Room visions 2030

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 1

ROOM VISIONS 2030 THE ROOM COMFORT OF THE FUTURE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EXPERTS FROM THE WORLDS OF ARCHITECTURE AND SCIENCE. A COMPREHENSIBLE VISION.

2 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

ROOM VISIONS 2030 THE ROOM COMFORT OF THE FUTURE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EXPERTS. A VISION.

» THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE ROOM WILL REALLY CHANGE IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY. A ROBUST, LARGE WINDOW WITH GOOD TECHNICAL STABILITY AND FUNCTION – I CAN PRODUCE THIS TODAY EXACTLY AS I COULD 30 YEARS AGO. AND I IMAGINE THIS WILL STILL BE THE CASE IN 100 YEARS’ TIME.

«

OLIVER ELSER, SEITE 9

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 3

Wieland Frank What will we have left when the room changes?

Oliver Elser Architects have to think about comfort

01 08

and cosiness again

Prof. Johannes Kister Technology is not the thing we are actually longing for

Hadi Teherani The room is the greatest luxury we have

Kaspar Kraemer We’ve lost our appreciation of values

Prof. Dr. Stephan GĂźnzel Luxury is retreating into a room

Fazit The future of the room involves a desire for old values

18 28 42 54 65

About SIEGENIA

66

Imprint

69

4 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

A vision of room comfort? Scenes from Stanley Kubrick’s “2001: A Space Odyssey” from the year 1968

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 5

What will we have left when the room changes?

Working together with experts from the worlds of architecture and science, in this publication we create a vision of the room, its utilisation and its comfort, in the year 2030.

Just ten years ago, who would have thought that we would carry a camera, a photo album, a calendar, a barometer, a world atlas with a navigation system, our entire music collection, an ultra-high-performance computer and the whole Internet, as well as a telephone, in our trouser pocket? Back then, who would have thought that we would communicate around the world in real time, wherever we happen to be? Or that our cars would drive themselves? That we would be able to order products online and track their shipping online, that we would have a video rental shop, a bank and a train timetable, including a ticket service, on our computers? Who would have thought that we would now even be able to print out products like jewellery or toys ourselves at home?

Over the past 20 years, our everyday lives have changed gradually, and yet dramatically. Our lives and our work are interconnected, our use of the Internet is a matter of course, which we would not be able to – or would not want to – get by without in many areas. The utopias depicted in the 60s and 70s by science fiction writers like Phillip K. Dick or William Gibson have become reality for the

6 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

most part. We have robots doing our work for us, we connect our knowledge worldwide, we are reachable everywhere and at all times, and we pay for this reachability with the time that we spend in front of screens large and small.

With the “Internet of Things”, which has been frequently cited recently, the continuous interconnecting of our lives is finding its way into an area that has so far escaped – ironically speaking – technological evolution. In addition to the computer, laptop, tablet and smartphone, smart IT is now pushing its way into our lives and into our living environments. Be it interconnected television via smart TVs, interconnected driving via car IT or interconnected home automation technology via smart homes, sooner or later we will also experience the entirely interconnected smart room.

Wieland Frank is managing partner at

Whether this is a welcome development, or rather a worrying one, is a matter of opinion. At the very latest when we think about room comfort, in other words about the sense of well-being that a room can create through its function, we have to ask ourselves the question of whether technological evolution actually is something that supports this sense of well-being or not. After all, there is a reason why people in cities tend to prefer classic period buildings if they want to live in high-quality surroundings.

It is the longing for old values, for stability, for continuity, that drives them. We long for a refuge, for homeliness, for a withdrawal from the entirely technologised and interconnected world.

So what will room comfort mean in the near future? Is it the possibility to control the temperature and air humidity of our living rooms at home by smartphone from our workplace? Is it the house door that opens automatically when it locates the Bluetooth signal from our mobile phone? Or is it perhaps the classic large and heavy living room window that we can open with our hands to enjoy the fresh air and take a deep breath in between all the online stress?

Admittedly, you could argue that this publication does not look far enough into the future. After all, what major changes could possibly occur in the next 15 years in our lives, in architecture, in our rooms, in building technology, in window and door technology? On the other hand: what if you consider everything that has happened in the past 15 years? If you take a step back for a moment and look at how many things that still seemed entirely utopian in the year 2000 are a matter of course today,

SIEGENIA.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 7

then you soon realise that a great deal can happen in 15 years. The imaginable, the unimaginable, the logical and the entirely far-fetched.

“SIEGENIA Room Visions – Room Comfort 2030” does not aim to present a dystopia, nor a utopia. Rather, it is an insight and an outlook. An insight into what is currently occupying architects, scientists and futurologists when they think about architecture, and, in particular, rooms. And an outlook on what could, will, and, above all, should change in our living and working rooms in the next 15 years. And somehow also an outlook on what will remain in place, when we think about the room comfort of yesterday and today.

As a specialist in the field of room comfort, we are indeed very interested in not only presenting the technological status quo for windows, doors and rooms. With products that have been tried-and-tested over decades and are constantly evolving.

However, we too need to work already on products and solutions that will be a matter of course in the near future, just as window hardware has been for the past 50 years. And just as the smartphone has been for the past five years. The opinions, statements and visions we have collected here for you cannot predict the future. But they are a review of the current situation by experts in the field, who, in providing these, help you and us to understand the development towards the future a little better.

To understand what is important to all of us when it comes to the topic “room”. And what will be important to all of us in the future.

Whatever room you find yourself in while you’re reading this publication: I hope you enjoy reading it and may it inspire you on your search for the room comfort of the future.

Kind regards, Wieland Frank P.S. If you have any suggestions or questions, or would like to continue this discussion with us, please don’t hesitate to write to us: roomvisions@siegenia.com

8 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

ARCHITECTS HAVE TO RELEARN HOW TO SEE ROOM COMFORT AND TO UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE BEHIND IT. OLIVER ELSER

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 9

Architects have to think about comfort and cosiness again!

Room comfort means: returning to old values in the future. SIEGENIA Room Visions interviews Oliver Elser, curator of the German Architecture Museum in Frankfurt am Main.

If anyone knows precisely how architecture has developed, and which values are important for the room, then it’s Oliver Elser. As curator of the German Architecture Museum in Frankfurt, every year he has to tackle the question of which form of architecture is unusually or timelessly valuable enough to be exhibited there.

The passionate architecture critic publishes anything too bizarre on Facebook, under the label “The scary sides of our cities”. We spoke to Mr Elser about the future of the room, his idea of room comfort and his vision of architecture.

10 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Mr Elser, as curator of the Architecture Museum, you have a very good insight into the history of the room. Looking back over the past: how has the room developed and how is it going to develop?

In terms of office rooms, an amalgamation of working and living has been evident since the 1960s. The workplace is increasingly becoming a location with the qualities of a living space. Although this is currently being sold as a trend, it actually dates back to that time. In the Netherlands, for example, there was an insurance building designed by the architect Herman Hertzberger, the “Centraal Beheer”, in which people could arrange their work stations entirely as they wished, however they found it most comfortable. That was pure chaos. The offices resembled home-made treehouses in a concrete structure, which was reminiscent of a forest. It inspired and

Herman Hertzberger (* 6th July 1932

shook up the field of architecture for a long time that there was a company who

in Amsterdam) is a Dutch architect.

would dare to do something like this. We also had a very innovative project in

He is a proponent of structuralism in

Frankfurt in the 1970s by Dresdner Bank, which attempted to shape a new corporate

architecture. With his buildings and the-

culture by having an office tower that combined the principle of office and living en-

ories, he has made a significant con-

vironment – including a swimming pool for employees on the top floor! The architects were ABB, Heinz Scheid was the partner responsible. These examples show that what companies like Apple, Facebook or Google are currently selling as a trend is actually old hat.

Has the architectural industry pushed forward such developments itself, or does such momentum tend to come more from the companies?

tribution to this architectural movement.

Hertzberger’s most important buildings include the administration building of the insurance company Centraal Beheer in Apeldoorn (1968-1972), in which he created “polyvalent rooms”, which received different meanings and interpretations, depending on the relationships between the people working

It often goes hand in hand. The things demanded by the world of work generally

in them. His building activity focused

create a very vague picture first of all. Architects are needed to develop a coherent

mainly on the Netherlands, but he also

concept. In the 1960s, this was furthered by the fact that many architects were

designed buildings in Germany, Italy

interested in what was known as “anonymous architecture” – where architects, like

and Japan.

ethnologists, travelled to Africa to look at the settlements and study the fundamental structures of living and working together, and to then incorporate this into their architecture. They researched in “uncivilised” regions to learn how people live there – with regard to both structural and social aspects. And the structuralist architects then incorporated these findings into their European projects. Architects back then were incredibly creative at finding new paths – Aldo van Eyck is an excellent example of this. Architects today who have repeated these Africa experiences one generation

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 11

later, such as the architecture firm Lacaton & Vasall, have also designed fascinating buildings against this backdrop.

Is the creativity of architects different today?

No, not at all. One way to picture it is like a wave movement. In the 1920s, architecture was no doubt more courageous. Everything was challenged. After the Second World War, there was a somewhat more conservative, but by no means worse phase of reconciliation between avant-garde and tradition. Today, it is luckily the case that many are turning their attentions outwards. To continents like Asia and Africa. But the re-importing of ideas has yet to reach the degree that it did during the structuralism movement I described. I’m waiting for a new wave.

You talked about the change in architecture, in other words the outer shell. What about the room itself?

Architecture cannot be broken down into shell and interior space. But let’s talk about living. This has changed considerably. The apartments in highest demand today are those in period buildings. These have the advantage that the rooms are of equal value.

There is utilisation neutrality. Specialisation according to supposed needs (tiny children’s rooms, large bedrooms, etc.), this has not caught on. The way in which we think about apartments today is shaped by utilisation neutrality, away from specialisation. This is also because of our society: families are changing, the classic models are decreasing, and, for all kinds of more open “patchwork” families, we have to make sure that there are solutions available in the housing market. These are completely pragmatic questions: what happens when the children are grown up, can we use the rooms for something different then? Essentially, we need apartments that breathe, that answer such questions from the very beginning.

Is the architectural industry providing answers to such questions?

The strongest trend is that people in cities are no longer relying on what the market has to offer. The trend is towards “building groups” – instead of squandering money on a real estate investor, people are preferring to do it themselves. People are forming building groups with friends to build homes. Berlin is playing a pioneering role here – this

12 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

is the major residential trend in cities. Many of these buildings also offer communal areas that are available as “breathing” areas.

So this is similar to carsharing? People share the rooms?

Yes, the idea is that you don’t have to own everything yourself anymore. For example, I live in Frankfurt am Main, we don’t have a car, I take the underground to the museum, my wife and my two children also use the underground or ride bicycles.

We make the most of living in a big city. This is why we don’t need a car. Essentially, this is a modern idea which gave rise to carsharing, and I would also like to see this in the housing segment – people simply redistributing space variably, as they need it. For instance, we no longer have a living room, but instead we have two children’s bedrooms. Of course, we would have liked more variability, for instance an additional room in the house. These are thoughts that the architectural industry must act on.

If rooms are as flexible in the future as you describe, what will happen to the technology in rooms? Won’t this have to be just as variable?

At the International Building Exhibition in Hamburg, the architecture firm “BeL, Sozietät für Architektur” from Cologne attempted to develop a neutral floor plan. They set up a “floor slab” architecture that the residents could change themselves. This is very appealing, but the question is whether this can be built so simply. After all, architects have been dreaming of relocating a wall with two hands for a very long time.

The self-build experiment by architecture firm BeL Sozietät für Architektur, based in Cologne, allows users to

But isn’t this ultimately just a question of the technology?

develop their building gradually, according to their life circumstances

Anything is possible. But something has to change in our minds. Initiatives such as

and needs. By applying the self-build

this unfortunately don’t come from the established real estate developers who hire the

principle, in conjunction with expert

architects. Rather, they come from the architects themselves. And the technology is

guidance, significant cost savings can

there. All that is missing is the assignment.

be made, making the building a “smart price building”.

You say the technology does exist. So what are the technological trends for rooms? What is going to shape our future here?

The major theme in the next few years will be conversion, rather than building. In

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 13

recent years, our “German Architecture Museum – Yearbook for Architecture in Germany” has become a trend barometer of sorts. If you look at the projects that are published in this, you can see that we are moving more and more towards conversion.

The idea of how to convert an existing structure is becoming increasingly significant.

Especially in the city. After all, there are hardly any new spaces on the outskirts of our cities at all. Which means that we can only grow by compaction. Empty office spaces are also being converted into homes. This is a very important trend: the question of how to activate existing buildings. But the most important issue is sustainability: the most exciting examples are those that don’t require much technology. In other words, houses that achieve fantastic energy values in an entirely conventional way: with thick walls with lots of storage capacity and traditional windows. This is something different to the German fondness for over-the-top insulation or highly complex control technology – I don’t think much at all of these trends. I don’t even believe that this control can work. Everything being interconnected is not an attractive prospect – as we saw in the whole Edward Snowden story. We have to make sure that we don’t get caught up in some kind of bizarre technology euphoria. Architecture is about stability and security.

What will the room look like in 15 years then, with these aspects in mind?

The question is whether or not the room will really change in terms of technology. A robust, large window with good technical stability and function – I can produce this today exactly as I could 30 years ago. And I imagine this will still be the case in 100 years’ time. The architect Adolf Loos once said: “The house is conservative. Art is avant-garde”, or words to that effect. You could also say: living is more conservative than almost anything else. If you take a look at what is being built in cities most of all at the moment, it tends to be a kind of strange neo-conservatism. Housing complexes that look like they come from the 19th century, but are made from Styrofoam and plasterboard. Everyone wants to live in period buildings, but there simply aren’t enough of them. So these make-believe worlds are being thrown together. Of course, you could now argue that post-war architecture is also in high demand in the market, for instance the Hansa district or what used to be the Stalin-Allee in Berlin, both from the 1950s.

The apartments here are first class, for their locations if nothing else. However, the turning towards special residential forms such as these is not a major trend, but merely a peripheral phenomenon of the zeitgeist. This is how a few hipsters live.

14 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

So what about the windows in these rooms? If we think in classical terms, the trend should be going towards large windows, shouldn’t it?

Yes, but not towards façades entirely made of glass. Office architecture has gone in the completely wrong direction in recent years. But there are some good examples now of how not to succumb to the insulation and control technology craze. There are good examples of energy efficiency in office architecture, too. The zero-energy Eberle building, for instance, which completely eschews the technology and insulation insanity.

What about workplaces? You talked about a longing for old values, isn’t that contradicted by modern office buildings?

Luckily, there are few companies that house themselves in such neo-conservative fakes. It is essentially the same when it comes to homes. An ultra-modern workplace increases the longing for more stability at home. Precisely this is the phenomenon.

You cannot accommodate huge corporations in lofts, but of course there is a desire

Less energy with less technology – that was the declared objective of the architects at baumschlager eberle when they built the mixed-use building “2226” in Lustenau, in Vorarlberg. Before now, reducing the energy consumption of a building meant higher maintenance and upkeep

for the tangible stability of old walls. Creative people like to work in old buildings

costs. This building, however, does

with history, agencies are drawn to old factory buildings. I myself work from a factory

not have any heating, ventilation or

that was converted in the 1980s. You can see from the rooms that it used to be a

cooling systems. Instead of reacting

type-foundry. Max Dudler converted the building and this combination of history and

to building technology, the building

the present creates a wonderful, unique working atmosphere. I didn’t want to work in

responds to input from humans: to

one of those soulless 08/15 offices.

their body heat, their humidity, their conversion of oxygen into CO2.

Let’s take a look into the future again: what type of architecture will be on display in the Architecture Museum in 50 years’ time?

It will be a type of architecture that doesn’t need any fancy tricks, one that is much more normal. We will see a more scaled-down, robust and resilient type of architecture. We can no longer afford to build offices in glass boxes. It’s illogical, in terms of cooling if nothing else. We will be very interested in how the climate affects architecture in other parts of the world. And how we live in metropolises. The interesting thing is that our sustainability concepts do not serve metropolises at all – although this is where most living space is needed and used. But we can’t build cities with millions of inhabitants out of wood. The exciting question will be how we can get a global perspective of architecture.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 15

» THE INTERESTING THING IS THAT OUR SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS DO NOT SERVE METROPOLISES AT ALL – ALTHOUGH THIS IS WHERE MOST LIVING SPACE IS NEEDED AND USED. FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT ARE PEOPLE IN BEIJING DOING ABOUT THE SMOG? HERE, CONSTRUCTION, ARCHITECTURE AND, NOT LEAST, WINDOW AND VENTILATION TECHNOLOGY ARE THE PARAMETERS TO BE FINE-TUNED.

«

16 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

And I am certain that we will be amazed at how people abroad are solving the problems. For example, what are people in Beijing doing about the smog? Here, construction, architecture and, not least, window and ventilation technology are the parameters to be fine-tuned. Here in Europe, we are on an island of good fortune, as we do not have this acute pressure to change. Everything works – still. We are focusing more on affordable living spaces, that’s our issue. So the question regarding our living environment here in Europe isn’t how we should be imagining the room in 2030 in visual terms, but rather in organisational terms. What will the distribution of logistics and utilisation be like? We will use architecture differently, I’m certain of this.

» ROOM COMFORT MEANS MATERIALS THAT I ENJOY TOUCHING, PROPORTIONS THAT PLEASE ME. ROOM COMFORT MEANS EXCELLENT QUALITY AS A MATTER OF COURSE.

« Our vision is also about the topic of room comfort. In our research for this publication, we asked ourselves why architecture has hardly addressed this topic at all. We talk about living comfort, but never about a sense of well-being in the room. Why do you think this is? And what is room comfort in the first place, in your opinion?

Car manufacturers certainly use the term “comfort”. But by this they mean nicely crafted seat upholstery. Or the fact that nothing in the interior rattles and that the airconditioning doesn’t cause a draught. Architects don’t have this way of thinking.

They have to relearn how to see room comfort and to understand the relevance behind it. This concerns a large number of terms relating to the quality of living and room comfort. The word cosiness, for instance. This is a key parameter as far as room comfort goes, which needs to be thought about again. Architects don’t think about it, because it’s too individual for them. Karl Kraus put this manner of thinking in a nutshell very well: “From a city I am to live in, I demand: paved roads, street

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 17

cleaning, a key to the door, air heating, hot water pipes. I provide the cosiness myself.” The paradox is, however, that we feel more comfortable in Italian cities than in German ones. Architects have to think about such things again, beauty, cosiness, comfort! When we talk about pubs and restaurants, we soon agree what’s good: never the latest design, but instead the traditional, unspoilt. As soon as we talk about living and working rooms, there is a block, no-one wants to talk about it, no-one wants to lay down comparable quality criteria. We are not thinking about the parameters that give us the feeling that a room has character. Character that doesn’t have to be added afterwards. This closes the circle with regard to our longing for period buildings. Many people like to be in these old buildings because they don’t have to put their own stamp on them, since the room itself is already strong enough, because of its history and the craftsmanship that has gone into it. This is a good feeling, to be a part of a history that is bigger than us. We have to address such issues more effectively, they are valuable and enduring.

With this in mind, what does room comfort mean for you?

Room comfort means the really simple things – things that might sound stuffy initially, but aren’t. Room comfort means materials that I enjoy touching, proportions that please me. Room comfort means excellent quality as a matter of course. It can even be something silly like a flower window, despite poor insulation and cold gaps. A certain quirkiness that can’t be suppressed by technology. A type of character in the room. A disused fireplace. Travertine windowsills. Weird and wonderful bathroom tiles. History and things that have the potential to become a piece of history themselves one day. This is where we have to return!

The vision of the working room according to Franklyn Lloyd Wright:

18 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Johnson Wax Corporation Building in 1969.

THE ARGUMENT CANNOT BE THAT WE WILL NOT NEED WINDOWS ANYMORE BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL ONLY BE LOOKING AT MONITORS ANYWAY. JOHANNES KISTER

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 19

Technology is not the thing we are actually longing for.

Room comfort means: striking a balance between function and a positive feeling. SIEGENIA Room Visions interviews Professor Johannes Kister, architect and lecturer on building design.

In addition to his role as a partner and architect in the Colognebased architecture firm Kister Scheinhauer Gross, Professor Johannes Kister is one thing above all: dedicated. In his professorial chair at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences in the “Bauhaus” in Dessau, he lectures on design, building construction, spatial relationships and spatial perception – and was also dean in this field.

Reason enough to ask the civic art expert about his vision for the room and technology.

20 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Professor Kister, please tell us what your field of research “spatial relationships” is all about. What does this entail?

Design essentially means spatial composition. It is not about the allocation of areas.

Design is three-dimensional, we design volumes and composition. As opposed to the functional planner, the architect designs inside the room – he creates the relationship.

He works with room typologies, which are always three-dimensional. The hollow space in a volume is an archaic image, you can see this, for example, in the theatre.

These images are essentially typological, and repeat themselves again and again.

This means that the room is only evolving in small steps. In this regard, we will not invent anything in terms of rooms that had not already been invented 2000 years ago.

There are many constants in architecture. We have to curb the expectation that we are constantly inventing new sensations, since there are no new innovations here. The last development was the term “flowing space” according to Mies van der Rohe. This is a momentum that did not exist before the 19th century. At the moment, it is difficult to imagine something fundamentally, typologically new.

Originally, the Mies van der Rohe Pavilion was an exhibition pavilion and the face of the Weimar Republic at the 1929 International Exposition in Barcelona. The building stands out for its unrestricted floor plan and sparing use of simple construction elements made from a variety of materials, which together create a flowing space.

Taking a look at the world of work, has the relationship between people and the room changed?

As in all disciplines of design, there are cycles. Every year there are fashionable colours. The double-breasted suit was en vogue 20 years ago, then it was out, and now it’s back in again. There are such cycles when it comes to office construction as

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 21

well. Franklin Lloyd Wright built one of the first open-plan offices circa 1900. This was a major invention. Then there was the one-man office, then the one-room office, the cubicle, then in the 70s the open-plan concept again. In the past two years, people are returning to small office units because of the noise, the temperature, the atmosphere. This means that there are only three possibilities. Scientists, for example, want the peace and quiet of the one-room office, and a separate kitchen where they can meet each other. They want quiet, because, after all, they don’t want to see their neighbours picking their noses. If we look at other sectors, in advertising, in architecture and in start-ups, then it’s a different picture. Creative workers love scenery, we can see this at Google and Apple. Whether this leads to better or worse job perforFrank Lloyd Wright (* 8th June 1867 in Richland Center, Wisconsin; † 9th April 1959 in Phoenix, Arizo-

mance at the end of the day is relative. The fact that the workplace now has a greater individual significance is certainly something that has changed. The significance of the individual has increased.

na) was an American architect who played a crucial role in technological

In the world of work, it’s not about a certain room typology, but an individual work-

development in architecture. Wright

place atmosphere. What is perhaps different today: employees are not disregarded

believed that buildings should have

in the planning process. Now, we talk to people.

qualities similar to human qualities.

He believed that buildings should be

Has this change in the world of work made architecture more democratic

lovable and bring people joy, and

somehow?

that this was more important than the development of a particular style.

Furthermore, Wright stressed that the integrity of human values in the modern age could only be achieved by using machines, “the normal tool of our civilisation” would have to be created for the new “industrial

Design is not a democracy. I would say rather that it has become more diverse. Let’s take, for example, the Gerling building in Cologne. When you see this office structure, the room dramaturgy of the entrance, secretary’s office, manager’s office, this kind of closeness to the manager, and compare this with a modern office, you can see that something very democratic has happened. This type of hierarchical thinking is gone, this “importance slope” is no longer dramatized as strategically as it was

ideal”, Wright explained in a lecture

30 years ago. No board of a company listed on the DAX index can afford to think

in 1901.

like this anymore. Today, we want to reflect our flat hierarchies in our architecture as well.

You mentioned individuality: to what extent is the trend towards the home office influencing modern architecture?

In normal office construction, we are not reflecting a certain office concept.

22 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

» WHEN BUILDING PHYSICISTS CALCULATE A ROOM, AT THE END WE ACTUALLY ONLY HAVE A TOILET WINDOW LEFT. THE SMALLEST WINDOW HAS THE BEST VALUE. BUT THAT MAKES LITTLE SENSE, IF PEOPLE LONG FOR SPACIOUS ROOMS.

«

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 23

That makes no sense. When we plan an open-plan office, we always ask ourselves the question of whether or not the room can also be divided up. Variability is an economic parameter for building owners. For the modern world, this means that we don’t have to build as many workplaces anymore and can work more effectively with open concepts. It must be possible to occupy workplaces flexibly, today and in the future.

Space management and functions are not as hierarchical. But this does not change the design to any great degree, it affects the utilisation more.

Does that mean that rooms will be flexible in 2030?

Flexibility will be an important parameter in 2030, because the world of work is more flexible and is constantly changing. Department sizes have a shorter half-life. This may not be the case among traditional public authorities, but is very pronounced in, for example, the publishing business.

What about technological evolution, how do architects take new technologies into consideration in room design?

In architecture, we have to take building certification into account. Part of a building’s certification is the obligation to define the standard and the technological level in terms of its utilisation. This means that, even before the room is designed, we have to say what it is going to become one day. There are two trends here: firstly, the low-tech strategy, in other words keeping the technological standard low. And the second method is to push the standard very high. These are the two basic strategies that we are seeing at the moment. Of course, there are not supposed to be any more changes in the planning process. The basic objective of where we want to put the technology in the room is defined at the beginning, as we can only really control this at the beginning.

What are the factors involved when choosing this standard? What criteria are used to decide which level of technological quality a building has?

Ultimately, it is the investment costs and the maintenance costs. In reality, owneroccupiers tend to lean towards low-tech, because they want to keep maintenance costs low. The investor tends to invest more in high-tech at the beginning, because

24 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

they want to sell the product for a higher price. This means that the comfort of a room does not depend so much on its utilisation, but more on the economic direction.

Technically logical, centrally controlled coordination does of course take place, for example everything that can be achieved with operations management or general facility management, with which we can indeed optimise comfort. But the limit is soon reached, as we are working with the human factor. If I have 500 residents in a building, the human aspect plays a large role, and I can’t think of the technology merely in terms of marketing advantages. At the end of the day, this is a very intensive field of discussion that is continuously renegotiated. As architects, we are always dealing with the integration of technology in architecture. In this regard, we do of course make recommendations based on our experience. But this sometimes has a negative impact on costs. And then the discussion starts.

If cost considerations determine room quality, how will this affect room comfort in 2030?

At the moment, I cannot imagine that people will want to give up their scope to manoeuvre in offices – even when costs dictate this. Everyone wants to be able to open the window whenever they want. When control technology takes this decision away from us, this is not psychologically good. We must have this decision-making potential, otherwise we become machines. We must have individual controllability.

We can see this now in our cars: self-driving cars – this is amazing technology, but every person who loves cars probably thinks that they would rather drive their car themselves! On the other hand, I am certain that there will be more and more technological integrations and systems in the future which, although controllable centrally, still take the individuality I mentioned into consideration. I can imagine that, for example, central building technology will control the ventilation, but I will be able to adjust this individually at my workstation or in my home, because I want the room to be 18 degrees rather than 20. This type of control technology will

While we’re on the subject of the control technology of the future:

increase and play a greater role, for the purpose of management. But on the other

SIEGENIA iWindow is a smart home

hand, the individual must not be underestimated – this is the main danger in the

solution which allows users to mon-

technology of the future, in all fields. It is our own responsibility to make sure that

itor, open and close windows and

we don’t become machines.

doors by smartphone or tablet – from wherever they are.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 25

With this development in mind: what does this mean for the workplace of 2030?

I don’t think that 2030 is far enough ahead in the future for this type of observation.

It will be upon us soon. I hope that I myself am still knocking around in 2030. We will still have desks, which will still have computers on them. Certainly, workplace furnishings will continue to change. I believe that, as regards flexible workplaces, the workplace will be a tool. Not in all sectors, but at least for knowledge workers. The workplace will become a figurative cockpit, where I will control more than just my Excel charts. Perhaps I will work with the building. Whether the coffee machine will still be here in ten years, I don’t know. But I don’t believe that we won’t be running to the photocopier anymore in 15 years. There are studies that have shown that it’s important for people where things are positioned in the office – nowadays we know that the kitchen and photocopier are creative spots. These are islands of communication, they satisfy a human need.

Humans are driven by a lust for rationalisation and a desire for technological prestige. But our rituals remain in place, despite all of the technological evolution. Today, for example, our office was sent a giant “Weckmann”, a type of bun, by a supplier – everyone gathered around it and ate it. These are rituals that will linger. I hope so, at least. In our idea of the future world of work, we always oscillate between a nightmare and a utopia. We humans need some free moments, the coffee machine, the photocopier, the “Weckmann”, to distract us from the complete technological captivity we are actually caught in, to experience moments that are unforeseen.

What about rooms in our personal lives? Will we experience a similar development there?

At the moment, we have one trend that is grabbing up apparently unlimited space because our society is developing in this direction. The trend towards singularity. The living space as a former family and communal space is becoming singularised; firstly in the senior segment, and secondly in terms of young singles. One- or two-room apartments in the city are the focal point today. The public side of our private lives has a greater significance.

26 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Also in terms of room variety – we accept a small kitchen and a small bathroom, and in exchange get as large a living room as possible. Because the living room is supposed to be for interacting with friends. I build a social environment into my private home because I want to invite my friends round for a Prosecco. The living room is gaining social importance, so I content myself when it comes to my basic needs.

Instead, I can sit with seven friends around the table. Traditional room functionality will decrease even more, it is breaking up. We will work with all-room elements.

This is interesting as it involves a social component – a positive development in these technologised times.

What influence will these social components and the need for company have on technology in the room?

Interestingly, at the moment, we have opposite, conflicting trends. When building physicists calculate a room, at the end we actually only have a toilet window left.

Not what we are actually longing for. The smallest window has the best value. But that makes little sense, when people long for spacious rooms.

» WE ARE UNDER PRESSURE BECAUSE WE WANT TO CREATE AN EXCESS OF TRANSPARENCY THROUGH BEAUTIFUL WINDOWS. WINDOWS, NOT HOLES, MIND YOU.

« I don’t build a terrace with a depth of 2.5 metres, and then plan a narrow door to connect the living room to the terrace to save energy – I want a high quality of living, after all. From the point of view of a building physicist, the quality of living space is not compatible with efficiency. The ongoing trend is towards closed buildings – we are under pressure here at the moment because we conversely want to create an excess of transparency through beautiful windows. Windows, not holes or glass façades, mind you. The pressure stems from the idea of an overall climate balance for a building – and the goal of having to achieve certain values for this. The window has always been the major weakness. We have to improve the windows, but this

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 27

would cost money. Glass architecture is therefore on the decline. From an economic point of view, we want a window-opening percentage of less than 40%. In other words 60% wall, 40% glass. The trend is increasing – negatively. So this means even fewer windows. This is the point where we generally have to raise a warning finger and say that this is not the way it should be. But the argument cannot be that we will not need windows anymore because everyone will only be looking at monitors anyway. For me, there is a crucial point here that has yet to be taken into consideration in building. The “physical-social” components of technological development. The question of what technology in a room means for the individual. These are soft arguments that we don’t hear, or don’t want to hear, in the discussion about building. It’s too soft, it can’t be calculated. But it is something that we have to pay more attention to, at the same time as technological development.

We do not realise what these advertising worlds of technology mean for our lives in reality. This is a very difficult moment: in the production of architecture this “physical-social” topic is not represented by any of the players. By architects or building owners at the most. Often, there is then the accusation of being too aesthetic. But with regard to the comfort of a room: what does the freedom to look out of a window mean to people? How important is it? There is almost certainly a study that proves that people become unwell when they don’t have a window. So we must also discuss the principles of spatial perception and building psychology when we talk about the technological aspect. Living is something biological, something psychological, something sociological – something instinctively human.

With this interdisciplinary approach in mind, how would you define room comfort?

Room comfort for me has two levels. On the one hand, it covers the physical things: temperature, sounds, odours – these are physiological perceptions, and are not always objective. Essentially, room comfort is the positive satisfaction of sensory perceptions in a room. The other level is the optical perceptions, light, for example, in other words the visual quality characteristics of a room. Therefore, room comfort is about balancing these sensory perceptions. Harmony between the senses in a room.

I would call this the formula for room comfort.

28 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

THE CONVERGENCE OF THE LIVING AND WORKING ROOM SHOWS VERY CLEARLY HOW STRONGLY HUMAN NEEDS SHAPE THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE ROOM. HADI TEHERANI

“Crane Houses” in Cologne. Based on the designs of the workshop of the consortium “First Prize Winner Rheinauhafen Cologne: Bothe Richter Teherani, Busmann und Haberer, Linster, Schneider-Wessling und Abbing” of April 1993.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 29

The room is the greatest luxury we have.

Room comfort means: integrating technology wisely.

SIEGENIA Room Visions interviews star architect and designer Hadi Teherani

Not for nothing is he among the highest profile names in his trade. When Hadi Teherani tackles room design, most of the time he creates more than just architecture. The “Crane Houses” in Cologne, the train station at Frankfurt Airport and the “Dancing Towers” in Hamburg are much more than just extraordinary landmarks. Teherani’s influential impact is not limited to the outer shell. He strives to make rooms come alive for the senses, going beyond form and function – with his own, often prize-winning ideas for furnishings and surfaces. We asked the star architect with the integrated, interdisciplinary approach about his vision of room comfort.

30 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Mr Teherani, what do you think rooms will look like in the year 2030?

We are people, and we will always be people. We will not suddenly get taller or shorter. So in 20 to 30 years we won’t have a different feel for proportions to that which we have today. The only thing that will be different in 2030 is the value that society will attach to technological and ecological parameters. These are parameters that also influence the room.

In the last 20 years, we have developed an ever-greater longing for an “all-encompassing room”. We want a kitchen that is connected communicatively with the living room, as well as a bathroom offering the highest level of comfort possible, with a view. Of course, with state-of-the-art technology, which we need, but do not really want to see in the foreground. Technology will become integrated into our living environment. We will place our smartphones on furniture and here they will connect and charge themselves autonomously. The central factor in this area is the need to interact quickly. This is the principle behind the “Internet of Things”, an element of the room and the furniture which is a matter of course, but invisible. In my opinion, these are the main comfort features that we will continue to build on. We will think bigger again.

Architecturally, this was not always the case, unfortunately. There have been developments in the past that forced us to limit ourselves to the smallest of spaces – for example because of the economic situation after the Second World War. Before this, large rooms predominated. If you think about the magnificent room proportions people treated themselves to around 150 years ago, how they worked with the ceiling height, with plaster ceiling features, with the possibility of connecting rooms and combining them into something larger. Many of the features used back then are en vogue again today. People were very advanced in terms of the quality of architecture and the room. Unfortunately, this was forgotten as a result of the war, and rooms were minimised afterwards. Today, we are doing better, so the post-war rooms are not enough for us anymore. Fortunately, we are thinking further and more openly again.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 31

Does this explain the longing for period buildings and art nouveau houses that we are currently experiencing in the cities?

Indeed it does. In these old rooms you can feel the life, the breath, the values. Around 40 years ago, these wonderfully high ceilings in apartments in period buildings were lowered, because our society tacitly agreed to restrict itself, to act modestly, by showing less. Which was a real shame, as the floor plans from back then were much more intelligent than those of today.

Does that mean that today’s architecture is no longer designed as intelligently as it used to be, that architects used to be more creative?

The quality of architecture depends largely on the tasks it has to fulfil. Just like the abilities of architects. The old art nouveau buildings, for example, were appropriate for their time. As I mentioned before, it was about people wanting to show what they had. People wanted to represent. Rooms could be opened up and connected.

» THE QUALITY OF ARCHITECTURE DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE TASKS IT HAS TO FULFIL.

« Architecture displayed a high level of flexibility – when you pushed open the double doors to the living room that were typical for back then, you suddenly had an entirely different spatial perception, a spacious view, a feeling of vastness. This sense of value has unfortunately been lost these days. But, luckily, we are rediscovering it at the moment. We are breaking away from this functional “small room thinking”, between the hallway, kitchen, bathroom and living room. Only, we have yet to achieve this fully.

For example, we are still building hallways – people used to have entrance halls.

32 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

» WHEN REGULATIONS DEMAND THAT WINDOWS NEED TO BE SMALLER AND I CAN THEN ONLY LIGHT UP OPEN-PLAN OFFICES USING ARTIFICIAL LIGHT – THIS CAN’T BE A GOOD WAY OF LIVING. THIS CONSTRICTS THE ORIGINAL IDEA BEHIND THE OPEN FLOOR PLAN AGAIN – FREEDOM, FLEXIBILTY.

«

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 33

These are a sought-after statement again today. You can see this, for example, in the newer worlds of work – especially those of creative professionals. These are people who feel more comfortable in a loft or converted industrial buildings. Here, you won’t find constrictive hallways, but instead roomy, free spaces, rooms that allow the very flexibility that a creative individual desires. That they need. This is a trend that will continue. And not only for creative people and intellectuals anymore.

When I designed the first offices of this kind, which were spacious, flexible and, above all, communicative, around 20 years ago, this idea was still rejected. People preferred to have individual rooms, to isolate themselves, to close the door, to not be disturbed. Offices broken up by glass were unimaginable at that time, because The modern office and working world

people were always fearful of being watched while they worked. People preferred

according to Hadi Teherani: the Dock-

to work alone, silently, reclusively.

land in Hamburg-Altona on the Elbe.

The six-storey building has a distinctive

Fortunately, this kind of thing is not being built anymore today. There are still individual

cross-section in the shape of a paral-

rooms no doubt, but offices have become much more flexible, sometimes so flexible

lelogram and leans out over the water like the bow of a ship. As a matter of fact, parts of the structure were actually produced in a shipyard.

that employees simply find a space, set up their laptops and start working. What is interesting is that this development in the world of work is spreading to all other fields.

Corporations are adapting this new openness and flexibility for their office worlds.

Hallways and canteens are suddenly becoming working rooms. And this development is even noticeable in everyday life far away from the office. We no longer only live at home, we live in restaurants, on streets, in squares and in parks. This is where our rooms are. You can see this especially in the development of outdoor dining in the cities. In certain neighbourhoods, it used to be problematic to set up chairs and tables on the streets. When I look at the street “Lange Reihe” or the Schanzenviertel district today, it’s like a single restaurant in which we communicate, enjoy some food, and work. In which we live together. This is what people want today, this is what shapes our urban space.

Ultimately, it’s all to do with communication, with our society’s strong desire to take an active part in life. This is far less pronounced in other countries than it is here in Germany. In Russia, for instance, people still work in one-room offices, where they can hide away. This office style is declining much more slowly than it is in Germany.

34 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Does this mean that architecture drives culture? Or is it the other way around?

They are mutually dependent. Architecture frequently plays a pioneering role in room design. And it must. But if society is not ready for it yet, this will be a futile endeavour.

Conversely, architects are also driven of course by society’s trends and needs – after all, we live how we live. As architects, we have to respond to this. The convergence of the living and working room shows very clearly how strongly human needs shape the architecture of the room. We used to work for eight hours in our offices and then drive home, where it was comfortable. Most of the time it was about passing the eight hours effectively, concentrating solely on work. The working room was a purely functional room. That doesn’t work anymore, we don’t only want to start living after our day’s work is done. Even back then, I believed that this separation of working and living could not be right. Because we spend the best time of the day, as well as the most time, in the office. For me, there is no good reason why the office should be any less comfortable or look any less attractive than the home. We had living elements in the office long before Google, and even “beaches” – because we knew that the quality of the room ultimately influences well-being and therefore also the effectiveness of work.

Doesn’t this pursuit of spacious, flexible rooms contradict the requirements placed on rooms today by building physics? Or, to put it another way: how does the current discussion about absolute energy efficiency fit in with our need for larger rooms?

In some fields, this is indeed a point of disagreement. In turn, this is essentially a cultural phenomenon. In Germany, we strive for perfection. There is no other country that regulates building so strictly, because everything has to be perfect here. Naturally, this concerns in particular the matter of buildings’ energy efficiency. The industry produces solutions to help us make energy savings. Associations lay down rules accordingly, which sometimes make sense. And sometimes don’t. But they are regulations that have to be complied with. The classic one is the “passive house”, which I believe makes no sense at all. Do I really want to live in a house where the windows don’t open? Nevertheless, people are demanding the passive house standard, recently even for office buildings. This is absurd. Until people comprehend that there are some completely senseless developments being driven forward here, lots of mistakes will

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 35

still have to be made. We architects will keep having our spatial creativity restricted by this regulation.

» IN GERMANY, WE STRIVE FOR PERFECTION. THERE IS NO OTHER COUNTRY THAT REGULATES BUILDING SO STRICTLY – BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PERFECT HERE.

« This regulation mania means that I can tell you today exactly how the façade will look, how large the windows will be, which type of ventilation will be installed – without even producing a design. Because I have to comply with standards. I have to ask myself whether we even need architects anymore, if everything is so strictly regulated. If all houses have to look the same, engineers may as well take over the design work as well.

But I don’t want to say that development is fundamentally bad. It just depends entirely on what it’s about. Unfortunately, we are presently experiencing a predominance of the negative side of energy advancement. If you renovate a period building in accordance with the energy standards today, and have to hide the brick with heat-insulation plaster to achieve the energy values demanded, lengthy discussions with the historic buildings protection authority are inevitable. That’s absurd. Imagine, for instance, the Speicherstadt (warehouse district) here in Hamburg under today’s heat-insulation regulations. It wouldn’t have been possible. Examples such as these show that we are far from finding perfect solutions that meet the legislator’s requirements. And that, in this whole building physics discussion, one fundamental thing is being forgotten: buildings are always prototypes! They are individual. And, nonetheless, legislators are attempting to lump everything together with standards and regulations. That can’t work. We need individual solutions.

36 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

The manufacturing industry is equally interested in standards because it has to think in economic terms. But if standards don’t work, shouldn’t the architectural industry dovetail more closely with the manufacturing industry, for instance to develop “individual” standards?

We actually do dovetail with the manufacturing industry. We’ve challenged the manufacturing industry often enough in the past, for example when we on the architect side brought action against windows with certain standards. However, the legislator attributes greater importance to the manufacturing industry. And when the legislator demands something, the entire manufacturing industry agrees to it. Which is completely understandable, but not always good. It is this very regulation mania that is forcing us as architects to move forward ourselves and drive innovation independently. However, we can only do this in cooperation with a building owner who is prepared to invest time and money in these innovations. This too is decreasing. When business investors buy buildings today, they attach importance to a “certificate”. These certifications are demanded from us architects, so that the buildings sell better. This is a purely commercial perspective of architecture, there is a lack of passion for the values that architecture should actually be about.

So architecture is becoming more and more of a standardised product that is designed taking predominantly economic aspects into consideration?

That’s the problem we have at the moment, and it also includes the manufacturing industry, which ultimately only banks on things that can be marketed quickly. This rapidity is harmful. We used to take the time to think long term, to re-plan, to try out new things and to check for suitability. More value was attached to the quality of innovations, even from the industrial side. That doesn’t happen anymore.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 37

» THE ROOM IS THE GREATEST LUXURY WE HAVE. THAT DOESN’T NECESSARILY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SIZE OF A ROOM, BUT WITH ITS COMFORT.

«

38 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

But, on the other hand, this means that the new worlds of work allow more scope to experiment today than the residential worlds of the large building investors.

Yes. One very good example of this is the furniture industry, which is trying out many more new things in the world of work. For instance, the typical modern office setups with their communication islands. This is an exciting development. What is important, however, is that architecture allows such developments and provides the platform for these trends. The space for communicative furniture on the office floor, in the lounge or the communication island needs to be planned for. What is interesting is that this space is almost a matter of course nowadays. Most offices designed and built today are geared towards these spatial requirements from the outset.

Interpretation of the modern world of

So would you say that room comfort in the world of work is more advanced today

work: Developer Conference at the

and has a higher value than in the residential segment?

Google office in Zurich. No rooms or traditional furniture are used; instead,

Absolutely. It has simply developed faster from the industrial side. Of course, this is also because new working rooms are not individual rooms that have to satisfy subjective needs. Living space is more expensive than working space per se, so it is easier to make an investment in innovative working rooms. The rooms are planned and built for lots of people, rather than just for individuals. And also because investment in a pleasant working room is also an investment in employee efficiency. But there is another observation with regard to the development of room comfort. A purely cultural one. In my home city of Tehran, rooms are much more spacious, more lavish and more inviting than those here in Germany. People treat themselves to an entrance hall, a large staircase, a dining room, a visitor room, in other words a room in which people receive guests – because that is part of room comfort, an element of social culture even. This generosity has little space in Germany, because we pay a great deal of attention to profitability. In Germany, we try to tweak almost everything down to the minimum. When we have a plot of land, the first question is how many floors need to be built. Every square metre counts. Stairways and entrances have to be as small as possible, because these spaces don’t sell. Whether spacious or cost-effective, both cases are about a value, simply interpreted differently.

people communicate with one another on beanbag chairs.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 39

Are these cultural differences in ideals also noticeable when it comes to the use of building technology?

To a certain degree, yes. First of all, in countries like India or Iran we don’t necessarily need the standards they have here, because the climate is different. Although there are, of course, prestigious buildings, such as hotels, that are geared towards our technical standards. In addition to this, there are far fewer suppliers in these countries.

» INNOVATIONS DON’T ALWAYS MAKE SENSE. TAKE THE PASSIVE HOUSE, FOR INSTANCE: WITH ALL THE HUNGER FOR INNOVATION – WHAT GOOD IS IT TO ME IF I OPEN A WINDOW AND THE SYSTEM CRASHES?

« We can compare this more or less to the types of bread on offer. If you go into a bakery in Tehran, there are three types of bread. Here in Germany, countless bakeries have what feels like a thousand different types of bread on sale. This reflects the situation in building technology. In these cultural spaces, I don’t have to choose between countless different manufacturers when I want to integrate technology. When I walk around the BAU trade fair in Munich, I see a vast number of manufacturers all offering entirely comparable products. The fact that we are so innovative here is certainly a blessing, but equally a curse. Because these innovations do not always make sense.

Take the passive house again, for instance. With all the hunger for innovation – what good is it to me if I open a window and the system crashes right away?

40 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Don’t we also have to question the extent to which the legal and economic regulation mania minimises the quality of life in a room?

This is a long-overdue discussion.

While we’re on the subject of the room and quality: how do you rate developments in the field of connectivity? Smart homes are already more than just a trend.

Will this be the standard in 2030?

Certainly. And to some degree this is a welcome development. Because all of the cables that we used to have to allow for in buildings could sooner or later disappear.

Because everything will be controlled by smartphone and wireless connections. This is the good thing about connectivity. However, I also believe that traditional things like locking an outer door will stay the same. It gives us an almost archaic feeling of security when we manually use the door key and not only hear the lock, but also feel it.

While we’re talking about the comfort features of the future: how would you define the term room comfort?

For me, room quality is the aura of a room. Its complex emotional energy. The partial aspect of room comfort is largely determined by two characteristics: by the materials used, which should be as natural as possible, and the hygienic and climatic conditions. I feel comfortable in a room when it’s not too hot, not too cold, when it has a pleasant temperature. These are not only the physical, but also the psychological comfort features of a room. Of course, noise and light also play a large role, but I believe that room comfort in the narrower sense is essentially determined by the materials used and the climatic conditions.

So it is more the technical features that ensure that we feel comfortable in a room?

No, the foundations and conditions for everything is still the architecture.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 41

To what degree is this atmospheric value, in a figurative sense, taken into consideration in the building industry?

This depends on many factors, among them the economic factor. The room is the greatest luxury we have. That doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the size of a room, but with its comfort and with all the other details of the overall composition.

In the right proportions, with the right materials, attractive furnishings, but also the right window and ventilation technology, every room becomes aesthetically fascinating and comfortable. You feel comfortable in the room with all of your senses. This objective, however, calls for very complex, farsighted architectural planning and control, lots of coordination with the building owner and, last but not least, intelligent products from the manufacturing industry.

42 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

I BELIEVE THAT OUR LIVES WILL RETURN TO MUCH GREATER SIMPLICITY, ALSO IN THE ROOM. THAT TECHNOLOGY WILL BE CUT DOWN TO ITS NATURAL SIZE. Kaspar kraemer

Dystopia or already reality?

Will the smartphone change the quality of our rooms?

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 43

We’ve lost our appreciation of values.

Room comfort means: Designing progress sensibly.

SIEGENIA Room Visions interviews Kaspar Kraemer, long-time President of the Bund Deutscher Architekten [Association of German Architects] (BDA).

Kaspar Kraemer spent three terms in office as President of the BDA. And that‘s not the only reason why what he says carries weight in the industry. Kraemer, who is often engaged on a voluntary basis and has impressively shaped the cityscape with designs such as the access tunnel to the South Tower of Cologne Cathedral or the pumping station on the south bank of the Rhine River in Cologne, which is illuminated differently according to the water level, is one of the few working in the field who actively campaigns for the preservation of old architectural values and qualities. In a world in which room comfort is primarily dominated by technology, he urges moderation and a greater sense of responsibility. Especially when it comes to the future.

44 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Mr. Kraemer, how would you explain the term room comfort?

For me, comfort has something negative about it. It‘s a loaded term that very much centres around the idea of cosiness. Comfort involves it being warm and cosy, and these are terms that are not particularly constructive for me as an architect. The goal of an architect is to give interior spaces a certain quality. That is, architecture is concerned with aesthetic comfort. It‘s less about functionality - it goes without saying that a space should be warm and well ventilated. A good comparison can be made with a car - the comfort features come as standard. But the atmosphere it exudes, the feeling that one gets from a car has more to do with aesthetics and less with cosiness. So for me, room comfort is a term that only becomes relevant after the initial design has been drafted - at the level of materials, where building physics plays a role.

How do you think building physics influences room comfort? Is the technology finding its way into architecture today influencing our perception of cosiness and room comfort?

I find the direction things are going in the field of building physics questionable.

The energy efficiency craze, which is being pushed by lobbyists of various interest groups, is a delusion. This obsession with insulation that‘s currently being discussed is completely insane - because it‘s trying to solve an existential problem without taking into account far more important criteria. The issue of insulation seems almost ludicrous when one considers that just 10% of the energy lost by a house is through its walls.

There are simply more important aspects - ventilation habits, for example. They play a more decisive role that the walls.

The technologisation and digitisation of our world is having a rather dubious effect on the architecture and technology content of buildings. This can be clearly seen at Berlin Brandenburg airport, where the fire prevention measures have reached proportions that are no longer rational. The side-effect of these supposed safety features, or rather safety mania, is ballooning construction costs and nonsensical requirements that excessively limit the freedom of the architect when it comes to designing the interior spaces. And this isn‘t just something that affects major projects.

It even touches on our private lives. To put it bluntly, a new building today is a technological system around which the architect merely builds a decorative shell. The actual

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 45

essence of architecture is being steadily pushed into the background in the wake of this technologisation. And this is neither helpful for the technology nor for the architecture. And most certainly not for the people - they tend to get annoyed when this mass of technology doesn‘t work properly, which it often doesn‘t.

With regard to this technology craze you describe: What will interior spaces look like in the year 2030? Will we still be living comfortably and conveniently when everything is wired and networked together?

I don‘t want to paint a disturbing dystopic picture, but to exaggerate somewhat, the way things are going, we could end up with people living in capsules. That we end up using our homes like a shelf that we slide ourselves into for storage, so to speak.

If you take a look at cities today, people are living in bachelor pads, everyone separately. The things I need for a sense of wellbeing are no longer in my apartment; I look for them in the Internet, on the computer screen. Nowadays, even coffee is ordered „to go“ - coffee isn‘t made at home any more, you get it elsewhere and drink it on the go. While staring at your iPhone. One can‘t help wondering what implications this has for urban spaces when people today just spend their time gazing at small screens in order to feel better.

How then is this dystopia consistent with the Renaissance of the older buildings that we are currently experiencing in the cities?

Every development has its countermovement. People realise that all the technology and industrialisation still leaves them wanting. There is a discernible trend: the demand for aesthetics and values is playing a role once again, albeit a small one. The period buildings are admonishers from a time gone by, and play a major role in our overly technologised society. All of a sudden you realise that architecture is far from being just an ancillary technical service. This has much to do with common sense. A sensible life isn‘t one that‘s suffused with technology, but reduced. A sensible way of living means focusing on the essentials. It‘s a form of smart simplicity that distinguishes the sensible lifestyle. And the fact that we need to be more modest in many respects can be discerned not least from the ever dwindling resources we have available.

And by this I mean not only energy, but time also.

46 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

» WE‘RE DESPARATELY SEARCHING FOR WAYS TO ACHIEVE A NEGLIGIBLE OUTCOME FROM INSANE AMOUNTS OF EFFORT. THE FACT THAT I CAN CONTROL MY CENTRAL HEATING OR WINDOWS VIA A SMARTPHONE THANKS TO THE EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE BUILDING IS SURELY NOT THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEMS.

«

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 47

But is the technology that affords comfort not a way to save time too?

That depends entirely on how one adapts oneself to it, how one interacts with it, what the overarching benefit is. I myself perceive buildings that use excessive amounts of technology as unfamiliar. As hostile. The thought that in a new building packed with technology I‘m able to do practically nothing myself, am powerless within my own four walls, scares me. You can see it in the architecture - the parts are preassembled, pre-manufactured cladding installed in whole pieces. I can‘t do anything for myself, can‘t repair the window myself, can‘t control the technology myself, I‘m pretty much at the mercy of the products and comfort features. The technology is denying me freedom. It may still be OK in an office for the facility manager to take care of everything and the modern control system to regulate everything for me. After all, I want to work there, not live. But to be at the mercy of the system in one‘s own home is a horrifying prospect.

This is a trend against which there‘s fortunately a counter-movement. There are people who don‘t want this insanity, who consider being able to control the domestic heating system from the car abnormal. Even if this attitude seems somewhat medieval - it‘s right. Because all this networking only results in us losing the ability to focus on the essential, on the moment.

Do you think that home automation will develop further in this respect, that things will become even easier? Or will things tend to just get more complicated?

I don‘t really keep up with the developments to be frank. Nowadays, you can have your automated sun blinds, your technology for controlling ventilation and temperature. That‘s just how it is. These are the standard convenience features that make your life easier and that no one wants to give up. But despite all this technology, the building process itself is admittedly still rather archaic. It still involves things being assembled and put together. I don‘t believe that we‘ll ever have complete houses produced by a 3D printer. That‘s no alternative for classic architecture, for construction.

I do, however, believe that sooner or later our way of life will rediscover far greater simplicity, including when it comes to interior spaces. That the technology will come up against its natural limits. At some point we recognise that Orwellian moment.

When that happens, technology will be governed by reason and we will know how

48 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

to precisely differentiate between the service rendered, the comfort and the excessive and oppressive aspects of the technology.

Are architects not under an obligation to petition for this reason? At least when it comes to living in the space.

Of course, the architect also plays a role as admonisher. I don‘t see us as the high priests of the future, though. Particularly since there are certain things we can‘t really influence. The high level of dynamism in the industry, for example, that continually develops new products and solutions as a result of pressure to generate growth. An architect didn‘t invent the concept of the „smart home“; that was something the industry came up with. And one should consider whether this networking is good or bad for us.

» PEOPLE ARE BEING LED TO BELIEVE THAT A POLAR BEAR COULD SLIP OFF AN ICE FLOE IF THEY DON‘T INSTALL INSULATION IMMEDIATELY.

« Naturally, this doesn‘t mean that we architects are backward-looking preventers of progress - if that were the case, we wouldn‘t have electric lighting in our rooms today.

But we need to distinguish between real progress and simply using technology for the sake of it. If we consider engineering and technology in a reasonable manner, then it‘s manageable and beneficial for us. The problem is that industrial developments are not always driven by reason. But mostly by fear. You can see that happening today.

Take the smoke detector, for example, which is now mandatory in all apartments - this is a product that‘s currently being forced on the market, even though it‘s not really necessary. But a fire could break out, and this is of course a scary prospect that you don‘t wish for. It‘s these scare tactics that are behind the structural insulated panel too. The

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 49

issue is being turned into a bone fide ideology and people are being led to believe that a polar bear could slip off an ice floe if they don‘t install insulation immediately.

But this is neither reasonable nor the solution to the problem. The causes of climatic change are not poorly insulated walls, but our fundamental attitude towards energy consumption. In many respects, we‘re far too unreasonable, too wasteful with energy.

Take the coffee in its paper cup with plastic cover that the city dweller treats himself to each morning when he drives to work in his car - this is far more wasteful of energy than the non-insulated walls of a period building. But no-one from industry talks about how much energy we actually consume. There‘s no money to be made by doing that.

Are you saying you wouldn‘t want to renovate period buildings to make them Symbol of a wasteful society: Accord-

more energy efficient?

ing to the Aral Coffee Survey 2013, around 3 out of 4 Germans prefer

Only to an extent that makes sense. One has to bear in mind that the Gründerzeit

their coffee on the go. The irony is that

buildings, the much sought-after period buildings, have in part been around for over

nearly one-third of the coffee drinkers

150 years. This is true architectural sustainability. You would have to calculate how

attach especially high value to the coffee having a sustainability certificate.

Hardly anyone reflects on the ecological footprint associated with this type of coffee consumption, however.

much energy such a building actually saves - and by this I don‘t just mean when in use, but also relating to its construction, maintenance and life cycle. As a general rule: If I don‘t have to demolish something because it‘s good just the way it is, that‘s already more sustainable that the technical excesses being used to sell us sustainability. And in terms of architecture and construction, there‘s hardly anything that can top these period buildings.

When I look at the new houses in the city suburbs built using structural insulated panels, which can hardly be considered durable and will have to be demolished at some point in time, I wonder what the eventual consequences will be. After all, it‘s hazardous waste that must be disposed of in something like a nuclear waste repository. We architects will have to again assume the role of admonisher and insofar as possible restrain this undesirable development. We can‘t do much to prevent it, however, because we‘re now bound by the provisions of the „EnEv“ (Energy Efficiency Ordinance). But that doesn‘t mean we have to push the issue. I consider it the responsibility of independent architects in particular to counter this engineering trend.

Because it‘s above all the independent architects that have a duty to build something that meets all expectations - primarily the technical ones nowadays. But a building doesn‘t survive due to technology, but good planning.

50 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

» THAT WE HAVE TO AGAIN AND AGAIN ALLOW OUR HANDS TO BE TIED WHEN IT COMES TO THE GOOD, SENSIBLE AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN OF SPACES IS UNACCEPTABLE.

« A well-planned building is the ultimate manifestation of sustainability - this has nothing to do with thermal insulation, but the ability and stance of the architect. This doesn‘t mean that the architect always has to play a leading role in construction - but that we have to again and again allow our hands to be tied and our efforts frustrated when it comes to the good, sensible and sustainable design of spaces just because a supposedly technical solution is able to satisfy scarcely comprehensible demands is unacceptable. In this respect, we‘ve forgotten that our duty as architects is to meaningfully integrate solutions without destroying the essence of the architecture in the process.

The consequences of waving through every regulatory requirement can be seen, for instance, in barrier-free construction. If you build something suitable for wheelchair access today, you have no more staircases or steps, but ramps and elevators instead.

I‘m not saying that we shouldn‘t design wheelchair-accessible buildings; we need to do that. But if we were to design many of the most important architectural highlights from our history according to today‘s requirements, they wouldn‘t be highlights any more. They would be missing staircases, for example. You could no longer build a Greek temple today. What remains of aesthetic quality, of intangible value?

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 51

Does this mean that the reverse applies, i.e. that we sacrifice quality and a sense of value in favour of comfort?

From a philosophical point of view, absolutely. If you look at new buildings today, they usually only consists of a concrete structure into which an elevator has been integrated. A standardised façade is put around it and the building is finished. Basically, the architect just chooses a colour and the engineers take care of everything else. I‘m exaggerating, of course, but it‘s not that far removed from reality.

In principle, I‘d have nothing against a reasonable and well-thought-out basic structure on which to build. This is where I see the superior quality of the BDA architects who are able to control such processes and still produce aesthetically excellent designs despite all the regulations. Such a structure could have been used to salvage a thing or two in our suburbs - particularly with regard to the cladding on the buildings there. But we‘ve somehow lost the instinct, the eye for sound aesthetics, for something essential like quality and value in architecture. Worse still, the sense of responsibility that one should have when it comes to building seems to no longer be present. While there are some small-scale movements that involve themselves with the development of energetically sound solutions, these are generally rather minor things that don‘t accomplish much. I see the responsibility when it comes to such issues resting more with the universities - it‘s the duty of the educational system to advance the topic of responsible building. But instead of teaching something as important as this, we spend our time desperately searching for ways to achieve a negligible outcome from insane amounts of effort. The fact that I can control my central heating or windows via a smartphone thanks to the excessive amount of technology used in its construction is surely not the solution to our present and future problems.

What duty does the window and ventilation industry have in the debate on energy efficiency? After all, the window is commonly regarded as the weak spot when it comes to energy loss. Won‘t it require developments that meet both the architectural quality demands and building physics standards?

IcI find the term „weak spot“ already rather telling. The challenge of sensible planning is always to balance out weak spots. I have to get to grips with the weak spots during the planning phase in order to reach the best possible compromise in the end.

52 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Windows have a particularly tricky role to fill. They are the eyes of the building; they let light and air into the space. So they really can‘t be large enough. But instead of trying to find a solution that‘s compatible with the key function a window has for the quality of the space, they get reduced in size. Or they‘re built so they can‘t be opened any more. It‘s ridiculous. Window technology has admittedly made leaps and bounds with regard to energy efficiency, but windows are now so well insulated thanks to all the regulations that they no longer allow for air to be exchanged. While this does indeed lead to cost savings, it also results in mould and mildew - and it‘s absurd when what is in fact a well-intended solution results in people getting sick. As with all solutions, innovations and technologies, and with regulatory provisions too, it‘s the extent or degree that‘s important. Weak spots can likewise only be compensated for to a sensible degree. After all, what good does it do me to have the best insulated house, which always remains at a constant temperature, if it ends up making me sick because I catch a cold when I go outside?

Is there even such a thing as the ideal room in view of all these obstacles and problems? What would it look like?

There‘s no standardised ideal - the perfect room depends on the assignment the architect is given. And each assignment is different. Designing rooms is a quest: I‘m searching for the optimum structural, functional and aesthetic design. As such, it involves compromise as with weak spots - this also applies when it comes to the topic of windows and ventilation. The important thing is to develop a sense of perspective and as mentioned, to take a sensible approach to the matter at hand. In this regard, I can only repeat my appeal to my colleagues: that they educate themselves further, keep learning and draw on the best of what they‘ve learned - to find the optimum solution for the task they‘re presented with. That‘s actually what makes our profession exciting too. I don‘t mean to sound conceited, but we play an indispensible role in the construction industry. The architect is a generalist and provides a sense of balance; he‘s responsible for achieving a balance between the individual trades on site, the needs of the stakeholders and the individual standpoints.

Mildew caused by external thermal insulation composite systems. Critics accuse the development of being senseless, since the harm caused to the building, the residents and the environment is usually greater than the short-term benefit provided by the insulation. These systems are still prescribed nevertheless.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 53

If the architect is tasked with building responsibly, keeping a sense of balance and allowing reason to prevail: wouldn‘t you also have to approach the manufacturing industry to discuss the relevance of certain products?

It‘s difficult to approach the manufacturing industry. How would you go about it? It would result in conflicts of interest developing. I can‘t issue a ban on the industry‘s products. We mustn‘t overlook the fact that insulation is not in and of itself unreasonable. The issue here is the overstated manner, the excessive degree to which it is being pushed. The architect is obliged to bear the issue in mind and implement measures as appropriate. Or put another way, only push undesirable developments to the extent required. He must, however, abide by the laws and regulations. Ultimately, it‘s down to society and the market itself to boycott certain developments. This doesn‘t mean that architects couldn‘t approach the industry with constructive suggestions, though.

Just that their dialogue with industry tends to be limited to discussions on how to implement designs, on aesthetic proportions, on the design of door handles - not on the major technical characteristics of a space, on quality or on function. We could provide more input here.

What is your relationship to the room?

I feel at ease in rooms. Rooms are something positive. I take delight in beautiful rooms. Rooms have an elemental quality for me. Man has been reliant on the room since time immemorial. In the beginning, he used the room to offer protection against the dangers of the outside world. Eventually we discovered the enhancing, enriching effect of the room - similar to clothing that originally served only to protect us against the cold and harsh weather, and later through design became an outward expression of our personality. Rooms have gone through a similar evolution - that‘s why I consider it the job of the architect to become involved in this development. Especially nowadays, when we‘re increasingly seeing mediocrity and a reduction in the potential the room has. I think that many people are being deprived of experiencing the true beauty and power of a room. Architects have this wonderful responsibility of showing people what is conceivable and possible in a room. To get the most out of a room.

They must, however, remain reasonable and modest in the process. This is the function of the architect.

54 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

WE WANT THE ABILITY TO CLOSE A DOOR BEHIND US. BECAUSE WE DON‘T WANT TO ALLOW EVERYONE IN. THE TRADITIONAL DOOR OFFERS AN ELEMENT OF PRIVACY THAT ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DO NOT. STEPHAN GÜNZEL

Virtual room in the computer game Second Life.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 55

Luxury is retreating into a room.

Room comfort means: Cosiness despite technology.

SIEGENIA Room Visions in conversation with Prof. Dr. Stephan G端nzel, media theorist and expert on spatial theory

Stephan G端nzel has a doctorate in philosophy and qualified as a lecturer for media and cultural studies in 2011. Since then, he has been working as professor for media theory at the Berliner Technischen Kunsthochschule [Berlin Technical University of the Arts]. G端nzel is an expert in the field of spatial theory. He has held visiting professorships in spatial science (Humboldt University of Berlin) and the history of spatial science (University of Trier) and has published anthologies and reference books on the subjects. One of his specialist areas is the room in computer games.

Whether this differs greatly from our living spaces and how the media expert assesses the future of room comfort are the subjects covered in our conversation.

56 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Prof. Günzel, given your area of expertise: what is your relationship to the room?

My relationship to the room is largely a philosophical one. It‘s based on spatial terms and concepts and the questions they give rise to: is a room restricted or extended, how does the person relate to this room, is it being seen in a new light or was it always there? To be precise, I‘m most interested in the design and creation of spaces as it happens in the design field. Especially the design of computer games - this is where one has the greatest possible freedom for room design since the laws of physics governing physical spaces don‘t apply. In addition to this, I work together with designers on real spaces too, because I‘m interested in outdoor spaces and facades.

How do you explain the fact that the rooms in computer games and virtual worlds are not so different from the rooms we live in - despite the fact that one has every conceivable freedom in the virtual world?

The reason is that, for many years, designers found it desirable to make duplicates of

Second Life is an online 3D infrastructure for virtual worlds and habitats designed by users, where humans are able to interact, play, do business and otherwise communicate using avatars. Since going live in 2003, the system now has around 36 million registered user accounts

the real world. For a long time, the virtual world was a replica of the real one - the

and there are usually between

same is true for the room. It‘s only recently that people also started to design „impos-

30,000 and 65,000 users online

sible“ rooms. This virtual representation of reality is still what one most often sees in

at any given time.

computer games though. This is due, amongst other things, to the fact that, for us as humans, the subjective aspects of the room are set. We have the ability from birth to orient ourselves in whatever space we find ourselves in - it doesn‘t matter whether we‘re moving in the game or in real space, we always orient ourselves the same way, namely as we‘ve learned to. We often project this personal perception of reality that we naturally possess onto the virtual space.

Keyword reality: In many science fiction movies, such as Alien, Kubrick‘s 2001 or Star Trek, the doors in the living space open and close completely automatically.

The same is true for computer games. How do you explain the fact that this vision has not been realised in our homes?

That‘s pretty easy to explain: we don‘t want it. We want the ability to close a door behind us. Because we don‘t want to allow everyone to get in. Of course, developments such as the automatic door are available for use in private homes, controlled for instance by an eye scanner or chip in the smartphone - but this is a disconcerting

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 57

idea that conjures up thoughts of a big brother state that we don‘t really want. The traditional door offers an element of privacy that electronic systems don‘t.

Is this element of privacy decreasing noticeably in light of the smart home developments? Considering the speed with which this trend is becoming established, everything has to be automatic.

A traditional door isn‘t necessarily counter to an increase in room comfort. One could, of course, imagine having voice-controlled doors - these are innovations that already exist in part. But the development of the smart-home is really less about technical facilitation and more about making it easier to manage information sources. Devices will nevertheless keep getting smarter and more automated. They‘re becoming mini computers.

» THERE WILL STILL BE A GREAT NUMBER OF OBJECTS IN THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT OF THE FUTURE THAT ARE NOT CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET, BUT RATHER REFLECT THE TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF LIVING.

« There will nevertheless still be a great number of objects in the living environment of the future that are not connected to the Internet, but rather reflect the traditional concept of living. It wouldn‘t make any sense to equip a sofa with a chip in the first place. Unless it were for the kind of therapeutic purposes we‘re familiar with from the car - such as the sofa storing the seating position. Or if the bed automatically adjusts itself to how I need it. The sofa and bed, as well as the window and the door will nevertheless still be valued as durable objects in the future - and not as technological elements.

58 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

So we won‘t live to see automated, fully networked period buildings in 15 to 30 years time then?

Certain science fiction scenarios, such as in Stanley Kubrick‘s film 2001, already became a reality long ago. But on a different level than you‘re talking about. Using video phones to communicate at long distance while still having a sense of closeness has already become a reality. It hasn‘t found its way into the room, however, but is on computers and smartphones. And even this is just one possibility, one element - the devices are universal tools with which I can do a whole lot more. I can well imagine that although we won‘t necessarily end up with a fully networked living space, we‘ll still have more screens than today. But only where it involves functionality that is actually good for something. Where it concerns tools. A touch screen for the cooker or refrigerator that shows me what‘s in it and what I still need to buy is quite conceivable - and indeed has already been developed to some extent.

So, there‘s no vision of touch screens on doors or windows?

As a rule, the application of technology is determined not by its feasibility, but through our affinity with the computer. And that will increase, because the younger generations, the „digital natives“, have grown up with computers. For them, it‘s completely natural. Another aspect is the fact that in the wake of increasing gentrification in the cities, new housing will be unaffordable for all but a very few of us. So your fallback position is the period building, because you can‘t afford the high-tech apartment you‘d actually prefer to live in as a digital person. Then again, I see a causal connection here for why in the future we‘ll be surrounded by more and more screens even in existing building stock. That may eventually even find its way into windows and doors.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 59

How, in your opinion, has the room evolved in light of this technical evolution?

The interesting thing is that although the room hasn‘t evolved in the immediate living environment, it has in our life. When you observe people today, you notice that the pace we live our lives has increased dramatically. People want to get from a to b much faster, and are no longer conscious of spatial distance in terms of a kilometres, but rather in time. The minutes and hours they need are more important than the kilometres driven. This acceleration has made it increasingly natural for us to move through time in different spatial structures. Our communication media have played a big part in this. There‘s nothing magical or frightening about making a telephone call nowadays - that is, to form a relationship with one another even though we‘re actually very far apart. This is something we now take for granted. The same applies to what we experience on the computer too. Consider the social networks - while they may still be being touted as something novel, in essence they‘re just the technological recognition of the fact that we delegate the social environment we already live in in reality to a medium. The interesting thing about this development is that through these media we create new space - and it‘s growing. This may also be a consequence of the pressure arising from our shrinking living environment.

But isn‘t that a very urban way of looking at things? This room substitute isn‘t needed in rural areas.

I don‘t think that the kind of rurality that you refer to even exists in rural areas any more.

I suspect that even in the countryside we live in urban structures. Or at least attempt to create them there. This idyll of rural tranquillity is in conflict with the demand for networking and broadband connections. The rural tranquillity is probably a rather unwelcome development that‘s found in places where demographic change sets in and the space is no longer inhabited.

60 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

» MAYBE IT‘S A SIGN OF THE TIMES TOO: THAT NOWADAYS THE LUXURY OF A ROOM IS DEFINED BY THE ABILITY TO WITHDRAW FROM THE WORLD OF REACHABILITY.

«

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 61

Based on your extensive grasp of the topic of space: how would you define room comfort?

Put simply, I‘d say having enough space for me to spread out, to expand into the space, to put things there. And that the space fulfils my social needs, enables me to invite people round. For me, another factor would be accessibility - a space that‘s difficult to access is not necessarily convenient. Another essential factor is the atmosphere, what we commonly refer to as cosiness. It‘s a highly subjective thing, of course, since everyone has his own personal preferences, and it makes a difference for everyone whether the room is light or dark, empty or packed with objects, hot or pleasantly cool.

»

COMFORT IS A PRODUCT OF BEING ABLE TO CONFIGURE THE SPACE AS ONE WISHES.

« But perhaps comfort is not determined by these preferences, but rather the ability to set up the space as one wishes. That is doubtless an unconscious aspect, but this freedom is also an element of room comfort. And how easy a space is to use also contributes to room comfort, of course.

Is there a distinction to be made between the real room and the room in the computer? Do rooms in computer games have other comfort characteristics?

Experience with virtual worlds, such as Second Life, has shown that players like to implement the preferences they have in the so-called „meatspace“, i.e. in the real world, in our real space, in the computer too. And most of all, being able to furnish rooms there in a way that might not even be feasible in reality due to lack of resources or opportunities. It‘s a kind of fulfilment substitute. There are also people who really do feel very comfortable in absolutely awful-looking rooms, and they live the same way in the virtual world.

62 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

Games such as The Sims, Second Life and Sim City make a great deal of the fact that you can set up the space as you desire - and it‘s precisely for this reason that they hold such a great fascination for us. Where does that come from? Why do we get so much pleasure from furnishing virtual rooms?

Arranging one‘s living space is part of our fundamental human nature. This is not just a cultural habit, but an evolutionary, a biological one. It‘s quite possible that it‘s something we‘ve inherited from our animal ancestors - they set up home too; they look for a place where they can settle down, make the space snug and cosy, and from there, mark out a territory in which they can hunt. This is not dissimilar to what humans do, and it‘s a behaviour we can‘t divest ourselves of. As a result, man has a natural need to design interior space.

If the urge to design interior space is natural: How does that fit in with the technical developments affecting architecture and the construction industry? Are the two concepts even compatible if we have a biologically-driven yearning for cosiness?

There are indeed a few areas of conflict. Time and again there are fortuitous periods in architecture when architects try to build for the people. But it often remains just an attempt, because it‘s difficult to realise such projects today under the countless and sometimes contradictory standards and regulations. It‘s very rare for architecture to concern itself with the well-being of people completely irrespective of technical developments. They would either be experiments or the result of a dogmatic background, as can be seen with Hundertwasser‘s buildings. But this happens less and less, because the regulations, and above all the money, take precedent. But this doesn‘t mean that there aren‘t any counter-movements. Luckily, the humanistic tradition, which architecture knows very well, is not just about functionality, but places for people, occasionally raises its head. Although I believe that it will decline further in future, not least because of the pressure that architects are under.

Humanistic architecture in the style of Hundertwasser: For the artists and architects, the priority was the well-being of the people, not the function.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 63

What would have to change?

I think we need to increase the prominence of the room. A crucial word in the process is „deceleration“. We‘re subject to immense time pressure when it comes to realising construction projects today. The pace ought to be reduced somewhat, particularly with a view to sustainability, with a view to the housing shortage in the cities, with a view to the development of society. And allow oneself some time to reflect beforehand on what one is actually building. Some citizen‘s action groups, which end up delaying construction projects, could have been obviated if one had sat down together with the local residents beforehand and jointly considered what implications the project would have in terms of room comfort. What impact it has on parameters such as reachability and quality of living itself.

What would your ideal room look like?

My ideal room would be at a very comfortable temperature, have a huge terrace and lots of outdoor space that‘s in relation to the interior. It would give me the freedom to choose who I make contact with, both in the virtual and real world. Those would be the comfort parameters of the space that I‘d feel comfortable in. I wouldn‘t have a phone or computer in my ideal room, however. But maybe that‘s a sign of the times too: that the luxury of a space today is defined by the ability to withdraw from the world of reachability.

64 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

ROOM COMFORT IN THE FUTURE IS NOT CHARACTERISED BY OVERLY TECHNOLOGICAL VISIONS, BUT RATHER BY THE FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE.

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 65

Conclusion: The future of the room involves a desire for old values.

Admittedly: The time horizon that we‘ve set for developing a vision of the room in the year 2030 is short. 15 years go by quickly. And despite this, we can see that the speed with which technology evolves and enters our everyday lives is leading to a return to old values. Whether media theorist or famous architect: throughout the conversations we conducted in the course of this publication, it was clear that people yearn for stability, for quality of life, for cosiness, for rationality, for the old, traditional values. And that this yearning will grow in the future.

What was abundantly clear is the call for more restraint on the part of industry when it comes to the development of new technologies. And that the technology must learn to take into account the fundamental needs of the people. It follows that room comfort in the future will not be characterised by overly technological visions, but rather the fundamental needs of the people. The need for security, for company, for closeness, for light, for air, for peace and quiet, for living.

These are needs that will grow thanks primarily to the increasing application of technology. And satisfying them is becoming more difficult under the regulatory mania of legislators and associations - something else that was made clear on a number of occasions.

The development of a heightened appreciation for values is nothing new; this can be seen most clearly in the discussions on sustainability and values in recent years. Yet what has to a certain extent already been acknowledged and incorporated into everyday items, such as products and consumer goods, still seems to be of little consequence in the fields of architecture, construction and building services. As such, one can only hope that over the next 15 years, those working in these industries come to realise that the value of a space can no longer be just a quantitative parameter. It must also be a qualitative parameter. One that is ultimately influenced by the technology and room comfort too.

66 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

About SIEGENIA and the vision of room comfort You might rightly wonder why we, as a manufacturer of windows, doors and room comfort system, suddenly come up with the idea of discussing the future of the living and work space with architects and academics. For us, it‘s obvious: in our over 100-year history, we‘ve never thought of ourselves simply as a supplier of technical products. But more a developer of solutions.

Every solution is a response to a problem. Whether at the present time we really have problems when it comes to the design, construction and ultimately the use of living and work space that need to be solved is a matter of opinion. In light of the discussions being held on the energy efficiency and sustainability of buildings and the technology incorporated into them, on the impact of demographic change, on the increasing digitisation of our daily lives, we most certainly do believe that many solutions are still required in order to improve our living space in the future.

A window fitting cannot, of course, counteract the ageing population and isolation in our society, and a ventilation system alone cannot, of course, slow climate change. But by intelligently combining them with window, door and control systems, these products evolve into solutions that can make a contribution to improving people‘s lives.

The central concept behind SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS is founded on the question of what determines the comfort of a room. In answering it, we make a conscious distinction between living comfort and room comfort. Because it‘s fairly easy to furnish an apartment or an office comfortably using furniture, floor

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 67

coverings, paint and electronic devices. But that doesn‘t mean that the space itself is comfortable. And that one would feel content being in it in the long term.

The products for which we supply solutions make a contribution to room comfort.

Being able to easily and safely operate windows and doors to allow fresh air to get in and keep distracting noises out, may at first glance seem to be banal physical activities that nobody consciously thinks about. But for us, they are essential functions of a room. They give rooms life. And the easier, more effective and obvious these functions are, the more comfortable and liveable the room seems to us. The more at ease we feel in it.

The size of a window, the correct ventilation in a room, the ease with which large window and door elements can be operated, the precision with which the building services systems can be controlled - these are all ostensibly technical comfort features that can make our lives easier. But the products that allow this kind of comfort are much more in our opinion. They are the adjustment screws that can help in mastering the current and future challenges associated with the construction of buildings, with living, with reducing energy consumption and with the preservation of values. Challenges we tackle each day anew in partnership with developers, architects, planners and engineers. To sustainably increase not only the comfort of a space, but quality of life too.

68 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 69

CONTACT Contact for press relations and publications: SIEGENIA-AUBI KG Katja Schreiber Head of marketing communications Tel.: +49 271 3931-353 Email: katja.schreiber@siegenia.com Contact for architects: SIEGENIA-AUBI KG Stephan Stoll Tel.: +49 271 3931-184 Email: architektur@siegenia.com

PHOTO CREDITS Page 1, photocase.com / soundboy, page 4, 2001: A Space Odysee ©1968 MGM, page 8, Blinkideluxe / photocase.de, page 18, Johnson Wax Corporation Building Interior from second floor balcony, at 1525 Howe Street, Racine, Racine County, WI., Jack Boucher 1969, page 28, Kranhäuser Köln, Wo st 01/Wikipedia, under creative commons license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.de), page 42, Flickr.com, Stig Nygaard Copenhagen Metro “street shot” under creative commons license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.de), page 54, screenshot from Second Live / Quan Lavender, page 64, Pudelek (Marcin Szala), Velna ala (Devil‘s Cave) - inside, under creative commons license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.de), page 6, SIEGENIA-AUBI KG, page 9, Oliver Elser, page 10, Dutch National Archives, The Hague, Fotocollectie Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau (ANeFo), 1945-1989, under creative commons license, page 12, Smart Price House, Bel. Sozietät für Architektur, page 14 2226, be baumschlauer eberle, page 19, Photographer Bernd Möller, page 20, Mies van der Rohe Pavillon under creative commons license, page 21, Frank Lloyd Wright under creative commons license, page 24, SIEGENIA-AUBI KG, page 29, Hadi Teherani, Roger Mandt, Hamburg, page 33, Dockland Hamburg, creative commons license, page 38, flickr.com, Bean bags at Google Developer Day 2007, kentbrew, under creative commons license, page 43, Kaspar Kraemer, page 49, Coffee Cup, Justin, under creative commons license, page 52, under creative commons license, page 55, Stephan Günzel, page 56, screenshot from Second Life under creative commons license, page 62, Hundertwasser Village, stregatta75, under creative commons license.

EDITORS Marco Petracca, Andreas Franke COPYRIGHT © SIEGENIA 2014 All of the strategies, concepts and conclusions contained in this PDF are the exclusive intellectual property of SIEGENIA and the respective interviewees (except as stated in the references) and protected by copyright. We would like to thank Prof. Johannes Kister, Oliver Elser, Hadi Teherani, Kapsar Krämer, and Prof. Dr. Stephan Günzel for their support.

IMPRINT SIEGENIA-AUBI KG, Industriestraße 1 - 3, 57234 Wilnsdorf-Niederdielfen Limited partnership, personally liable partner: Wieland Frank, Registered office: Wilnsdorf, Court of registration: Amtsgericht Siegen, HRA 3741

ROOM VISIONS 2030 THE ROOM COMFORT OF THE FUTURE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EXPERTS. A VISION. © SIEGENIA 2014