Designs for a Refugee Shelter Rooftop by Toby Parsloe

DESIGNS FOR A REFUGEE SHELTER ROOFTOP ENTWÜRFE FÜR EINE DACHTERRASSE EINER FLÜCHTLINGSUNTERKUNFT Wannsee Summer School Zum Heckeshorn Refugee Shelter Berlin 2019 University of Cambridge Technische Universität Berlin

Designs for a Refugee Shelter Rooftop Toby Parsloe Jordan Berta Gabor Suranyi 25th-31st August 2019 University of Cambridge, UK Technische Universität Berlin, Germany Funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, UK Translation: Joshua Alcañiz © 2020 Toby Parsloe, All Rights Reserved Toby Parsloe, Pembroke College, Centre for Urban Conflicts Research, Department of Architecture, University of Cambridge, toby.parsloe@cantab.net

Pictures and drawings by participating students

Special Thanks: Vladimir Bondarenko, Bondarenko Videography Inga Eumann, Mittelhof e.V. Habitat Unit, Technische Universität Berlin Monika Hebbinghaus, Landesamt für Flüchtlingsangelegenheiten (LAF) Mark Kruse, Christlichen Jugenddorfwerk Deutschlands e.V. (CJD) Katja Langguth, Christlichen Jugenddorfwerk Deutschlands e.V. (CJD) The family of Brian Riley The Rt. Hon. Lord Smith of Finsbury, Pembroke College Cambridge Dr Alistair Swiffen, University of Cambridge Martin Then, Landesamt für Flüchtlingsangelegenheiten (LAF) Katharina Triebel, Christlichen Jugenddorfwerk Deutschlands e.V. (CJD)

This booklet is dedicated to the residents of the Zum Heckeshorn Erstaufnahmeeinrichtung and all people in the world who find themselves in situations of displacement.

CONTENTS Abstract Kurzfassung................................................................ 4 I. BACKGROUND

On Migration to Europe........................................................... 12

On Refugees in Berlin............................................................. 18

Literature Review..................................................................... 24

Wannsee, Zum Heckeshorn Refugee Shelter......................... 26

II. PROCESS Programme.............................................................................. 36

Tours and References............................................................. 58

III. DESIGN AND INSTALLATION

Design Proposals.................................................................... 76

Installation/Intervention........................................................... 82 IV. CLOSING REMARKS

Closing Remarks Schlusswort.............................................. 106

ABSTRACT KURZFASSUNG When research concerns the lives of displaced people, the lines become ambiguous between academia, where research is gathered and synthesized, and activism, where research is implemented towards the benefit of vulnerable or suppressed people. As academics and designers, we are inherently eager to propose “improvements” to the status quo. When studying displacement, this status quo is typically impersonal and top-down, with broad housing strategies borne out of the apparent immediateness of physical needs. The underlying tension of the project Designs for a Refugee Shelter Rooftop grapples with how bottom-up and collaborative academic architectural actions could instead lead to potentially beneficial built interventions within our subjects of study. This project is an attempt to physically manifest this challenge: the dialogue between ideas and ideals that we create; and how potential interventions will actually perform when working to benefit the very real lives experiencing specific problems which constitute our so-called “research subjects.” The project serves to contextualise our relative positions, but also simultaneously seek out potential opportunities to work within the spaces of forced displacement. We must realise our

Wenn sich die Wissenschaft dem Leben geflüchteter Menschen widmet, verschwimmen die Grenzen zwischen Wissenschaft – das heißt, dem Bestreben Erfahrungen zu sammeln und zu synthetisieren – und Aktivismus – also den Handlungen zugunsten eben dieser schutzbedürftiger Menschen. Wir als Akademiker*innen und Designer*innen sind bestrebt, Hypothesen zur Verbesserung des Status Quo aufzustellen. Die Spannungen, die hierbei zwischen Top-Down-Entscheidungen aufgrund dringend benötigter Lösungen zur Begegnung der Unterkunftsknappheit und inklusiven Bottom-Up-Ansätzen, die individuelle Bedürfnisse wahrnehmen und berücksichtigen, entstehen, sollen in dem Projekt Designs for a Refugee Shelter Rooftop erkannt und bearbeitet werden. Das Projekt wird sich der Herausforderung stellen, zwischen Ideen und Idealen zu vermitteln und dabei den Mensch und seine Erfahrungen in den Fokus zu rücken. Mit Blick auf unsere privilegierte Position als Akademiker*innen sollen darüber alle uns verfügbaren Ressourcen identifiziert und nutzbar gemacht werden. Dazu zählen unter anderem die Etablierung von Netzwerken sowie die Ausarbeitung komplexer Theorien in Bezug auf die spezielle Situation geflüchteter Menschen.

Former hospital building now operating as the “Zum Heckeshorn” refugee shelter

F. Schmidt, “Wannsee: In Alter Lungenklinik Sollen Bald 1500 Flüchtlinge Leben,” Berliner Zeitung, 18 December 2015. 8

power, and obvious privilege, to mobilise the theories, networks, and resources available to us to facilitate potentially positive collaborations. The academic nature of the project is a fundamental tenet that provides expanded possibilities: there is greater operative scope with fewer political, budgetary, or ideological constraints than those faced by governmental apparatus, NGOs, and refugee shelter operators. There is a comparative freedom provided by the intellectual, theoretical, and educational. However, this freedom does not provide an excuse for hubris. Instead, it mobilizes that ever-present privilege to engage in broader architectural questions of forced migration and act upon them in ways that mitigate injustice and promote humanity.

Der akademische Ansatz des Projekts ermöglicht uns größere Freiheit, als die staatliche Institutionen, NGOs und Betreiber der Unterkünfte im Rahmen ihrer ideologischen, politischen und manchmal finanziellen Einschränkungen. Diese Freiheiten, gegeben unter anderem durch den intellektuellen und theoretischen Anspruch des Projekts als universitäre Lehrveranstaltung, sollten jedoch nicht den Blick auf das Wesentliche verstellen. Vielmehr sollten wir diese nutzen, um komplexen architektonischen Fragestellungen erzwungener Miration mit Vorschlägen zu begegnen, die Gemeinschaft formen und Humanität fördern.

PARTICIPANT INFORMATION

TEILNEHMER

The project materialised as a collaborative architectural summer school between students at the University of Cambridge and the Technische Universität Berlin (TU). Twenty-six students were selected to create a diverse group of architects, sociologists, urban planners, urban designers, and urban theorists. They were tasked with designing and building a spatial intervention in one of Berlin’s institutional shelters for refugees. The process was held as a collaboration between the entire group with an active refugee shelter in Berlin. The institution’s administration participated in advising the design brief, offered valuable insights into the functioning and everyday life of the shelter, and provided support throughout the project.

Das Projekt entstand als kollaborative Summer School der University of Cambridge und der Technischen Universität Berlin in Kooperation mit einer Flüchtlingsunterkunft in Berlin Wannsee. Es sah den Entwurf und Bau einer räumlichen Intervention innerhalb der Unterkunft vor. Die Unterkunftsverwaltung war an der Ausarbeitung des Projektentwurfs beteiligt und unterstützte die 26 ausgewählten Student*innen – angehende Architekt*innen, Soziolog*innen, Stadtplaner*innen, Stadtdesigner*innen und Urbanist*innen – in ihrer Recherche und Arbeit mit wertvollen Einblicken in die Funktionsweise und den Alltag der Unterkunft.

Die Bewohner*innen konnten aufgrund ihrer prekären rechtlichen Situation und Unfortunately, the residents of the teilweise gesundheitlichen Einschränkunshelter could not be directly involved in gen häufig nur indirekt in die Projektarbeit the design and building process due to einbezogen werden. Um dem Anspruch, their precarious legal situation and, in den Top-Down-Ansatz in Frage zu stellen, many cases, health limitations. Since the gerecht zu werden, wurden auch indirekproject sought to challenge the top-down, tes Feedback der Bewohner*innen, der impersonal solutions that dominate the Bewohner*innen ähnlicher Unterkünfte current status quo, participants sought und Informationen aus Stadtführungen, ways to incorporate any feedback, even Vorlesungen und bereits publizierten wissecondary, from residents and others senschaftlichen Arbeiten herangezogen. experiencing comparable situations in the wider city as well as the programme of tours, lectures, and research tasks.

BRIEF

AUFGABENSTELLUNG

The brief called to temporarily transform a roof-top terrace on the Zum Heckeshorn shelter, one of Berlin’s Erstaufnahmeeinrichtungen (Initial Reception Centres) for newly-arrived refugees in the comparatively wealthy suburb of Wannsee.The terrace is currently closed to the shelter’s residents due to safety concerns, and progress to open it has been limited. Students catalogued and researched the challenges posed by the city’s institutional shelters, and eventually proposed a speculative design for a long-term future of the terrace and shelter. Finally, they designed and built scale interventions for the terrace to host a Tag der offenen Tür (Open House day) with the expressed goal of facilitating interaction between the shelter and the local neighbourhood. Interventions were required to be temporary, yet sensitive to the delicate history and context of both the building and its inhabitants.

Die Aufgabenstellung der Erstaufnahmeeinrichtung „Zum Heckeshorn“ im vergleichsweise wohlhabenden Berlin Wannsee, umfasste den temporären Umbau der Dachterrasse selbiger Unterkunft unter Berücksichtigung der Geschichte des Gebäudes und seiner Bewohner*innen. Die Dachterrasse ist zurzeit aufgrund von Sicherheitsbedenken geschlossen. Die Student*innen recherchierten und katalogisierten die sich aus Verwaltungsvorgaben ergebenden Herausforderungen und und schlugen ein entsprechendes Konzept für den Umbau und die Nutzung der Terrasse vor. Bei einem Tag der offenen Tür wurden den Unterkunftsbetreiber*innen, Bewohner*innen und der Nachbarschaft maßstabsgetreue Modelle der konzipierten baulichen Maßnahmen vorgestellt. Dies sollte den Dialog fördern und Möglichkeiten und Chancen einer dauerhaften Öffnung aufzeigen.

BACKGROUND

Source: Lucify. “The Flows Towards Europe.” Data: UNHCR

ON MIGRATION TO EUROPE Displacement and migrancy are not new phenomena. Giorgio Agamben writes that contemporary mass migrations as we know them have occurred since World War I; however, the number of displaced people continues to rise exponentially. According to the UNHCR, the term “refugee” refers to someone who has been forced to flee his or her country because of persecution, war or violence. A refugee has a well-founded fear of persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group. Most likely, they cannot return home or are afraid to do so. War and ethnic, tribal and religious violence are leading causes of refugees fleeing their countries. Two-thirds of all refugees worldwide come from just five countries: Syria, Afghanistan, South Sudan, Myanmar and Somalia. By the end of 2019, almost 70.8 million individuals were forcibly displaced worldwide, a number which is expected to grow by 20% in 2020.1 In response to pressure from Mediterranean countries receiving significant arrivals of refugees fleeing conflict, particularly those displaced by the Syrian Civil War, German Chancellor Angela Merkel famously suspended the Dublin Regulation between August-November 2015. This European law requires asylum seekers to apply for international protection in the first European Union Member State that they enter, which is then responsible for providing protection. Its suspension allowed people who had previously applied for asylum in other EU Member States to apply in Germany. Of the more than six million people displaced by the Syrian Civil War, Germany has received 1,063,837 refugees as of 2018. 2 It has received the largest number of refugee applications in the European Union, but still per capita lags far

1 USA for UNHCR, “What Is a Refugee? Definition and Meaning”, 2020 https://www.unrefugees. org/refugee-facts/what-is-a-refugee/. 2 J. Wood, “These Countries Are Home to the Highest Proportion of Refugees in the World,” World Economic Forum, 19 March 2019 https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/menacountries-in-the-middle-east-have-the-highest-proportion-of-refugees-in-the-world/; “Refugee Population by Country or Territory of Asylum,” The World Bank, 2018, https://data.worldbank. org/indicator/SM.POP.REFG.

2018

2017

Years

2016

2015

2014

2013

10M

20M

Displaced population worldwide between 2013-2018 Refugees Refugee-like situation Returned refugees Stateless

30M

40M

50M

60M

70M

80M

Population Asylum-seekers Others of concern

IDPs Returned IDPs Venezuelans displaced abroad

behind countries such as Sweden and Malta. Per capita, Lebanon, Jordan, and Turkey still host the most refugees worldwide.3 Because of its contested Nazi past and powerful position in the European Union as the strongest economy, Germany is pressured to receive refugees. Berlin, as Germany’s capital and its largest city in Germany, is a microcosm of the world’s urban changes; Germany and its Hauptstadt also have long and challenging histories in its treatment of foreigners, particularly in terms of housing, including the guest worker initiatives involving large populations of Turkish immigrants as well as the International Building Exhibition and Critical Reconstruction projects of 1984/7.

3 J. Wood, “These Countries”. Source: UNHCR. “Populations Trend Chart.”

WORLD MAP

Refugee population by country of asylum

as at end 2017

SWEDEN FINLAND

NORWAY CANADA

UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND IRELAND

SPAIN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RUSSIAN FEDERATION DENMARK

LITHUANIA

BELARUS NETHERLANDS POLAND BELGIUM GERMANY LUXEMBOURG CZECH UKRAINE REPUBLIC FRANCE AUSTRIA HUNGARY SWITZERLAND ROMANIA BOSNIA ITALY AND SERBIA* HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA GREECE

PORTUGAL

TURKEY

MALTA

ALGERIA

GEORGIA ARMENIA AZERBAIJAN

LIBYA

TAJIKISTAN REPUBLIC OF KOREA

SYRIAN ARAB CYPRUS REPUBLIC LEBANON IRAQ JORDAN ISRAEL

MOROCCO

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

AFGHANISTAN

PAKISTAN

JAPAN

CHINA

NEPAL

EGYPT BANGLADESH

MEXICO INDIA MAURITANIA MALI

NIGER

SENEGAL

COSTA RICA

GAMBIA GUINEA-BISSAU GUINEA

BOLIVARIAN REPUBLIC OF VENEZUELA

PANAMA

SUDAN

CHAD

ERITREA

BURKINA FASO BENIN

CÔTE LIBERIA D'IVOIRE

TOGO

YEMEN

THAILAND

DJIBOUTI NIGERIA

GHANA

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

ETHIOPIA

SOUTH SUDAN

MALAYSIA

CAMEROON UGANDA

ECUADOR

REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

SOMALIA

KENYA

RWANDA BURUNDI

INDONESIA

UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

BRAZIL

PERU

ANGOLA ZAMBIA

MALAWI MOZAMBIQUE

ZIMBABWE NAMIBIA BOTSWANA

CHILE

AUSTRALIA

SOUTH AFRICA

4,000,000 ARGENTINA

2,000,000 500,000

NEW ZEALAND

100,000 Individuals Refugee

1,000km The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on this map do not imply official endorsement or acceptance by the United Nations.

Printing date: 13 Nov 2018

Sources: UNHCR Global Trends, UNHCS

Author: UNHCR - Geneva

Feedback: mapping@unhcr.org

Source: UNHCR. “Refugee Population by Country of Asylum at end of 2017.”

Filename: WorldZoom_Refugee_A3L

4,000,000 2,000,000 500,000 100,000

SWEDEN FINLAND

NORWAY UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

DENMARK

Individuals Refugee

LITHUANIA BELARUS

IRELAND

SPAIN

NETHERLANDS POLAND BELGIUM GERMANY LUXEMBOURG CZECH UKRAINE REPUBLIC FRANCE AUSTRIA HUNGARY SWITZERLAND ROMANIA BOSNIA ITALY AND SERBIA* HERZEGOVINA BULGARIA GREECE

PORTUGAL

TURKEY

MALTA

SYRIAN ARAB CYPRUS REPUBLIC LEBANON IRAQ JORDAN ISRAEL

MOROCCO

ALGERIA

The boundaries and names shown and the design

GEORGIA ARMENIA Printing date: AZERBAIJAN

LIBYA

13 Nov 2018

ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN

Sources: U

TAJIKISTAN

AFGHANISTAN

PAKISTAN

EGYPT

MAURITANIA MALI

NIGER

SENEGAL GAMBIA GUINEA-BISSAU GUINEA

SUDAN

CHAD

ERITREA

BURKINA FASO BENIN

CÃ&#x201D;TE LIBERIA D'IVOIRE

TOGO

GHANA

YEMEN

DJIBOUTI NIGERIA CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

ETHIOPIA

SOUTH SUDAN

SOMALIA

CAMEROON UGANDA REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO

KENYA

RWANDA BURUNDI UNITED REPUBLIC OF TANZANIA

ANGOLA ZAMBIA

MALAWI MOZAMBIQUE

ZIMBABWE NAMIBIA BOTSWANA

SOUTH AFRICA

Open-top cubicles, former Tempelhof Airport hangar Photo: Gordon Welters

A. Smale, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Tempelhof Airport, Once a Lifeline for Berliners, Reprises Role for Refugeesâ&#x20AC;?, New York Times, 10 February 2016. 20

ON REFUGEES IN BERLIN Germany operates a dispersal system where migrants who apply for asylum are allocated to one of its sixteen Bundesländer (federal states). The Königsteiner Schlüssel (Königstein key), which takes into account population and tax revenue, is used to calculate the allocations. Berlin receives approximately 5% of all applications according to this and between 2015-16 received around 80,000 individuals.1 While a central government office officiates the actual applications, each Bundesland is responsible for providing shelter, support, and benefits during the application process. Each state subsequently has different policies and approaches. In response to the initial arrivals in 2015, the Berlin government erected dozens of Notunterkünfte (Emergency Shelters). School sports halls, offices, and, most famously, the former Berlin-Tempelhof airport were all appropriated to temporarily house refugees. They lived in open-top cubicles, were prohibited from cooking for themselves, and shared communal washing facilitates. Initially residents were told they would live in the hangars for two weeks, before being told it would be six weeks. Yet some lived in these conditions for two years. It soon became clear that many refugees were unable to find their own housing, so the government built long-term shelters called Gemeinschaftsunterkünfte (Community Shelters) in order to address the shortfall in affordable housing. These came in various typologies including repurposed shipping containers called Tempohomes and prefabricated structures called MUFs (Modulare Unterkünfte für Flüchtlinge). While these homes provide greater autonomy and privacy, they remain temporary, interstitial spaces of containment rather than long-term dwellings. Many people remain stuck in these shelters today. The age of hyper-financialised architecture, where overpowering private interests promote housing scarcity and prioritise profit, is impacting lower

1 Landesamt für Flüchtlingsangelegenheiten, “Zahlen und Fakten”, 31 December 2017 https:// www.berlin.de/laf/ankommen/aktuelle-ankunftszahlen/artikel.625503.php.

Bunk beds outside boarding gates, Tempelhof Airport Photo: Toby Parsloe

Tempohomes, Sieverstorpstraße in Berlin Source: Landesamt für Flüchtlingsangelegenheiten

Prefabricated long term accommodation in Berlin Photo: Toby Parsloe 22

and middle class people around the world.2 Global society is becoming increasingly polarised against the backdrop of sharply increasing inequality since the 1980s.3 For refugees in Berlin, it is keeping them stuck in institutionalised accommodation. Berlin consistently tops lists of cities that are the most promising for real estate speculation and investment. In 2017 it experienced the greatest increase in property prices in the entire world. It has become near impossible to find affordable accommodation. Long-term shelters exist primarily due to this lack of affordable housing, leaving refugees with little possibility to find a suitable home for themselves. At the time of the summer school in August 2019, over four years after the events of 2015, over 20,000 refugees were still living in around 90 institutionalised shelters throughout the city.4 While every Bundesland operated some form of initial emergency shelter, Berlin is now unique in the sheer scale of its shelter operation as it attempts to plug the shortfall in affordable and accessible accommodation. The question we must ask ourselves is not what is it like to live in these shelters, but whether we find it acceptable to live in societies, political economies, and cities that make them acceptable in the first place.

2 L. Kusisto and P. Grant, “Affordable Housing Crisis Spreads Throughout World,” Wall Street Journal, 2 April 2019 https://www.wsj.com/articles/affordable-housing-crisis-spreadsthroughout-world-11554210003. 3 F. Alvaredo et al., “World Inequality Report 2018”, World Inequality Lab, 2018, https://wir2018. wid.world/. 4 Landesamt für Flüchtlingsangelegenheiten, “Aktuelle Unterbringungszahlen”, 31 August 2019 https://www.berlin.de/laf/wohnen/allgemeine-informationen/aktuelle-unterbringungszahlen/ artikel.630901.php.

BERLIN WANNSEE

City Centre

LITERATURE REVIEW Preparatory readings revealed specific dimensions of the complex spaces with which the students would be working. Due to its defining influence on debates around camp spaces, Giorgio Agamben’s (1993, 1998) seminal work on Homo Sacer and the reduction to “bare life” within camps formed the conceptual basis. For Agamben, refugees, who should epitomise the rights of man, are deprived of rights and agency by their status as noncitizens. This was followed by modern critiques of Agamben that have demonstrated the complexity of political forms of life within Berlin’s camp spaces (Dalal et al. 2018; Katz et al. 2018; Kreichauf 2018). In addition, these texts also explored the worrying trend towards a “campization” of European accommodation for refugees in recent years (Kreichauf 2018), the influence of urban processes and structures in forming an emerging typology of “urban camps” in European cities (Katz et al. 2018), and the hidden paternalistic control of the camp that continues to exist in well-intentioned new accommodation for refugees in Berlin (Dalal et al. 2018). The general focus on Berlin-based texts promoted understanding of specific contexts, terms, and institutional structures in which the students operated. In addition, Esra Ackan’s (2018) work on Berlin’s critical reconstruction through cooperation with guest workers from Turkey in the 1980s would provide a local precedent for contemporary immigrant arrivals. She reveals forms of accommodation in both German and immigrant contexts and emphasises how contemporary notions of integration should be based on an amalgamation of heterogeneous people rather than assimilation. Further readings explored how students might consider the nature of their engagement. Allan Kaprow’s (1966) work on “happenings” proposes that, when assembling people for an event, the audience should not be considered as the recipient but as a whole-hearted participant. The event then becomes a mutually-created dialogue and scenario. Chantal Mouffe (2007) adds a political dimension to interventions, purporting that activism through artistic practices has the potential to subvert hegemonic policies.

She promotes subversive political activities which deliberately occupy public space to disrupt the smooth normative images which we come to anticipate in capitalistic environments. Realistically, the extent to which students would comprehensively grapple with these theories would inevitably be limited. Time restrictions would necessarily lead to superficial engagement. Instead, these readings were intended to give an impression of the main conceptual frameworks of refugee shelters and camps. Furthermore, they offered reflections on the meanings and political dimensions of their acts of intervention. This cursory understanding was intended to give a theoretical framework to ground interventions. BIBLIOGRAPHY Agamben, G. (1993), ‘Beyond Human Rights’, 90-5. Agamben, G. (1998), Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life, Stanford University Press, Stanford. Akcan, E. (2018), ‘Open Architecture in Berlin-Kreuzberg’, 1-9. Dalal, A., A. Darweesh, P. Misselwitz and A. Steigemann (2018), ‘Planning the Ideal Refugee Camp? A Critical Interrogation of Recent Planning Innovations in Jordan and Germany’, Urban Planning, 3(4), 64-78. Kaprow, A. (1966), ‘Notes on the Elimination of the Audience’, 102-4. Katz, I., T. Parsloe, Z. Poll & A. Scafe-Smith (2018), ‘The Bubble, the Airport, the Jungle: Europe’s urban migrant camps’. In I. Katz, C. Minca & D. Martin (eds.), Camps Revisited. Rowman & Littlefield. Kreichauf, R. (2018), ‘From forced migration to forced arrival: the campization of refugee accommodation in European cities’, Comparative migration studies 6 (1), 7. Mouffe, C. (2007), ‘Artistic Activism and Agonistic Spaces’, Art and Research, 1:2, summer, 1-5.

Image Source: Berliner Zeitung, ibid.

WANNSEE, ZUM HECKESHORN REFUGEE SHELTER The selected site was the Erstaufnahmeeinrichtung situated in the Zum Heckeshorn Hochhaus. The structure is a former accommodation block built in 1970 which used to house chronically ill patients from the lung clinic within a larger now-abandoned hospital complex.1 Originally founded in 1947 as a tuberculosis clinic, the lung clinic in Zum Heckeshorn performed pioneering research into the development of endobronchial cobalt therapy. The Hochhaus building has eight floors. The ground floor hosted laboratories and x-ray facilities, while the canteen was situated on the top floor next to the roof terrace. The floors in between consisted of clinical rooms, each with their own balcony, with up to eight beds. Adjacent to the building is the morgue, connected via an underground tunnel to the main building to discreetly transport bodies. The fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 transformed the city’s institutions and infrastructural needs, including health care. In 2004 the lung clinic moved to its current location a few kilometers away in Zehlendorf, and by 2006 the Hochhaus had ceased operating and fell into disrepair over the next decade. During this time it acted as backdrop for films and featured in the third series of the German medical drama “Doctor’s Diary.” In 2015 it became one of many formerly disused buildings in the city re-appropriated as refugee accommodation by the Landesamt für Flüchtlingsangelegenheiten (State Office for Refugee Affairs, LAF) in response to significant arrivals.2 Operated by the non-profit organisation Christlichen Jugenddorfwerk Deutschlands (CJD), it is now designated as a specialised initial reception centre for refugees with special physical and psychological needs with capacity for up to 225 people.

1 Helios Klinikum, “Festschrift Der Lungenklinik Heckeshorn”, Verein der Freunde der Lungenklinik Heckeshorn e.V., 2012 https://issuu.com/na-am/docs/festschrift_lungenklinik_ heckeshorn. 2 F. Schmidt, “Wannsee: In Alter Lungenklinik Sollen Bald 1500 Flüchtlinge Leben,” Berliner Zeitung, 18 December 2015 https://www.bz-berlin.de/berlin/steglitz-zehlendorf/wannsee-inalter-lungenklinik-sollen-bald-1500-fluechtlinge-leben.

Shelter cafeteria without access to terrace

Rooftop terrace

View of the Wannsee lake from the terrace 30

The building is situated in the wealthy south-western suburb of Wannsee, set-back from the shores of the lake nestled in a forest of pine trees, luxury villas, and sailing clubs. The infamous Haus der Wannsee Konferenz (House of the Wannsee Conference), where on January 20th 1942 leading Nazi officials discussed and sanctioned the policies of the Final Solution, is only a few hundred meters away. Three kilometers away is the iconic Glienicke Bridge, the “Bridge of Spies,” where Eastern and Western agents were traded throughout the Cold War between Potsdam in the East and Wannsee in the American sector. The Berlin senate originally created plans to renovate the disused hospital complex into refugee accommodation, however many local residents have opposed this development. A citizens’ initiative called the Wannsee 300 was established which campaigned to have no more than 300 refugees living in institutional shelters in the area.3 The local residents have managed to halt plans to renovate the Hochhaus and transform it into a long-term accommodation. It is therefore stuck in a state of transition. An environmental building ban due to sightings of rare bats currently prevents any significant renovations. Many believe the ban to be a veiled attempt to frustrate the transformation of the building and area of abandoned clinics into shelters that would house 750-1000 refugees. The affluent area hosts many former professionals, including lawyers, who are familiar with civil and legal processes. They have the knowledge, resources, and connections to better realign public policies to their own interests. This exists in stark contrast to the more socio-economically deprived areas, particularly in the former East Berlin, which host the majority of the city’s refugee shelters.

3 Wannsee 300, “Integration statt Massenunterkunft,” 2016 http://www.wannsee300.de/.

HELIOS KLINIKUM

Image Source: Bing Maps

Zum Heckeshorn 30 House A

Former Lung Clinic Hospital

Image Source: Google Earth 32

HAUS DER WANNSEE KONFERENZ

WANNSEE

WANNSEE SUBWAY STATION

Image Source: Helios Klinikum

Helios Klinikum, â&#x20AC;&#x153;Festschrift Der Lungenklinik Heckeshornâ&#x20AC;?, Verein der Freunde der Lungenklinik Heckeshorn e.V., 2012. 34

Room in Zum Heckeshorn Tower prior to use as refugee shelter Image Source: Berliner Zeitung, ibid.

PROCESS

Cambridge University and TU Berlin Summer School:

PROGRAMME An intense programme immersed students in the complexities of Berlin’s refugee situation. The first three days were dedicated to talks, assignments, and tours, while two days were allocated for design and construction. TU Berlin and University of Cambridge collaborative summer school: Designs for a Refugee Shelter Rooftop in Berlin

Day Sunday 25th

Time 09:00-15:00

1) Introductory talk about Berlin's refugee shelters and the week's programme

TU Department of Architecture

Evening

2) Group social at Klunkerkranich community rooftop garden

Klunkerkranich Neukölln

10:00-13:00 14:00-15:00 15:00-17:40 17:40-18:00 09:00-11:00 11:00-13:00

Tuesday 27th

14:30-16:00 16:15-17:40 17:40-18:00 09:00-11:00

Wednesday 28th

Thursday 29th Friday 30th Saturday 31st Sunday 1st

Location Cambridge students arrive in Berlin

15:15-17:00

08:30-10:00 Monday 26th

Activitiy

14:00-17:40 17:40-18:00 09:00-12:30 14:00-17:40 17:40-18:00 09:00-18:00 17:40-18:00 09:30-12:00 13:00-16:00 09:00-17:00

LECTURE EXERCISE

3) Shelter visit with talk and Q and A with operator and LAF representative Zum Heckeshorn shelter Wannsee 4) Cataloguing exercises: Documentation of the terrace space and the building Zum Heckeshorn shelter Wannsee Lunch 5) Trip to Haus der Wannsee Konferenz Haus der Wannsee Konferenz 6) Research and cataloguing task in five groups Zum Heckeshorn shelter Wannsee Plenary discussion 7) Refugio Rooftop Visit Refugio Neukölln 8) Querstadtein Refugee Tour of Berlin Neukölln Lunch 9) Presentation of group research TU Department of Architecture 10) Design principles and design strategy TU Department of Architecture Plenary discussion 11) Visit to Tempelhof and Tentaja sports hall Former Tempelhof airport Lunch and collecting design supplies 12) Long-term designs and concepts for the rooftop TU Department of Architecture Plenary discussion 13) Design and production tasks 1 Zum Heckeshorn shelter Wannsee 14) Design and production tasks 2 Zum Heckeshorn shelter Wannsee Plenary discussion 15) Building and preparation day Zum Heckeshorn shelter Wannsee Plenary discussion and final preparation Formal feedback session and discussion with expert panel Rooftop open to the public and realising of programmed events Demolition, demount, and clean-up day

TOUR

Terrace

Canteen

Terrace B

Level 7, Roof Terrace

Elevation A

Elevation B

View from Terrace

Shelter room in use 44

Former Helios Klinikum

Zum Heckeshorn Shelter

TOURS AND REFERENCES QUERSTADTEIN TOUR The most impactful interaction for many students was the city tour provided by the company Querstadtein, where they were shown around the diverse neighbourhood of NeukĂślln by Mahmoud who had arrived in Berlin as a refugee from Syria. His personal stories of losing his home, the violence of the war, and the uncertainty of establishing a new life in an unfamiliar country affected the students deeply. They were able to unreservedly ask questions to someone who replied honestly and with passion about educating the world on the disastrous consequences of conflict. Although it was only a snapshot of one individual experience, it nevertheless exposed the profound challenges refugees face and the uniqueness of every story. REFUGIO The project Refugio, a housing cooperative located at a protestant mission centre (Berliner Stadtmission) where refugees live alongside German citizens, provided the most applicable precedent for both a rooftop structure for refugees as well as an alternative to segregated shelter living. Their terrace utilises light-weight furniture using basic materials as well as inventive planting to create a stunning bucolic environment for refugees in the heart of the city. Cheap and common materials may form inspiring spatial impressions. HAUS DER WANNSEE KONFERENZ Wanseeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s entire history is eclipsed by the heinous events that were discussed and ratified on 20th January 1942 within the walls of the luxury villa metres down the road from the shelter. All cities have their indelible marks of past atrocities and traumas, but the urban fabric of Berlin is particularly inscribed with solemn reminders of crimes against humanity. The peace and opulence of the villa, nestled in the pine trees with lapping waves of the lake on its manicured shoreline, obscures a darker reality. A visit to this place evokes profound histories of tragedy and injustice, as it warns us against future atrocities unless we are willing to act.

TEMPELHOF The former Berlin-Tempelhof airport site is one of the most compelling urban spaces in the city, and arguably the world. The current building was originally built under the National Socialist regime, became famous during the Berlin Airlift in 1948-9, and acted as the iconic gateway to West Berlin during the Cold War. After closing in 2008, the area was transformed into Berlin’s largest public park as it was appropriated by the city’s residents for a multitude of leisure activities. In 2014 a public referendum famously saved it from any urban development. Despite these rich associations, the students visited because the site once hosted Germany’s largest refugee camp. Between 2015-2017 the former hangars housed up to 3,500 refugees as they awaited for their asylum applications. Between 2017-2019 a long-term shelter constructed from shipping containers continued to host 1,000 refugees before it finally closed. The students experienced the vast hangars and remnants of the container shelters, as well as learnt about Tentaja—a project which seeks to connect refugees with local Berliners through sport in Hangar 1. Tempelhof became an urban spectacle for the events of 2015. It was vital the students experienced this monolithic icon.

Disused tempohomes, former Tempelhof Airport

DESIGN AND INSTALLATION

DESIGN PROPOSALS The key challenge of the design process was to distill the acquired knowledge from academic understandings alongside the tours and visits in the city into tangible interventions. Students were asked to speculate on a potential future â&#x20AC;&#x153;Year Xâ&#x20AC;? condition at the Zum Heckeshorn shelter. Contemplating radical ideas opens up new possibilities to address the injustices around us. Students sought to anticipate potential needs and uses while pushing the limits of creativity and innovation for the terrace.

INSTALLATION / INTERVENTION For the actual intervention, the students devised a manifesto of five design principles that would underpin their work. These were: 1. Unprogrammed 2. Designing for People 3. Making the Invisible Visible 4. Modest and Passive Intervention 5. Creating a Common Space The focus was to create something flexible and communal that sought to empower the residents living in the shelter as much as possible. The extent to which the final design embodied these qualities and principles is debatable. History demonstrates the empty promises provided by quixotic manifestos that seek to concretise lofty ideals. Transposing such principles into a physical structure or communal happening is always challenging in any design process. Yet having an empirically and theoretically grounded basis is paramount to any potential positive change. It provides a direction and compulsion toward which we orient ourselves, even if we cannot fully achieve the ideal. Ideally we wanted to explicitly involve shelter residents in the designing process itself. Yet practical and ethical considerations made this exceptionally difficult in light of the circumstances. This was not a definitive participatory design project. Instead, students used the insights gleaned from their programming exercises, research, and informal interactions with the residents to inform the designs as much as possible. The intervention to the roof terrace was comprised of two parts. The first part was to devise potential solutions to a safety issue concerning the height of the parapet. The second was to transform the rest of the roof terrace into a space that would be comfortable, enjoyable, and accessible for the community. These two interventions would attempt to manifest the design principles and spatially relate to each other. Inevitably, because of the brief design and construction period, the intervention materialised at the furniture scale.

Safety concerns over the terrace’s guardrail and parapet height is the reason it is permanently closed. The first part of the intervention sought to address these concerns in a more elegant and sophisticated way than the government’s plan to merely add a glass screen to the roof perimeter. A modular system of three components was designed to keep people away from the terrace edge. Low-level planters hung from the existing balustrade using string, with creeper vines and other foliage providing a natural barrier to the edge. A row of viewing stations with integrated bar-height tables facing towards the lake encouraged people to interact with each other and enjoy the view from the roof terrace together whilst being set back from the perimeter edge. Lastly, a series of high-level planters were situated between the viewing stations to create zones for interaction. Together these elements sought to alleviate safety concerns while enhancing the space rather than detracting from it. The second part of the intervention suggested different possibilities for the terrace’s use as a social space. Overall social spaces in the shelter were severely inadequate, not due to a lack of spaces, but their sterility. Students intended for the terrace to become the shelter’s living room immediately adjacent to the canteen. To achieve this they would need to “soften” the stark, institutional and harsh architectural qualities of the space. First, fabric was woven between the beams of the terrace’s concrete pergola structure to soften its austerity as well as provide shading for sunny summer days. Second, a modular wood furniture system consisting of a series of L-shaped “Tetris” blocks were built. These could be appropriated as a bench or table surface of varying heights.

CONSTRUCTION After several days of research, cataloguing and programming, the students had only two days to design and build their interventions. They were divided into two teams to collect materials and construct the two parts: the Parapet Team and the Social Space Team. In one morning they formulated their plans and allocated responsibilities. The courtyard of the shelter reverberated with the sounds of saws, drills, and sanders, providing an effective advertisement for our Open House event. Residents in the shelter approached us with curiosity. We could not let them help build, but the students were able to utilise their diverse language skills to explain what we were doing and about the event that would take place on the final Saturday. As the various constructions began to materialise, the residents were there to test them immediately and give their verdict. Others were content to merely observe, surrounded by the buzz of building. The act of construction became a key point of interface with those for whom we were building.

OPEN HOUSE AND FINAL WORK The Open House day took place on Saturday 31st August 2019. The event itself was also an intervention that required designing. A Programme Team was tasked with ensuring that the event not only ran smoothly, but was engaging for the centreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residents. They enacted the same design principles so the performative aspects of the day would relate to the physical structures. The day before the event they had explored the city to source international snacks from the diasporic communities in Berlin which related to those in the shelter. Meanwhile, a music playlist was created to which the centreâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s residents and our students added their own songs. In the morning, the designs were presented to a diverse panel of external critics including academics, government representatives, shelter operators, architects, and someone who arrived in Germany as a refugee. This enabled the students to reflect on and defend their construction and logics, before expanding into a broader discussion on the role of the architect in displacement situations. In the afternoon the terrace was opened for the first time to the residents in addition to members of the public. After initial inspection, residents eventually began driving the occupation of the space, which encouraged others to do likewise. They became more comfortable and began to admire the view, use the furniture, talk to each other and the students, call their families, draw on the floor with chalk and enjoy the space. To try and ease communication between students and residents, each student had written their names and the languages they could speak next to a portrait at the entrance to the terrace. Residents who were not comfortable in English or German could identify the students who spoke their native language and speak with them. Through the food and music from diverse cultures and places, the rooftop became a place of social exchange and contribution that could facilitate dialogue between different groups. The afternoon culminated with one of the children taking charge of the speakers to play her favourite music and bring everyone on the terrace together to dance. As the event finished, the shelter

operators asked if they might be able to keep everything we had built. The planters and viewing stations would be placed inside the canteen for the residents to enjoy and still admire the views. The “Tetris” blocks were arranged into a colourful children’s space in the canteen to enjoy during mealtimes. The project would leave a permanent physical residue in the shelter. The students were ecstatic to learn their structures were valued and would serve as permanent reminders to the residents of the day on the terrace. The Open Day had exceptionally modest goals. Above all, as one student affirmed, we were realistically just trying to make a “nice day out” that would provide some enjoyment to those in a precarious and uncertain situation. For one day a group of students, Berliners, and individuals living in a refugee shelter could enjoy a beautiful view on a stunning summer’s day, while eating, talking, and being together. These mundane acts of everyday interaction subvert political and bureaucratic limitations. On the one hand, there was significant worry that the open terrace would tease the residents with a wonderful space before it was permanently closed once more. The physical objects may not serve as reminders of a nice day, but an evocation of delights previously granted that are now denied. On the other hand, the engagement served to remind people that they are valued and not forgotten. Furthermore, the attendance of a local politician as well as representatives from the LAF encouraged them to rethink the current approach to the terrace situation alongside the situation of refugee shelter in the Wannsee area. The Open Day became a provocation of sorts, to promote continued discussion and engagement with these realities that have fallen out of the public eye.

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

CLOSING REMARKS

107

108

CLOSING REMARKS SCHLUSSWORT In what ways could research and design subvert a contested status quo? Academic research has the capability to reveal new meanings, interpretations, and dimensions of global issues, where activism and research potentially take on new relationships.

Auf welche Weise können Forschung und Design zur Infragestellung des Status Quo beitragen? Akademische Forschung kann Dimensionen globaler Herausforderungen aufzeigen, diese über die gemeinsame Schnittgrenze zum Aktivismus neu interpretieren und ihnen neue Bedeutungen verleihen.

Enabled by the almost automatic credibility of established universities and the relatively low-risk involvement of young students, the project Designs for a Refugee Shelter Rooftop was an opportunity to engage meaningfully and sensitively in research and design to affect change. Cognisant of the privileges and limitations of the project’s abstract, it did not intend to provide “solutions” to the so-called refugee crisis. The very idea that a “solution” is possible when addressing displacement, migrancy, and citizenship fundamentally fails to appreciate their complexity and uniquely systemic infrastructural challenges.

Durch das den universitären Einrichtungen fast automatisch entgegengebrachte Vertrauen bot das Projekt Designs for a Refugee Shelter Rooftop Möglichkeiten, sinnvoll und einfühlsam Veränderungen anzustoßen. Der Rahmen des Projekts, samt gegebener Privilegien und Einschränkungen, stellt keinesfalls einen ausgearbeiteten Lösungsansatz für die sogenannte „Flüchtlingskrise“ dar. Allein die Idee, hier Lösungen für Sachverhalte wie Migration und Vertreibung finden zu können, scheint unangebracht und wird den komplexen infrastrukturellen Herausforderungen nicht gerecht.

Any intervention, be it spatial or programmatic, inevitably reveals new ethical, theoretical, and practical problems that no purely external source of influence can mitigate. Instead, notions of “change” must develop in subtle forms, stemming from nuance and consistent self-awareness. Participants were being asked to be empathetically pragmatic

Jede mögliche Intervention, ob programmatisch oder räumlich, bringt unweigerlich neue ethische, theoretische und praktische Hürden mit sich. Anstöße müssen nuacniert, subtil und unter ständiger Selbstreflektion entwickelt werden. Teilnehmer*innen wurden gebeten, während jeder Interaktion empathisch und sensibel für die Unsicherheiten der

109

110

and open to criticism and uncertainty throughout every interaction.

Bewohner*innen zu sein sowie Kritik offen anzunehmen.

Ultimately, the terrace opened for the first time, and for a week the summer school generated a new kind of activity and intrigue in the shelter. This project serves as a precedent to encourage the LAF to not only open the terrace permanently, demonstrating feasibility and ideally improved quality of life, but also the potential of other similar projects. The involvement of students and reiteration of issues which no longer intensely dominate media helped shift the attention of research from design for transient and temporary displacement to the challenges of permanent arrival.

Die Terrasse konnte im Rahmen der Summer School zum ersten Mal geöffnet werden und ermöglichte innerhalb dieser Woche neue Aktivitäten und Interaktionsmöglichkeiten in und mit der Unterkunft. Dieses Projekt soll als Präzedenzfall dienen und das LAF dazu ermutigen, die Terrasse dauerhaft zu öffnen und das Potenzial vergleichbarer Projekte unter Beweis stellen, die im Idealfall die Lebensqualität der Bewohner*innen verbessern können. Der Einbezug von Student*innen sowie die erneute und vertiefte Auseinandersetzung mit Themen, welche aus dem Fokus der Medien verschwunden waren, lenkten den Fokus von ÜberIn evaluating the value of the summer gangslösungen zu permanenten Anschool, there were inevitable concerns, sätzen. including possible exploitation of vulnerable people or a lack of sensitivity Bei der Evaluierung der Summer School to the challenges of the site and kamen jedoch unvermeidlich auch Beprogramme. Despite conceptual and denken hinsichtlich der möglichen Auslogistical difficulties of operating in beutung schutzbedürftiger Personen contested and highly-regulated spaces oder der mangelnden Sensibilität für die such as the Zum Heckeshorn shelter, local Herausforderungen des Standorts und authorities and the shelter management des Programms auf. Trotz der konzepsupported our attempt to generate tionellen und logistischen Schwierigactivity, promote quality of life, and initiate keiten in einem stark regulierten und umfurther conversation. A subversive act of kämpften Raum wie der Unterkunft „Zum intervention that would otherwise never Heckeshorn“ unterstützten uns die lokaoccur was enabled through the resources len Behörden und die Unterkunftsverof privilege that academic funding and waltung in unserem Versuch, Aktivitäten participation provide. In this context, even und Diskussionen anzuregen, die letzour small contributions were valued by tendlich die Lebensqualität verbessern the users and operators of the shelter. sollen. Ein subversiver Akt der Intervention, der unter anderen Umständen nicht zustande gekommen wäre und durch akademische Privilegien und Ressourcen, ermöglicht wurde. In diesem Kontext wurde unser Beitrag, so klein er auch sein mag, wertschätzend von Betreibern und Bewohner*innen der Unterkunft wahrgenommen.

111

112

113

114

DOCUMENTATION & FEEDBACK FROM STUDENTS VIDEO DOCUMENTATION The transformation of the terrace and Open House event are captured in a short documentary film. Interviews with participating students allowed them to articulate their design and experiences during the project. The film constitutes one of several products that is being used to promote the project outcomes to a wider audience and also encourage the permanent opening of the terrace. FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS •

We came to Berlin with certain mindsets, opinions, individual interests, thinking we actually have the ability, as designers and thinkers, to make a difference and gain knowledge, broaden our understanding of the world.

•

It takes more than just an evocative, powerful and colourful idea to raise awareness and fight against people’s and even our own misconceptions as architects.

•

It is a question without solution, but by creating little such bubbles that briefly disrupt the sharpness of the reality refugees live in, we stop the time and release the burden of having to think about the uncertainty of the future.

•

Due to Europe being sensationalized in the media as the destination point for desperate refugees, I had the mistaken preconception that there would be a sense of gratitude upon reaching Germany. Instead, the reality is that it is hard to be positive after such conflict and when the journey to permanency is longer still.

•

As ignorant as it may seem, it was really the first time that I came to realise and understand the tremendous difficulties that refugees face, as well as the diversity of the refugee population.

115

116

•

I found it uncomfortable at times to be discussing the future of the residents and their needs without any deep knowledge of their current situation. At times, it almost felt voyeuristic.

•

I had my doubts because of the invasive character of the research: a bunch of western students studying someone else’s life which is complicated enough was my concern at the beginning. So I thought it’s going to be either really good or really bad, but definitely not dull or not causing a response.

•

The real takeaway from the summer school is not - while still valuable - an apologetic understanding of the refugees’ struggle, but rather an appreciation for designing in tandem with a community to whom we are unfamiliar.

•

Focusing too heavily on the struggle of their past caused us to see them as others for whom we had to design strangely; it was the focus upon the commonalities between the refugees and us, a bridging of the gap between the lives of the “far away” refugees and our own, that formed a successful intervention– pardon the cliché.

•

I spoke to a Spanish-speaking Syrian refugee after he saw my photo and language on the posters. We talked about the differences between Spanish and German culture and language and we spoke of our own experiences of Cordoba where he lived for four years. The trip allowed me to see individual refugees as skilled, ordinary people who are similar to myself.

•

Each interaction I had, whether it was listening to Mahmoud, a Palestinian refugee from Syria, speak about his own experiences at home and in Berlin, or asking some of the residents at Zum Heckeshorn about their family and previous lives, or photographing them, surprised me as it reminded me not only of their humanity, but also made me more aware of the prejudices and misconceptions I have grown to harbour.

•

Once, while walking through the building I overheard a woman, who was a resident in the shelter asking the security guards for directions in English, but with little success. I quickly offered my help and we were able to locate what she was looking for. This small incident made it clear to me how frustrating and difficult simple problems become for many of the asylum seekers.

•

Quote a student heard from a resident: “Why have they never allowed us to access this beautiful roof?”

•

The inhabitants were surprised that I asked them for their personal taste to make the playlist or for their choice of food. The fact that the music they listened too might be something others would like was not evident to them. This is a small detail which questions the concept of participation. How is it possible to activate people so that they feel confident to share their actual opinions and preferences with confidence?

•

I found myself in a dilemma which happens when you start to interact with people’s temporary home or refugee situation. How is it possible to offer an improvement in such a short time? Should one get attached to the people, do you share contacts and how friendly do you have to be so that people want to get involved? How do you build trust in such a short time and how much do you need to personally engage with residents?

117

Call for Applications: Design project to create a temporary space on the rooftop of a refugee shelter in Berlin Wannsee, together with students from the University of Cambridge.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;A.C.A.B.â&#x20AC;? All Cops Are Bastards Mash The Potatoes Smash The State

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Res... ....â&#x20AC;? â&#x20AC;&#x153;A.C.A.B.â&#x20AC;? All Cops Are Bastards

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Soulâ&#x20AC;?

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Ressionâ&#x20AC;?/ â&#x20AC;&#x153;Pessionâ&#x20AC;?

â&#x20AC;&#x153;You Su...â&#x20AC;?

AN OPEN HOUSE Su. 25.08 - 01.09.19 GERHART HAUPTMANN SCHULE

GERHART HAUPTMANN SCHULE

Â Â? Â? Â Â? Â Â Â? Â Â Â Â? Â Â Â?

Description: The so-called 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;refugee crisisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; radically shifted the nature of Berlinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s institutional accommodation for refugees. The summer school will engage students from Berlin and Cambridge with the protracted architectural issues these shelters face almost 4 years after the initial arrivals. Students will temporarily transform a roof terrace in the zum Heckeshorn Erstaufnahmeeinrightung (reception centre) to host an Open House for a day that facilitates interaction between the shelter and the local neighbourhood. The project particularly suits those interested in urbanism and architecture in Berlin, forced migration, and international collaboration.

Karte von Berlin 1:5000 (K5)

CALL FOR APPLICANTS Summer School at the zum Heckeshorn refugee shelter in Berlin Wannsee DE SCRI P T I O N The so-called 2015 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;refugee crisisâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; radically shifted the nature of Berlinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s institutional accommodation for refugees. The summer school will engage students from Berlin and Cambridge with the protracted architectural issues these shelters face almost 4 years after the initial arrivals. Students will temporarily transform a roof terrace in the zum Heckeshorn Erstaufnahmeeinrightung (reception centre) to host an Open House for a day that facilitates interaction between the shelter and the local neighbourhood. The project particularly suits

118

those interested in urbanism and architecture in Berlin, forced migration, and international collaboration. SITE The shelter is situated in a former hospital clinic in the wealthy, bucolic Berlin suburb of Wannsee. The terrace offers stunning panoramic views of the expansive lake. Students will have to navigate challenging social, political, and ethical contexts. O u TCO m E S â&#x20AC;˘ Design interventions for the roof terrace; host a Tag der offenen TĂźr (Open House) â&#x20AC;˘ Collaborate between architecture students at the TU Berlin and the University of Cambridge â&#x20AC;˘ Engage with organisations who operate and support the shelter, governmental institutions, and refugees who live within the shelter â&#x20AC;˘ Understand and address ethical, conceptual,

and practical challenges of designing architectural interventions for refugees in the city

Site: The shelter is situated in a former hospital clinic in the wealthy and bucolic Berlin suburb of Wannsee in the south-west. The terrace offers stunning panoramic views of the expansive lake. Students will have to navigate challenging social, political, and ethical contexts.

R E S E a R C h CO N T E x T The summer school exists in collaboration with the research project â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Architectures of Asylumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in the Habitat Unit at the TU Berlin, which investigates processes of spatial appropriation in refugee camps comparatively in Jordan and Berlin. This project is hosted at the Collaborative Research Center â&#x20AC;&#x153;Re-Figurations of Spaceâ&#x20AC;&#x153; (SFB1265) funded by the German Research Society (DFG). R Geoportal E q uBerlin, I RPDF Eerstellt m EamN24.02.2016 TS Motivation paragraph outlining your interest. No participation fee but accommodation and travel to be self-organized. Contact: Toby Parsloe tp404@cam.ac.uk

Â? ÂÂ&#x20AC;Â&#x201A;Â&#x192;Â&#x192;Â&#x201E;

Outcomes: â&#x20AC;˘ Create designs for and transform the roof terrace; host a Tag der offenen TĂźr (Open House) â&#x20AC;˘ Collaborate between architecture students at the TU Berlin and the University of Cambridge

â&#x20AC;˘ Engage with the organisations who operate and support the shelter, governmental institutions, and refugees who live within the shelter â&#x20AC;˘ Understand and address the ethical, conceptual, and practical challenges of designing architectural interventions for refugees in the city Research Context: The summer school exists in collaboration with the research project â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Architectures of Asylumâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; based in the Habitat Unit at the TU Berlin, which investigates processes of spatial appropriation in refugee camps comparatively in Jordan and Berlin. This project is hosted at the Collaborative Research Center â&#x20AC;&#x17E;Re-Figurations of Spaceâ&#x20AC;&#x153; (SFB1265) funded by the German Research Society (DFG).

Summer School 2019

Wannsee Rooftop: Design for a refugee shelter with Cambridge University

Requirements: Motivation paragraph outlining your interest and your study background. This Summer School is free for all TU Berlin students. Deadline for application: 15.07.2019 Dates: 25.08. - 01.09.2019 On the evening of the 25th we will have a social event to meet the students from Cambridge. To apply, please submit the written applications to Toby Parsloe: tp404@cam.ac.uk

APPLY NOW!

CREDITS UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE:

TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITÄT BERLIN:

Beyyinah Ahmed Henry Aldridge Lara Avram Eva Barnett Jessica Benisty-Belilty Charlie Bennett Nabil Haque Grisha Kirby Suzanne Lambeek Smaranda Ruşinaru Ksenia Slutskaya Kieran Tam Bushra Tellisi Claire Yuanqing Zhang

Samar Adel Hellen Aziz Sophie Blochwitz Salma El-Lakany Lucia Forcioli-Conti Nelli Fritzler Paul Hügerich Arina Kapitanova Antonia Noll Esraa Radwan Marie Reichmann Lucinda Yee-Key Ng

EXPERT CRITIC PANEL: Carla Bormann, Landesamt für Flüchtlingsangelegenheiten (LAF) Sean Corleone, Milaa gGmbH Ayham Dalal, Technische Universität Berlin Ana Filipovic, IF/THEN, Berlin Maria Kipp, Tamaja GmbH René Kreichauf, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Freie Universität Berlin

119

120

121

122

123