exiting the elevator, is designed as a green indoor garden with plants and pictures; which together with the adjacent exercise room forms a counterpart to the schoolyard. Core elements of the design are the modular partitions, which can be lived in, played with, and climbed through, and thus adapted to the desired use. Fresh colors have replaced the beige and gray of the original offices.

Project Manager Neue Schule Alexandra Stieper, Global Education pme Familienservice GmbH: “The concept of the school is global learning. That should be experienced in the school’s architecture. From the ‘World of Learning,’ which emerged in the workshops with the children, Die Baupiloten created ‘World Wonders.’ Now each of the ‘World Wonders’ makes global learning wonderful.”

PROCESS

Berlin

WORK STAGE

PARTICIPATION 01

F3 02

2009

222

223

LIST OF WORKS

Le Buffet kids’ RESTAURANT, cologne, 2014

PT Conversion P Kids restaurant : awards and honors / * Project architect / AR: architecture / C: client / C Le Buffet restaurant & cafe CH: Chair of ARCHITECTURAL Design and Building Construction (Prof. Dr. S. Hofmann) / CO 48.000 EUR gross CO: costs / COOP: Cooperation / CON: Consultancy / FUN: FUNDED BY / ST LPH 1–9, participation

GFA: gross floor area / I: initiator / SI: site supervision / ST: Work stage / P: Program / PP: project participants / PT: project type / R: RESPONSIBLE / S: students / T: Project tEaM / Te: teaching

T Susanne Hofmann, Martin Mohelnicky*, and Tina Strack, Zuzana Tabačková

LIVING AND RESIDING AS SENIORS IN RURAL AREAS, Dötlingen, 2014–16

BORNBROOK HIGH SCHOOL, Hamburg, 2014

PT New build P Multigenerational housing, 56 residents C Community of Dötlingen GFA 10.000 m² ST LPH 1–2, Participation T Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher*, Kirstie Smeaton*, Susanne Vitt, and Omorinsola Otubusin PP Institute for Participatory Design (IPG), Jascha Rohr (Concept “Living and Residing as Seniors”)

PT School design consultancy P High school C Schulbau Hamburg CO 9.800.000 EUR gross GFA 6.910 m² ST School design consultancy up to post completion T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Kirstie Smeaton*, and Noam Rosenthal, Mareike Schlatow, Jana Sommer, Zuzana Tabačková, Meltem Yavuz

Hellwinkel school, Wolfsburg, 2011–16

PT Conversion, school design consultancy P Elementary school C City of Wolfsburg CO 3.200.000 EUR gross GFA 5.278 m² ST LPH 1–3, participation

PT New build, school design consultancy P Elementary school C Hope Foundation CO 20.000 EUR gross (first phase of construction) ST LPH 1–8 self build, participation

rising education, Bertoua, Cameroon, 2013–14

TE Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton* T Susanne Hofmann, Nils Ruf, Kirstie Smeaton*, and Theresa Kaiser S Matthias Bednasch, Samantha Bock, Prokop Chadima, S Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton* Hugh Crothers, Till Dörscher, Anna-Katharina Dür, Yasemin Can, Leonard Chmielewski, Dimitra Chrysoula, Tesela Coraj, Carolin Gaube, Rick Gebben, Melanie Missfeldt, Bartosz Peterek, Viktoria Darenberg, Evelyn Gröger, Sophia Gurschler, Lena Helten, Noam Rosenthal, Philipp Rust, Philipp Schwemberger, Chung Vu, Solveig Hoffmann, Sarah Klohn, Mattila Mastaglio, Mareike Schlatow, Bao Wang, Björn Wittik, Simon Wübbels, Robert Wunder Antonina Schmidt, Ludovica Tomarchio, Casper van der Zanden TEAM PLAYERS’ HIGH-RISE S12, Berlin, 2014–16 PT Conversion and energy efficient renovation P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 136 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 6.300.000 EUR gross GFA 4.500 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation, lead consultant T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Marlen Kärcher*, Martin Mohelnicky, Mathias Schneider and Omorinsola Otubusin | Stephan Biller (BL) CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer) PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S4/7, Berlin, 2014–15

PT Conversion and energy efficient renovation P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 2 pavilions, each 16 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 1.140.000 EUR gross GFA 1.112 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap*, Martin Mohelnicky, Susanne Vitt*, and Zuzana Tabačková CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), Florencia Young (Graphic Design)

HOUSE FOR MUSIC + FITNESS LOVERS S11, Berlin, 2013–15 PT Conversion and energy efficient renovation P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 56 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 3.200.000 EUR gross GFA 2.085 m2 ST LPH 1–9, participation, landscape design LPH 1–4 T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Marlen Kärcher*, Elena Pavlidou-Reisig, Mathias Schneider and Omorinsola Otubusin, Leslie Kuhn | Stephan Biller (SI) CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), Ingenieurbüro Fritsch (Building Physics), Anne Boissel (Lighting Design), ST raum a. (Landscape Design), BBP Bauconsulting mbH (Acoustics)

242

QUIET LIFE AT THE EDGE OF A SMALL FOREST S10, berlin, 2012–14

PT Conversion and energy efficient renovation P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 53 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 2.900.000 EUR gross GFA 2051 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation, landscape design LPH 1–4 T Susanne Hofmann, Daniel Hülseweg, Martin Mohelnicky, Irmtraut Schulze, Susanne Vitt* and Corina Angheloiu, Laura Engelhardt, Larisa Mos, Theresa Kaiser, Daniela Knappe, Zuzana Tabačková | Helmuth Hanle (SI) CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), Ingenieurbüro Fritsch (Building Physics), Teichmann LandschaftsArchitekten (Landscape Design), Florencia Young (Graphic Design)

PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S5/6, Berlin, 2012–14

PT Conversion and energy efficient renovation P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 2 pavilions, each 16 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 1.090.000 EUR gross GFA 1.112 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation T Susanne Hofmann, Martin Mohelnicky, Irmtraut Schulze, Susanne Vitt* and Judith Prossliner, Laura Engelhardt, Zuzana Tabačková CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), Florencia Young (Graphic Design) HEINRICH NORDHOFF high SCHOOL, Wolfsburg, 2011–14 PT Conversion P Learning landscape, cafeteria, classrooms C City of Wolfsburg CO 284.000 EUR gross GFA 1.470 m² ST LPH 2–9, participation T Susanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic, Kirstie Smeaton*, Susanne Vitt and Corina Angheloiu, Theresa Kaiser, Daniela Knappe, Noam Rosenthal CON Andreas Kuelich (Structural Engineer)

Aging in Neighborhood, Berlin, 2013

Learn-Move-Play-Ground, CAIRO, EGYPT, 2012

PT Invited competition “Urban Living” P Multigenerational housing C Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment Berlin CO 2.100.000 EUR gross GFA 1.650 m²

PT Design build studio (workshop and realization) P Learning landscape C Architecture & Urban Design Program, German University in Cairo (Vittoria Capresi, Barbara Pampe) ST LPH 1–8, participation

T Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher, Kirstie Smeaton* and Tina Strack, Mareike Schlatow, Jana Sommer, Zuzana Tabačková CON Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), ST raum a. (Landscape Design)

ADOLF REICHWEIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Freiburg, 2013

PT Invited competition for new building, 3rd prize P All-day area and kindergarten C City of Freiburg in Breisgau CO 5.500.000 EUR gross GFA 3.160 m² T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Marlen Kärcher, Judith Posslinger, Mathias Schneider, Kirstie Smeaton* and Omorinsola Otubusin CON Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), ST raum a. (Landscape Design)

mit Moabit wohnen, Berlin, 2013

PT New build P Communal housing CO Affordable housing ST Design, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton S Sophia Bauer, Xenia Esau, Joan Gärtner, Julia Gahlow, Ioulios Georgiou, Simon Gerschewski, Alma Großen, Sara Haegermann, Gesa Hallmann, Arzu Hasanova, Tahereh Heidary, Marietta Loukissa, Christine Olesch, Omorinsola Otubusin, Lea Schillmann, Jana Sommer, Isabelle Wolpert, Oliver Wolter

CULTURAL CENTER at AEG, Nürnberg, 2013

PT Conversion and renovation P Cultural building C City of Nürnberg ST Participation T Susanne Hofmann AR Anderhalten Architekten I kiss Umeå, Umeå, Sweden, 2013 PT Exhibition P Installation C Bildmuseet, Umeå, Sweden CO 1.500 EUR net ST Participatory exhibition and workshop T Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton* and Laura Englhardt, Larisa Mos

Get involved, Biennale, Venice, Italy, 2012

PT International symposium P Architectural promotion/mediation of architecture C Bink Initiative Baukulturvermittlung, Austria, aut. architektur and tirol (Monika Abendstein) ST Participation COOP Susanne Hofmann, Angela Uttke

COOP Vittoria Capresi*, Barbara Pampe* (German University in Cairo), Moritz Bellers (University Stuttgart), Omar Nagati (CLUSTER Cairo), Susanne Hofmann with Nils Ruf (Die Baupiloten), Urs Walter (CH), Charalampos Lazos (Studio Matthias Görlich), Magda Mostafa (American University Cairo) FUN Fully funded by the German Academic Exchange Program (DAAD), Egyptian Ministry of Education, Goethe Institute Cairo PP Montag Stiftungen (Karl-Heinz Irmhäuser, Brigitta Fröhlich), Roweida Sabra (Authority of Educational Buildings (GAEB)), Renet Korthals-Altes (Playground Designer)

Lichtenbergweg Kindergarten, Leipzig, 2010–12

PT New build P Kindergarten C City of Leipzig Building Department R DRK Akademischer Kreisverband Leipzig e.V. CO 1.673.000 EUR gross GFA 975 m² ST LPH 1–5, participation and site supervision Architecture Prize Leipzig 2013, Special Mention T Susanne Hofmann, Stefan Haas, Daniel Hülseweg, Martin Janekovic, Marlen Kärcher*, Susanne Vitt*, Jannes Wurps and Marco Grimm, Oliver Henschel, Thomas Pohl CON ICL Ingenieur Consult (Structural Engineer), Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), Ingenieurgruppe B.A.C. (Building Services), Einenkel Landschaftsarchitektur (Landscape Design) NIKOLAUS AUGUST OTTO High school, BERLIN, 2012 PT New build P Wooden pavilion C Senate Department for Education, Youth and Science CO 124.000 EUR gross and 60.000 EUR gross ST LPH 2–6, participation COOP Susanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic* Prof. Dr. Volker Schmid, Jens Tandler (Structural Engineer), Prof. Dr. Frank U. Vogdt, Jan Bredemeyer (Building Physics) S Marta Allona, Friederike Bauer, Annika Becker, Maria Boeneker, Maren Böttcher, Dania Brächter, Sonia N.Medina Cardona, Julia Friesen, Armin Golshani, Cornelia Halbach, Camille Lemeunier, Christopher von Mallinckrodt, Daniel Ölschläger, Sarah Tusk, Laure Schaller, Susanne Schwarzer, Jakob Skorlinski, Efe Üner, Erwin Weil, Liang Qiao CON Andreas Kuelich (Structural Engineer) FUN Funded by German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU)

HOUSE FOR URBAN GARDEN LOVERS S13, BERLIN, 2009–12

PT Conversion and energy efficient renovation P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 46 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 2.860.000 EUR gross GFA 1.870 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation, landscape design LPH 1–4 DAM Prize for Architecture in Germany 2013 (The 22 best buildings in/from Germany)

TE Susanne Hofmann, Nils Ruf* S Marius Busch, Max Graap FUN IKEA Foundation

T Susanne Hofmann, Daniel Hülseweg, Jens Kärcher, Marlen Kärcher*, Martin Mohelnicky*, Nils Ruf, Jannes Wurps and Falko Dutschmann, Laura Holzberg | Stephan Biller (SI) CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), Wangelow (Electrical Planning), Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), Planungsteam Energie + Bauen (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), Ingenieurbüro Fritsch (Building Physics), Teichmann LandschaftsArchitekten (Landscape Design)

CIVIC CENTER, Karlsruhe, 2012

BUILD THE SCHOOL, Wolfsburg, 2010

PT Invited competition P Civic center C City of Karlsruhe CO 1.300.000 EUR gross

PT Concept design P Build the School C City of Wolfsburg, architectural promotion/ mediation of architecture ST Nicole Froberg with Monika Piehl TE 10 participation workshops S Susanne Hofmann, Urs Walter, Fee Kyriakopolous

ALBERT SCHWEITZER HIGH SCHOOL, Berlin, 2012

PT New build, exhibition P Temporary pavilion “The View Catcher” C Nordic Embassies CO 2,000 EUR (material), sponsorship funds ST LPH 1–8, participation

T Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton*, and Corina Angheliou CON Anne Boissel (Lighting Design), Florencia Young (Graphic Design)

243

CHILDREN’S DISCOVERY CENTER, Hamburg, 2010

EVANGELICAL SCHOOL BERLIN CENTER, Berlin, 2008

PT Conversion P Learning landscape C Hamburg Climate Protection Foundation CO 120.000 EUR gross GFA 150 m² ST LPH 1–3, participation

PT School design consultancy P High school C Education Foundation of the Evangelical Church ST LPH 1-2, participation

PT Conversion P Cafeteria C Technical University of Berlin CO 900.000 EUR gross GFA 224 m² ST LPH 2-8, participation

TE Susanne Hofmann*, Jannes Wurps S Agnieszka Przybyszewska, Donat Kirschner, Fabian Thielken, Gaspard Van Parys, Giulia Tubelli, Janna Störmer, S Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher* Christian Ahrens, Camilla Bellatini, Nora Brinkmann, Kyunghee Choi, Jessika Strzys, Joanna Szczepanska, Kathrin du Hamél, Laura Larraz, Margit Sichrovsky, Martin Hartwig, Lena Geiger, Juliane Glau, Parker Hoar, Viviane Hülsmeier, Michaela Hillmer, Radostina Simeonova, Sonja Winkler Theresa Kaiser, Daniela Knappe, Johanna Lehrer, Anja Malone, Dessislava Panova, Hanna Ranstad, Diana Lüpke Santos, Lena Schade

NIDO PICCOLO KINDERGARTEN, Berlin, 2009–10 PT Conversion and façade renovation P Kindergarten C Independent Living GmbH CO 610.000 EUR gross GFA 2.698 m² ST LPH 1-9, participation

ECO-POP Siegmunds Hof, Berlin, 2007–08 PT Master plan P Student residence complex C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 18.000.000 EUR gross GFA 12.500 m², 25.000 m² landscape design ST LPH 1-2, participation

T Susanne Hofmann*, Helmuth Hanle, Marlen Kärcher*, Nominated as pilot project in the Federal Government Economic Jannes Wurps Stimulus Package II TE Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher S Khoi Bui, Carolin Ehrig, Marc Fabrés Masip, Paul Hansen, T Susanne Hofmann, Helmuth Hanle*, Daniel Hülseweg, Jens Kärcher Donat Kirschner, Niklas Kuhlendahl, Johanna Lehrer, FUN GSE Ingenieur-GmbH (Structural Engineer, Nadine Muhr, Sophie Mundrzik, Viet Dung Nguyen, Environmental Consultant), BioloGIS (bird expert) Agnieszka Przybyszewska, José Ignacio Rejas Fernández, Nils Ruf, Joanna Szczepanska, Agnes Thöni KOTTI 3000, Berlin, 2009 CON S.T.E.R.N. GmbH (Building Services) PT Concept design P Neighborhood scenario CARL BOLLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Berlin, 2006–08 Neighborhood Management Center Kreuzberg C ST Participation

TE Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher*, Jannes Wurps S Daniel Fernández, Till-Moritz Ganssauge, Johannes Maas, Elena Reig, Ralph Reisinger, Florentin Steininger FAMILY SERVICE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Berlin, 2009

PT Conversion P Elementary school in office building C Global Education pme Familienservice GmbH CO 110.000 EUR gross GFA 660 m² ST LPH 1-9, participation T Susanne Hofmann, Daniel Hülseweg, Marlen Kärcher*, Jannes Wurps and Lisa Plücker, Laure Severac

CARLO SCHMID HIGH SCHOOL, Berlin, 2009 PT Conversion P Learning landscape C Spandau City Council CO 70.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1-9, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe, Helmuth Hanle* S Anna-Lena Berger, Geilon Cannarozzi, Elisabeth Söiland, Flora Marchand, Ralph Reisinger, Johannes Maas, Anika Kern, Daniel Fernandez Pascual, Marie-Charlotte Dalin, Maciej Sokolnicki, Annett Fischer, Iris Lacoudre-Nabert PP Neighborhood Management/District Management Heerstraße Educational center Heinrich-Schütz-StraSSe, Chemnitz, 2008 PT Invited competition P Educational center C City of Chemnitz CO 45.000.000 EUR gross GFA 9.000 m² T Susanne Hofmann*, Marlen Kärcher, Jannes Wurps and Katharina Schawinski, Christian Necker, Lisa Plücker, Irmtraut Schulze COOP IPROPLAN (Volker Hesse) PAPENTEICH HIGH SCHOOL, GroSS Schwülper, 2008

PT School design consultancy P High school C Comprehensive School Gross Schwülper ST Participation T Susanne Hofmann S Mario Bär, Lena Fischer, Claus Friedrichs, Ole Hallier, Christian Necker, Quentin Nicolaï, Mari Pape, Gaspard van Parys, Amaia Sánchez Velasco, Irmtraut Schulze, Elena Stoycheva, Agnes Thöni, Jorge Valiente Oriol 244

PT Conversion P Learning landscape C Jahn, Mack & Partner CO 50.000 EUR gross GFA 241 m² ST LPH 1-9, participation

TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe*, S Lena Fischer, Anna Lafite, Lukas de Pellegrin, Lisa Plücker, Daniel Theiler, Nadia Poor-Rahim PP Neighborhood Management Moabit West, Berlin Bewegt e.V. FUN EU, Germany, and the State of Berlin as part of the program for “Living Environment Improvement Measures” ERIKA MANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL II, Berlin, 2006–08 PT Conversion P Learning landscape C Stattbau GmbH CO 150.000 EUR gross GFA 605 m² ST LPH 1-9, participation Shortlist Making Space 2010 Award (Architecture and Design Scotland) TE Susanne Hofmann S Maximilian Assfalg, Ania Busiakiewicz, Andrea Ceaser, Fee Kyriakopoulos, Ansgar Schmitter, Irmtraut Schulze, Thilo Reich, Wojciech Wojakowski PP Neighborhood Management Pankstraße CON GSE Ingenieur-GmbH (Structural Engineer) FUN EU, Germany, and the State of Berlin as part of the program for “Living Environment Improvement Measures”

GALILEI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Berlin, 2005–08

PT Conversion and renovation P Learning landscape C Stattbau GmbH CO 200.000 EUR gross GFA 1.150 m² ST LPH 1-9, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe* S Melanie Berkholz, Tanja Freund, Anna Ohlrogge, Beatrice Traspedini, Katja Zimmerling, Amaia Sánchez Velazlo, Benno Fiehring, Florence Harbach, Gaspard van Parys, Jorge Valiente Oriol, Leif Lobinski, Neli Pavlova, Quentin Nicolai, María García, Clara Rodriguez, Sophie Mundzik, Robert Tech PP Neighborhood Management at Mehringplatz CON Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics) FUN EU, Germany, and the State of Berlin as part of the program for “Living Environment Improvement Measures”

SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIA, Berlin, 2005–08

TE Susanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic, Marlen Kärcher, Monica Wurfbaum S Mario Bär, Christian Baalß, Tobias Bernecker, Anne Doose, Julian Fissler, Patrick Hoffmann, Denitsa Ilieva, Christoph Jantos, Jens Kärcher, Eva Kanagasabai, Martin Mohelnicky, Mari Pape, Elena Pavlidou-Reisig, Simone Sexauer, Helen Ströh, Benedikt Tulinius, Katya Vangelova, Ines Wegner, Ivonne Weichold CON Pichler Ingenieure GmbH (Structural Engineer), pin planende ingenieure GmbH (Building Services) TAKA TUKA LAND KINDERGARTEN, Berlin, 2005–07 PT Conversion and façade renovation P Kindergarten C ASB Kinder- and Jugendhilfe (Since 2007, Orte für Kinder GmbH) CO 115.000 EUR gross GFA 545 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation Architecture Prize — Color, Structure, Surface 2008 (Caparol Farbe Lacke Bautenschutz GmbH), Nominated for Invest in Future Award 2008 (State of Baden-Württemberg) TE Susanne Hofmann*, Christos Stremmenos S Ilja Gendelmann, Niklaus Haller, Ole Hallier, Daniel Hülseweg, Susan Jutrowski, Annika Köster, Anna Meditsch, Christian Necker, Anne Pind, Mirko Wanders, Katrin Zietz, Katja Zimmerling

Stage Trees, Chemnitz, 2003–06

PT New build P Stage for cabaret CO Park Railway Chemnitz GFA 70.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–5, site supervision TE Susanne Hofmann S Hendrik Bohle, Kai Grüne, Stefan Haas CON Dipl.-Ing. Eckhard Bartel (SI), Ingenieurbüro Uhlmann (Structural Engineer), Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics) FUN Chemnitz Municipal Utilities, Chemnitz Transport Services, Individual donors H100 MULTIPURPOSE LECTURE HALL, Berlin, 2003–06 PT Conversion P Event hall C Technical University of Berlin CO 640.000 EUR gross ST LPH 2–6 TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe* S Christian Behrendt, Manuela Döbelin, Marc Dufour-Feronce, Philippe Dufour-Feronce, Oliver Gassner, Marie Harms, Frank Henze, Jens Kärcher, Thomas Marx, Martin Murrenhoff, Robert Niemann, Anne-Marie Octave, Nori Rhee, Norman Westphal CON Ingenieurbüro Lutz C. Knitter (Building Services), Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics), Ingenieurbüro Reimund Draheim (Electrical Planning)

PETTENKOFER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Berlin, 2005

PT Conversion P Learning landscape C Friends of Pettenkofer Elementary School e.V. ST LPH 1–2, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Anupama Kundoo* S Jovita Andriani, Kathrin Ederer, Diana Ferreira, Philipp Kress, Anne Pind, Merel Pit, Michael Schulz, Marie Viard, Sonja Winkler

SCHADOW HIGH SCHOOL, Berlin, 2005

PT New build P Canopy C Schadow High School CO 82.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–2, participation

AEDES EXTRA FANTASIES, Berlin, 2005 PT Exhibition P Installation C Aedes East Forum ST Participatory exhibition TE Susanne Hofmann, Jannes Wurps S Nora Asmus, Maximilian Assfalg, Anja Bauer, Julie Baumann, Christian Behrendt, Anna Lena Berger, Uta Böcker, Etta Dannemann, Marc Dufour-Feronce, Stephie Eberhardt, Claus Friedrichs, Mathias Grabe, Anneke Hillmann, Minji Kang, Annika Kern, Lara Kittel, Ariane Mielke, Christian Necker, Ingo Nolte, Mari Pape, Nina Pawlicki, Jongki Park, Lisa Plückler, Andreas Reeg, Brigitte Schultz, Jeanette Werner TRAUMBAUM KINDERGARTEN, Berlin, 2004–05 PT Conversion P Kindergarten C ASB Kinder- and Jugendhilfe (since 2007 Orte für Kinder GmbH) CO 47.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–9, participation European Architecture Prize Putz, ECOLA-Award 2008 (European Conference of Leading Architects) TE Susanne Hofmann*, Martin Janekovic S Julie Baumann, Jenny Brockmann, Nikolai Erichsen, Daniel Hülseweg, Stefan Kels, Franziska Ritter, Uta Schrameyer ERIKA MANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I, Berlin, 2003 PT Conversion P Learning landscape C L.I.S.T. GmbH CO 140.000 EUR gross GFA 1.100 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation Contractworld Award 2007, Rabe of the month June 2005, Honorable mention AR+D Awards for Emerging Architecture 2004, “Socially Integrative City” Prize 2004, 1st Place TE Susanne Hofmann S Frank Drenkhahn, Johannes Gutsch, Gordana Jakimovska, Nils Ruf, Urs Walter and Karen Behrendt, Olga Dementieva, Sandra Grünwald, Alexandra Heine, Lena Rehberg, Malte Scholl PP Neighborhood Management Pankstraße CON Klangwerkstatt Deutz (Music Instrument Making) FUN Federal-State Program “Socially Integrative City”

JFK INSTITUTE, Berlin, 2001–02

PT Conversion P Lecture hall C John F. Kennedy Institute, Free University Berlin CO 75.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–9 TE Susanne Hofmann S Philipp Baumhauer, Julian Sauer, Christian Weinecke CON Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics) NIGHT SENSATIONS, Berlin, 2001 PT Exhibition P Installation C Temporary garden 2001 ST Participatory exhibition TE Susanne Hofmann S Sigurd Buhr, Stephanie David, Sandra Grünwald, Lisa Kadel, Kian Lian, Sven Morhard, Jan Moritz, Malte Scholl, Jenny Witte, Christian Sommer, Vincent Taupitz, Jost Völker, Margaret Weissig VACATION HOUSE MUDGE ISLAND, canada, 1990 PT New build P Vacation house C Joan Comparelli CO 7.400 CA$ (recyclable materials), material donations ST LPH 1–9 self build T John Comparelli, Susanne Hofmann

TE Susanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic* S Sören Hanft, Martin Mohelnicky, Elena Pavlidou-Reisig 245

THE ARCHITECTURE OFFICE DIE BAUPILOTEN BDA★★ ★★ O: Office / TR: Teaching and Research / A: Awards and Honors / TE: Teaching UNTIL 2013 SUSANNE HOFMANN ARCHITEKTEN, SINCE 2011 MEMBER OF THE GERMAN ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION (BDA)

Nils Ruf, Dipl.-Ing., Carpenter, *1972

2010 1998

Diploma Technical University of Berlin Carpenter/Skilled worker wood construction apprenticeship

2010– Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA 1995–99 Training and work as carpenter in Aachen and Berlin 2011–12 Lectureship: Die Baupiloten and Prof. Dr. Herrle, TU Berlin

Susanne Hofmann Prof. Dr.-Ing. AA Dipl. Architect BDA, *1963

1992

Diploma Architectural Association School of Architecture, London

O 2001 Founded Die Baupiloten BDA 1987–97 Project Architect: G. Spangenberg, Architect, Berlin; Architectural Assistant: Sauerbruch Hutton, London, Berlin; Alsop und Lyall Architects, London; Steidle und Kiessler Architekten, Hamburg

2012 Doctorate Atmosphere as Participatory Design Strategy (summa cum laude) 2012 Visiting Professor: The University of Auckland, Design Intensive Studio, New Zealand 2009– Visiting Professor: Architectural Design and Building Construction, TU Berlin 2008 Scholar: RMIT School of Architecture and Design, Melbourne 2003–14 Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin 1996–09 University Westminster, London, TU Berlin, and HAW Hamburg

2002

Diploma in Architecture Bartlett School of Architecture, London

O 2013– Associate Director: Die Baupiloten BDA 2007– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA 2002–06 Project Architect: Eger Architects, London; Architectural Assistant: Barkow Leibinger Architekten, Berlin; Freelance: Interior Concept All-day School Annaberg Buchholz

2007–13 Assistant Professor: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin

1998

Diploma Technical University of Karlsruhe

O 2010– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA 2006– Freelance 2001–05 Project Architect: von Bothmer Architekten, Berlin 1995–01 Architectural Assistant: Henn Architekten, Berlin; GUSSMANN + VALENTIEN Atelier, Berlin; Abt Architekten, Binningen

Kirstie Smeaton, Dipl. Architect, *1980

2008 2006 O

Diploma in Professional Studies University College Dublin Diploma in Architecture Bartlett School of Architecture, London

2011– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA 2006–11 Project Architect: O’Donnell + Tuomey Architects, Dublin 2002–05 Architectural Assistant: Satellite Architects, London

TE 2011–14 Assistant Professor: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin

1999–02 Scholarship from the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes

Helmuth Hanle, Dipl.-Ing. Architect, *1956

Irmtraut Schulze, Dipl.-Ing., *1983

1986

Diploma Technical University of Berlin

2007– Cooperation with Die Baupiloten BDA 1993– Freelance 1992–93 Architectural Assistant: Daniel Libeskind Studio, Berlin 1986–91 Project Architect: Klaus Günther Architecture Office, Berlin 1991–92 Monbusho-Scholarship from the Japanese Ministry of Education

2012– 2011

Expert for accessibility in buildings, outdoor space, and urban planning Diploma Technical University of Berlin

2012–14 Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA 2011–12 Freelance Architect: Möller Mainzer Architekten, Berlin 2008– Working Student: Estée Lauder GmbH, Division Aveda, Berlin 2007–08 Architecure Assistant: various architechture offices 2008–10 Student Assistant: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin

DANIEL HÜLSENWEG, Dipl.-Ing., *1978

Max Graap, M. Sc. Architecture, *1985

2009

Diploma Technical University of Berlin

2013

O 2012– Project Architect: de Winder Architekten, Berlin 2008–12 Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA 2006–08 Freelance Architect: various architecture offices

2014–

Assistant Professor: Prof. Dr. Hofmann, TU Berlin

Master of Science in Architecture Technical University of Berlin

2013– Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA 2010 Architectural Assistant: modulorbeat, Münster 2009–10 Architectural Assistant: Bolles+Wilson, Münster 2012–13 Student Assistant: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin 2007–09 Student Assistant: Prof. Schulze, RWTH Aachen

Martin Mohelnicky, Dipl.-Ing., *1975

Mathias Schneider, Dipl.-Ing.(FH), *1981

2010 2002

Diploma Technical University of Berlin Carpentry apprenticeship

O 2009– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA 2007–08 Freelance Architect: various architecture offices

246

2013 Fellowship from the German Academy Rome Villa Massimo for study abroad in Casa Baldi 1992 Nomination for the Silver Medal from the RIBA President’s Medals Student Awards 1988–89 DAAD scholarship holder

Marlen Kärcher née Weiser, Dipl. Architect, *1976

Susanne Vitt, Dipl.-Ing., *1970

2014– Assistant Professor: Prof. Dr. Hofmann, TU Berlin 2007–09 Student Assistant: Prof. Fioretti, TU Berlin

2009 2001

Diploma Beuth Hochschule, Berlin Metal construction apprenticeship

O 2013– Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA 2007–13 Architectural Assistant: BRT Architekten, Hamburg; STI-Studio, Hangzhou; Sauerbruch Hutton, Berlin; wiewiorra hopp schwark architekten, Berlin 2003–05 Trade Fair Construction, Delafair Berlin

247

THE STUDY REFORM PROJECT DIE BAUPILOTEN 2003–2014

Die Baupiloten was founded in 2003 as a study reform project, in a cooperation between Susanne Hofmann Architekten and the Technical University Berlin. Architecture students were given the opportunity to work on real projects, within tight budgetary constraints, from conception to completion under professional guidance. The office assumed all liability and responsibility for the projects. Since the completion of the study reform project at the Technical University Berlin in 2014, Susanne Hofmann Architects has operated under the name “Die Baupiloten BDA.” We would like to thank all of the other departments, teachers and collegues who have supported us:

Prof. Dr. Gerd Brunk mit Dr.-Ing. Olaf Weckner (Mechanics); Dipl.-Ing. Christiane Straße, FG Prof. Dr. Johannes Cramer (Architectural History); Dr.-Ing. Joachim Feldmann (Acoustics); Dr.-Ing. Stefan Gräbener, FG Prof. Dr. Mathias Hirche (Visualization); FG Prof. Rainer Mertes (Construction Economics); Reimund Ross (Fire Engineering); Dr.-Ing. Eddy Widjaja, Dipl.-Ing. Roland Lippke, FG Prof. Dr.-Ing. Klaus Rückert (Structure); Prof. Dr. Rudolf Schäfer (Planning Law); Prof. Dr.-Ing. Volker Schmid mit Dr.-Ing. Jens Tandler MSc (Structure); Dr.-Ing. Paul Schmits (Lighting); Dipl.-Ing. Katja Pfeiffer, FG Prof. Claus Steffan (Building Services); Mathias Heyden, FG Prof. Jörg Stollmann (Urban Development); Dipl.-Ing. Jan Bredemeyer, FG Prof. Dr.-Ing. Frank U. Vogdt (Building Physics); Dipl.-Ing. Astrid Zimmermann (Landscape Architecture) DIE Baupiloten TEACHERS

DIE Baupiloten STUDENTS

248

DIE Baupiloten STUDENTS

249