SEIAA Booklet

SEIAA SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ACADEMY FOR ARCHITECTS

SEIAA

SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ACADEMY FOR ARCHITECTS

INTRODUCTION The Social and Environmental Impact Academy for Architects (SEIAA) is an Erasmus+ project that was centered around innovative teaching formats, to educate responsible architects that have the skills and knowledge to support a transformation towards a sustainable society. From 2020 until 2023 the University of Liechtenstein (LI), Hasselt University (BE), Bergen School of Architecture (NO) and the Royal Danish Academy (DK) shared their transformative teaching formats, based on which, each of them organized a five-day workshop focusing on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). In the workshops twenty students worked in five mixed groups, each consisting of one student from every university. The workshop program depended on the teaching format of the university as well as the needs of its context. All workshops included a collaboration with actors outside the university campus and took place in real life locations. SEIAA was guided by the following questions: • How can we as architects and architecture students tackle global challenges?

• How do we get from an output-oriented to an impact-oriented design?

• How do we foster social engagement and self-initiatives in architecture studies?

• How do we build an ecosystem of change-makers to support each other?

Searching for answers to these questions we have built innovative teaching formats that are already being explored and applied at the different partner universities. In the “Pro Bono” module of the University of Liechtenstein, for example, the students initiate and implement small scale interventions and activities for the common good in cooperation with partners, such as associations, municipalities, or schools. In a similar way, and with a focus on a collaboration with local communities, the “Live Projects” of Hasselt University take place on site and lead to more or less temporary interventions, which are handed over to the community at the end of the process. With its close relation to the sea as well as the surrounding mountains, Bergen School of Architecture focuses on the environmental awareness of its students.

Spending nights in the forests of an abandoned island, experiencing harsh weather conditions, discovering plants, mushrooms and animals is part of the curriculum and helps the students to gain empathy for our increasingly repressed and hidden environment.

A more technological but no less sensitive approach is used by the Royal Danish Academy in its Research and Innovation course where the students often work hands-on, creating 1:1 prototypes in exchange with local craftspeople and companies. All these teaching formats as well as the partner universities will be introduced in more detail in a later part of this booklet. Based on the characteristics and learning goals of these existing teaching formats the following objectives were set for SEIAA: • to explore and test more effective formats and settings to “teach” sustainability in architecture schools, • to create a dialogue among architecture faculties and cross-sector stakeholders from different fields, • to strengthen the responsibility and agency of the participants regarding the creation of resilient communities through architectural investigations, • to scale the result of the developed project through cooperation with local actors.

In a first phase the universities have shared their innovative teaching formats to educate future architects. The different universities as well as the teaching format that was relevant for the planning of their workshop are shortly explained on the following pages of this booklet. Even though the teaching formats differed in their details they had many aspects in common, such as working on site, collaborating with partners from practice or implementing small scale design interventions. Besides these methodic similarities the teaching formats and workshops were bound together by the framework of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Depending on the local needs and the partners, the workshops focused on specific SDGs. Furthermore, the workshops followed a similar structure. An input phase, where the students were provided with information from teachers and different stakeholders and through site visits. A concept phase where local needs were translated together with teachers and in collaboration with relevant stakeholders. An implementation phase, where prototypes and strategies were tested one to one and in real life locations. And a final reflection phase, where the design process as well as the result were presented and discussed with teachers, researchers, and local stakeholders. Each of the four workshops is documented in one of the booklets of this compendium.

THE WORKSHOPS The workshop series was opened by the University of Liechtenstein in May 2022. Under the title “Mediating Limits to Building” the workshop participants explored the potentials and challenges of sufficiency as a sustainability strategy for the design and use of the built environment. With the aim to plan and implement a “sufficiency lesson” at two regional high schools the workshop participants explored the social and environmental impact from an educational perspective. Exploring the relation of built structures and daily life practices the students analyzed how they could not only promote a sustainable use of the built

environment through their design measures, but also through actively mediating such a use to the future generation of architects and clients, the high school teenagers.

The second workshop took place at Hasselt University in July 2022. Following the motto “Re-wilding the Garden City” and in exchange with a local community committee the students searched for ways to foster social interactions in selected neighborhoods in Winterslag, a settlement of Genk (BE). This time the workshop participants took on a social perspective on the topic, exploring how a community can be integrated in a design process to actively participate in the design of their built surrounding. Through more or less temporary interventions, such as hammocks, sitting opportunities or 1:1 chalk plans, the students showed ways to activate lost spaces and stimulate social interactions among community members.

Shifting from a social to a more environmental perspective, the third workshop at Bergen School of Architecture in August 2022 was centered around the life underwater and how to gain empathy for all those beings who usually elude our perception.

In a multifaceted dialogue with a marine biologist, a dancer, a city planner, an artist and a curator, the students developed proposals of how the city could “meet” the sea in a more empathic way.

Instead of expanding the city further into the sea, diminishing and endangering life underwater, the students came up with ideas that suggested a more harmonic co-existence.

The fourth and last workshop took place in Copenhagen at the Royal Danish Academy in June 2023. This time the social and environmental impact was approached from a more industrial and technological side.

Investigating the requirements of a circular economy for architecture, the students designed a stage for a nearby event location from used building parts of timber and bricks. Instead of choosing materials and building parts based on their designs, the students were challenged to design based on the limited

available resources, which they did not know in advance. Furthermore, they needed to develop joints between different materials that consider their properties and lifespans and can be dismantled easily.

The workshop at the Royal Danish Academy was followed by the UIA Congress in Copenhagen, the world’s largest event on sustainable architecture and centered around the 17 Sustainable Development Goals. This provided an ideal chance to present the learnings of the Erasmus+ project SEIAA to a bigger audience and expand the network for future cooperations. As part of “Resilient Communities”, one out of six panels, a narrative essay on SEIAA was accepted for publication and presentation at the congress. In addition, the SEIAA team organized a side-event with the title “Four Course – Discourse”, a mix of traditional food from the location of the four partner universities and short inputs, discussions and interventions on the outcomes and learning outcomes from the workshops. As one of the highlights of the Erasmus+ project, the UIA Congress also marked the end of an inspiring three year cooperation with the University of Liechtenstein, Hasselt University, Bergen School of Architecture, and the Royal Danish Academy, four architecture schools across Europe, with different approaches and settings but a common goal: To educate responsible architects and social entrepreneurs that are motivated and equipped to work towards a more sustainable and equitable future.

FOUR APPROACHES APPROACH

APPROACH

01

02

University

University of Liechtenstein

Hasselt University

Location

Vaduz (LI)

Winterslag (BE)

Title

Mediating Limits to Building

Re-Wilding the Garden City

Date

2022 May 02 – 06

2022 July 04 – 08

Perspective

Educational

Social

Partner

High Schools

Community

Output

High School Lessons

Temporary Interventions

Keyword

Sufficiency

Participation

APPROACH

APPROACH

03

04

Bergen School of Architecture

Royal Danish Academy

Bergen (NO)

Copenhagen (DK)

Dancing with Trout

Building Circularly

2022 August 01 – 05

2023 June 26 – 30

Environmental

Industrial

Municipality

Companies

Design Proposals

Circular Designs

Empathy

Circular Economy

FOCUS AREAS OF THE WORKSHOPS REGARDING THE 17 SDGS.

17 SDGS – ONE COMMON GROUND

The 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations formed a common framework for the planning and implementation of the academies at the different partner universities. Depending on existing teaching formats, research focus and the environment of the respective university the focus of the academies lie in different SDGs. Instead of forcefully trying to cover all the SDGs in the limited timeframe of four one-week academies, we aimed to raise awareness among the partner universities, which SDGs lie within our possibilities, which ones are neglected and require further attention, and which ones reach beyond our scope. As outlined in the Dhaka Declaration architects can impact all the 17 SDGs and not only the obvious SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. Thus, it was also relevant to examine the complex connections and dependencies of the individual goals, which are often in contradiction with each other. The inclusion of various stakeholders allowed to perceive topics from different perspectives, thereby considering different SDGs. Hence, the aim was not only to act according to the requirements for the fulfillment of one specific SDG, but to negotiate different interests and find sustainable compromises.

UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

The University of Liechtenstein is an institute of research, undergraduate and graduate education, continuing education, specialized in growing knowledge generating concrete projects for a sustainable and responsible future. We achieve this by focusing on (1) digitization and innovation, (2) spatial development and sustainability and (3) social responsibility and relevance at the Liechtenstein School of Architecture, Liechtenstein Business School, and Liechtenstein Business Law School.

UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN. Photo: University of Liechtenstein

LIECHTENSTEIN SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE The Liechtenstein School of Architecture is a center of intellectual encounter, focused on critical and creative thinking as well as personal development. We educate independent thinkers and team-oriented architects, who help to create a more sustainable environment and society.

Considering the urgent challenges of limited energy resources, the scarcity of land, and constraints of material resources, the Liechtenstein School of Architecture concentrates on topics of spatial development and sustainability in five focal areas: Urban Design & Spatial Development, Urbanism & Society, Sustainable Design, Craft & Structure and Built Heritage & Upcycling.

Small and personal: Currently, around 200 students study at the Liechtenstein School of Architecture.

The faculty-to-student ratio in design studios is 1 to 10.

Project-based learning: Project-based learning is the core of our curriculum. In our design studios, students work intensively on an architectural project. All coursework aims to complement and enrich work conducted in the studio.

Interdisciplinary: Design studios are co-taught by leading experts from many academic and professional disciplines, encouraging design proposals that are intrinsically interdisciplinary.

ARCHITECTURE ATELIER. Photo: Stephanie Büchel

PRO BONO

DESIGN FOR THE COMMON GOOD Questions of social and ecological responsibility are playing an increasingly central role in the curricula of European schools of architecture. In what way can we support our students in becoming active designers of social and ecological change?

These were the questions we asked ourselves at the Liechtenstein School of Architecture when developing a new curriculum, which was introduced in the 2019/20 winter semester. The Liechtenstein School of Architecture sees itself as a space for personal development and encounters between students, as a place for critical creative thinking. The aim is to train independent architects who are able to work in a team and who can shape a sustainable society and environment on their own initiative.

PARTICIPATORY APPROACH. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

The activities of the Liechtenstein School of Architecture are bundled within the “Pro-Bono” teaching format and a contribution is made to the implementation of the 17 sustainability goals of the UN Agenda 2030.

Young, committed students try to meet the challenges of our time in a solution-oriented manner in order to make the world more socially and ecologically sustainable. Together with partners from practice, they initiate and plan projects for the benefit of society, implement them and contribute to sustainable development in regional and international contexts.

Thereby the students acquire skills that go far beyond pure architecture studies: they take on managerial responsibility and work in co-creative settings with partners from other areas. At the same time, they learn how to independently manage and evaluate projects and communication strategies with different stakeholders. They are thus prepared for future managerial tasks with social added value.

INVOLVING THE STUDENT COMMUNITY. Photo: Roberto VIllaseñor

HASSELT UNIVERSITY

Hasselt University is a young and dynamic institution, located in Limburg in Belgium, in a green environment at a junction of many European cultures. UHasselt’s guiding belief is that we can serve the community best by being a civic university. Civic universities use the region as a ‘living laboratory’ and a source of inspiration for education and research. Civic universities are deeply devoted to the region they are part of – but they cherish strong connections with the world as well.

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AND ARTS The Faculty of Architecture and Arts fully supports the civic ambitions of Hasselt University. We train architects and interior architects to critically design, research and manage spatial interventions to serve the community in a sustainable way. "Head in the clouds, feet on the ground" is our motto.

HASSELT UNIVERSITY. Photo: Team fac ARK

Main characteristics of our education are: a personal approach in small groups of 15 students for practical course work, societal relevance of the course content, international orientation of staff and students, and a strong integration of academic research.

The Faculty of Architecture and Arts stimulates, organizes and supports academic and artistic research in 2 research groups: ArcK (for architecture and interior architecture) and MAD (for the arts). Within ArcK, fundamental and applied research on the built environment is conducted. In a multidisciplinary team we work on important societal challenges, such as a purposeful and adaptive reuse of our heritage, the inclusion of diverse groups in spatial transformation processes, critical reflection on and contribution to the environmental impact of our built environment, inclusive design, design for wellbeing and experience and so on.

The research domain Spatial Capacity Building, for example, conducts research into how we can support collectives of citizens, local organizations and local and supra-local governments in jointly reflecting on spatial transformation processes that take place in their everyday environment in order to then start working on these processes with them.

DESIGN STUDIO ATMOSPHERE. Photo: Team fac ARK

LIVE PROJECT

WORKING ON SITE A compulsory course for graduating students in architecture and interior architecture at the Faculty of Architecture and Arts is the Live Project course.

In a Live Project, students and supervisors step into a design process together with local residents, policy makers, associations, to think about possible futures of a certain place or a spatial issue. A Live Project can vary in scale and the extent to which the question has been defined in advance, but the approach is always to support the public debate on future developments through critical design research. Architecture is a means and not an end.

LIVE PROJECTS IN GODSHEIDE, BELGIUM. Photos: Team Live Projects

We will work 'on site' for two weeks to clarify the question and potential solutions by means of interviews, mappings, designs and construction and make them tangible by means of more or less temporary 'prototypes'. These prototypes are handed over to the local stakeholders during a closing event.

In those two weeks, people listen, walk, sketch, build, film, pitch, dance, cook, but what, how and where we are going to make an intervention is always the result of this collective learning process.

LIVE PROJECTS IN GODSHEIDE, BELGIUM. Photos: Team Live Projects

BERGEN SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

The Bergen School of Architecture (BAS) provides training architects with the opportunity to think critically and be mindful of their responsibility in helping shape society. The education at BAS aims to cultivate professional values that respect individuals, society and our surroundings. With an emphasis on using participatory processes to understand and facilitate relationships between people and place, we seek to contribute to our local area and city, as well as engage local and national authorities.

Both as students, during the courses, and once fully qualified, architects from BAS should be able to challenge their clients and projects by taking an approach to architecture that is global in outlook, responsible and socially conscious.

BERGEN SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE. Photo: Bergen School of Architecture

Through tackling issues of sustainability we challenge perspectives in discourse regarding climate change and resource management, exploring what it means to be responsible and professional, in situations where diversity and living conditions are at stake, both in local and universal contexts.

The formative architectural approach at BAS is based on the concept of Open Form as formulated by Oskar Hansen at the Warsaw Academy of Fine Arts and developed in Norway by his student, the Founding Rector, Svein Hatløy. The original curriculum was built around the idea of making individuals take responsibility and providing space for users as contributing members of society. Open Form has often been taught through the exploration of enabling, democratic and participatory architectural structures.

For BAS it is also important to revisit the concept of sustainability as it relates to needs, historical contexts, the natural environment, resources, energy and climate, while also promoting and supporting a notion that is more strongly rooted in the needs of society.

Within this framework the school also aims to widen people’s understanding of innovation, so that the knowledge of pioneering projects perhaps relating to reuse, user participation and regional building traditions amongst others can be used to challenge the current focus on green growth.

DESIGN STUDIO PRESENTATIONS. Photo: Bergen School of Architecture

HANDS-ON WORKSHOP

The school encourages approaches to community development and architecture that create a framework for actively inclusive processes in relation to the place, users and action. In recent years, courses have looked at topics like democracy in terms of transparency, security and user participation in major urban transformation processes that can affect peoples sense of belonging. The school shall continue to put the spotlight on the fundamental values of collaboration and participation.

When the school bought the silo on the quay at Sandviken, one of its main hopes was that the building would become a venue for spatially exploring real-life situations and different interactions between the school, the neighbourhood, the wider landscape and the general public. Since the move, students have continuously been involved in building the school through projects of all sizes, both on their own initiative and in the course of various modules.

RESTORATION OF OLD COASTAL FISHING CABINS AT SOLUND DURING THE FIRST COURSE IN THE FIRST ACADEMIC YEAR.

Photo: Bergen School of Architecture

It has become a place of learning where students are challenged, and one that can be developed through new exploratory ventures.

Architecture is transcendental and universal, but also tied to a particular place and local. The school’s ambition is to give students the tools they need to practise as architects; to engage them with contemporary culture and society. The course should be contemporary and relevant to society, and prepare students for a professional life in which their expertise will be an important prerequisite for their ability to make independent and thoughtful contributions that add technical integrity to the development of society.

How we live, how and in what contexts we develop venues for social interaction and how we relate to the landscape and nature are all important questions that students must grapple with. Courses at BAS are module-based and have a strong practical focus.

Students must deal with real-life situations and work within natural, historic and social constraints.

EXAMPLE OF SECOND YEAR DESIGN AND BUILD: EGGET – A PUBLIC CABIN IN BERGEN FOR CHILDREN & FAMILIES. Photo: Espen Folgerø

ROYAL DANISH ACADEMY

As an architect, your work involves the creation of new spatially and sensuously interesting solutions for society as a whole. The education is supported by practice, research and, not least, by artistic development. Based on issue-oriented tuition, we strengthen our students’ academic, artistic, and professional skills.

Education as an architect enables you to work in a wide variety of jobs in the fields of planning, architecture and design. You might start your own business, or you might find employment in an architecture or design firm, in industry or in private and public companies. Or you might work in one of the many other new contexts, which our educational and research fields are constantly helping to open up.

You will be equipped to work with ethics, aesthetics, function, technology, culture, environment, and society in tackling professional architectural tasks.

WORING IN THE DESIGN STUDIO. Photo: Royal Danish Academy

You will be ready for a national and international career in the profession’s various fields of work.

This includes practice, research and development, dissemination and tuition.

INTENSIVE EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES The Royal Danish Academy of Fine Arts, School of Architecture offers four Bachelor programmes and nine Master programmes. You follow a single programme during your undergraduate education and a single programme during your graduate education.

We provide intensive specialisation, enabling you to develop an educational profile that matches both your expectations and those of the industry.

The programme you follow is based in an institute, which becomes your home base for your Bachelor and Master courses. Here, at the drawing board, in the workshop and in project supervision, you enjoy close contact with teachers, researchers, international guest lecturers, as well as mentors and inspiring practitioners.

THE ROYAL DANISH ACADEMY. Photo: Royal Danish Academy

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION COURSE

Settlement, Ecology and Tectonics take point of departure in the fact that we currently face an ecological crisis, which requires a rethinking of the way we manage our natural resources. The architects of the future must be able to design robust archi­ tecture, which creates a close relationship between settlement, ecology and tectonics. Based on an architectural approach, which incorporates critical analysis and experimental practice, this programme teaches students to translate political, social, cultural and technological issues into architectural solutions.

The city, settlement and the tectonic logic of structures are the focal point of the studies, in which projects are shaped to form part of a greater circuit of resources, always with totality in mind.

1:1 MODEL BY FREDERIK PAARUP, JONATAN MØLLER LARSEN, SIGNE JUUL CLEVIN AND SIMON MCNAIR. Photo: Research and Innovation Course 2020.

The students must become adaptable and ready to produce architectural designs that deal with the multitude of problems concerning the environmental crisis. As such the architectural work is approached in many ways, sometimes starting with classical discussion about programming and site, other times in sustainable materials and techniques, or in quantitative approaches like LCA. The students train in finding architectural potentials in all aspects of tectonics and in all types of societal problems. Some assignments are dealt with in one-to-one / hands-on methods and others with more conventional methods, like sketching, modeling etc.

WORKING HANDS-ON. Photo: Cornelia Faisst

WAY FORWARD IMPACT ACADEMY BASICS In this chapter we try to evaluate the learning outcomes of the Social and Environmental Impact Academy for Architects and formulate a didactic basis for an implementation of similar teaching formats.

The outlined instructions are based on the findings of our academies as well as on established concepts, such as education for sustainable development, education for a sufficient lifestyle or transformative education and research. Our academies and these concepts have many aspects in common and vary only in their focus areas and in the consistency of the understanding of sustainability. Education for a sufficient lifestyle, for example, was developed based on the learnings from education for sustainable development, following the claims that sustainability is too often understood as something outside the responsibility of the individual person. The following paragraphs provide insights regarding the key characteristics of these concepts, the learning goals, suitable learning environments and evaluation criteria.

TOWARDS A TRANSFORMATIVE EDUCATION To perceive the urgently required social transformation as a design task and to prevent it from becoming a catastrophe, a transformative “literacy” is needed that allows us to understand transformation processes and use our actions to actively shape them (Schneidewind & Singer-Brodowski, 2013). Future architects must be aware of the consequences of their design decisions. They must recognize the large social and environmental impact that the construction sector has on the environment, but also the enormous potential and responsibility that comes along with.

This requires a new sort of architect and thereby a new sort of architecture education.

Referring to a concept by Pellaud (2011), Schneider (2013, p.13) summarizes the requirements of an education for sustainable development: recognizing the complexity of the desired transformation, promoting new, the complexity acknowledging ways of thinking, the trans- and interdisciplinary treatment of different subject areas, the promotion of self-confident learners, as well as the development of concrete implementation examples. This requires design tasks to be understood in a wider context that, for example, also consider “invisible” stakeholders, such as the underwater life in the Bergen Sea. That in turn requires architects to cooperate with experts from other fields to gain the required knowledge. Through such cooperations students already start to build up a network for future activities. Collecting experiences by contributing to the implementation of built interventions during the studies provides students with a feeling of self-efficacy that is important in tackling seemingly insurmountable challenges such as climate change.

The numerous competency models presented by Schneider (2013) largely have in common that they empower learners to think ahead and in context, to develop and implement solutions together, to deal with conflicts, contradictions, and ambivalences in a solution-oriented manner, to develop empathy towards fellow human beings and the natural environment, in order to act responsibly with regard to ensuring intra- and intergenerational justice and motivate others to do the same. Based on our experiences from the academies we can only underline the importance of these competencies.

Therefore, we recommend leaving the comfort zone of the university campus, to face the complexity of sustainability by including relevant stakeholders, which do not rarely come along with conflicting perspectives, to gain empathy for other humans and creatures by listening to each other’s needs, working together on a common project and taking our time to carefully consider those beings which often remain hidden from us. Sustainability in that sense is not

WORKING TOGETHER. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

a final condition, but a continuous process that demands an ongoing dialogue to find satisfying compromises for all concerned.

INTEGRATION IN (HIGH) SCHOOL How can we as architects and architecture students tackle global challenges? To answer the most basic question of our Erasmus+ project, we have focused on a step-by-step approach, as suggested by Herweg et. al.

(2016, p. 19). In the beginning we tried to determine possible points of contact between our profession and sustainable development. Here, for example, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the United Nations can be used. In the case of architecture, the Dhaka Declaration already provides as a translation of the generally phrased SDGs and can serve as a starting point to examine possible fields of intervention. This is to gain an increased awareness of the interdependence of the single goals and far-reaching impact of the construction sector rather than assigning specific goals to a design task. Possible contributions should then be differentiated into system, target, and transformative knowledge. This, again, is less about a clear assignment and more about obtaining a better understanding of the connecting points through the assignment process.

In a next step, the authors propose to determine the competences that should be promoted through education for sustainable development. A subdivision into knowledge, ability, will, as well as a distinction between subject and interdisciplinary skills can be helpful. Finally, the intensity and type of the learning process must be determined. Herweg et. al. (2016, 18, 25) based on Bateson (1972) and Sterling (2001) distinguish three levels of intensity: conformational, reformative and transformative learning. The former stands for the usual imparting of knowledge through theories within the boundaries of one’s own discipline. This is education “about” sustainable development. The authors refer to this as “screwing” sustainable development into individual lessons.

In contrast, reformative learning is about “building” sustainability into individual courses, which should lead to education “for” sustainable development. The focus here is not only on imparting knowledge, but also on critically questioning existing conventions and values. The highest intensity is achieved through transformative learning, which is not just about screwing or building sustainable development into individual lessons or courses but redesigning entire study programs to lead to education “as” sustainable development. Thereby, the personal world view and the disciplinary self-image are changed in favor of sustainable development and knowledge, responsibility and actions are aligned accordingly. Even though five-day workshops can only serve as an excursion into the field of sustainable development, they were still planned and implemented according to the requirements for transformative learning. Sustainability was perceived beyond the boundaries of architecture and urban planning as the tasks included perspectives from other fields, such as high school children, community committees, scientists, or artists. We also tried to align the design tasks with our behavior, considering the social and environmental impact of the ways we travelled to and during the workshops or the meals we cooked. Nevertheless, we recommend using longer formats or ideally direct the whole curriculum to also leave a sustainable impact on the students.

LEARNING GOALS At the beginning of our collaboration, we asked ourselves how we could get from an output-oriented to an impact design? Trying to answer this question, we refer to Wittmayer and Hölscher (2017, p. 44) who emphasize the relevance of differentiating knowledge regarding its impact. They distinguish between concrete results (output), direct effects (outcome) and longer-term social effects (impact). While the development of an action strategy, for example, represents an output, the development of the action competence based on it, the inspiration of third

TAKING ACTION. Photo: Workshop Team

GAINING EMPATHY. Photo: Randi Grov Berger

parties or the initiation of concrete actions are to be described as outcomes and the dissemination and gradual anchoring of the changed behavior on a social scale as impact. An outcome and especially an impact is difficult to measure or to trace back to its origin.

We also admit that such goals usually demand a much longer time frame than a five-day workshop. However, working on real life projects and in cooperation with local stakeholders certainly increases the chance to reach beyond the usual output that catches dust in a cellar as soon as the semester has ended. Thereby knowledge is disseminated among the involved stakeholders and public debates can be initiated through real life interventions.

Following Rogers and Tough (1996), Schild, Leng et al.

(2020) define the learning goals of an education for a sufficient lifestyle on four different levels: the cognitive, emotional, motivational and actional level.

Thus, the learning goals are divided into the categories of knowing, feeling, wanting, and doing.

The learners not only expand their understanding of sustainability (cognitive level), they also feel responsible (emotional level) and are motivated (motivational level) to work towards sustainable development through their actions (actional level). We consider this distinction as crucial as it responds to one of our initial questions: How do we foster social engagement and self-initiatives in architectural studies? The usual frontal lessons for a knowledge transfer on a cognitive level are essential, but we argue that they should be complemented by other methods that allow a knowledge transfer on other levels, too. The visit of salmon industries near Bergen or the mountains of waste in a recycling center in Switzerland, for example, touched some of the participants on an emotional level that made them rethink their consumption.

The motivational talk of changemaker Anna Heringer or the visit of Martin Rauch’s rammed earth company, in turn, showed students that architects can be more than service providers and initiate sustainable changes. In Winterslag (BE), the students even took action and implemented small scale interventions to

initiate sustainable transformations. All four levels should be considered. They might not all demand the same amount of time and their relation to each other must be carefully determined. Students should neither get a feeling of helplessness from an overload on an emotional level nor become naïve by only receiving good stories from sustainability pioneers.

Ultimately, the aim of an education for a sufficient lifestyle is to enable learners to understand the connections between their lives and sustainable development and the synergies between sufficiency and a good life, thereby awakening in them a longing for a good life for everyone, now and in the future (2020, p. 48). We can only underline this aim, which played a key role in the first academy in Liechtenstein.

Architects are designing as well as using the built environment. This double role must be enhanced through an architectural education that sharpens the students’ understanding for the interdependence between built structures and daily life practices.

Referring more to the term of knowledge, Schneidewind and Singer-Brodowski (2013) distinguish between system, target, and transformative knowledge. System knowledge is what we can find out about an existing situation. The target knowledge is what we envision for the analyzed situation. The transformative knowledge, finally, is how we can initiate a transformation towards our vision. In architecture studies we tend to create big visions and utopias that are thought-provoking and inspiring.

We do not want to remove the creation of sustainable utopias from the curriculum, but we ask for an increased focus on small steps that can have a sustainable impact now and not in ten years when the time for the utopia might be too late. Otherwise, we only accumulate an “inert sustainability knowledge”, to borrow the words of Schneidewind and Singer-Brodowski (2013), which would at best lead to changed patterns of thought, but hardly in changed patterns of action.

WORKING HANDS-ON. Photo: Kristin Cuhra

LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS Describing the appropriate learning environment for transformative architecture education, learning locations and formats, the relationship between learners and teachers and the role of the teachers are discussed as followed. Therefore, we refer again to Schild, Leng et al. (2020) regarding an education for a sufficient lifestyle. Suitable learning locations can be found outside of the school environment, where a connection to everyday life and personal habits can be experienced and discussed. We recommend this as an essential addition to the learning on campus.

We argue that the real-life experience often leaves a bigger impact on students than abstract theories.

This, however, requires students to be trained in observing and documenting their daily life practices in relation to the built environment, but also in putting oneself in the position of other beings to experience the world from another perspective. Empathic and mindful exercises can stimulate such competences and should be part of (architecture) education.

In-school learning locations should be designed to promote community as far as possible to promote discussion and cooperation between learners (Schild et al., 2020, p. 62). As far as the time frame is concerned, those teaching formats that allow a longer and intensive examination of the topic, such as project days, block weeks or (interdisciplinary) semester projects (Schild et al., 2020, p. 64) are particularly suitable. Learners are given enough time to “try out” sustainability instead of just talking about it. As previously outlined, this was a relevant aspect for our workshops too. We could have avoided several conflicts and discussions by separating the mediated workshop contents from our actions during and beyond the teaching schedule, but we tried to be authentic in what we said and what we did. This did not mean, for example, that we forbade participants to travel to the workshops by plane, but we encouraged them to use other means of transportation, even if this meant a 36-hour journey. Surprisingly, it was often such

rather unpleasant sides that made students rethink their impact the most and that stayed with them as a memory of some sort of climate activism.

Instead of serving learning content in the form of frontal teaching and as a “finished package”, we aimed for a joint construction of knowledge by learners and teachers. Learning was less the result of successful knowledge transfer, but rather an active process of knowledge construction controlled by the students themselves (Schneidewind & Singer-Brodowski, 2013, p. 138) whereby the students build a close relationship with their environment and with other actors.

We argue that this is a key element to help students building up a network of changemakers to answer the last of our initial questions. Students should be pushed out of the comfort zone of their university campus to initiate small scale projects and activities in cooperation with local actors and to respond to local needs in relation to urgent topics such as climate change, biodiversity loss or inclusive design. Therefore, the task of the teachers should shift from pure knowledge transfer to accompanying, promoting, and advising students in their learning process, respecting the shared knowledge construction.

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION Hattie (2010) and Herweg et. al (2016, p. 26) summarize the following three claims for university teaching.

Firstly, a transparent communication of performance expectations to the students through the formulation of concrete learning outcomes and assessment criteria at the beginning of the course; secondly, the application of activating teaching strategies through which the students acquire knowledge themselves and reflect on how they learn best; and thirdly, a continuous, prompt, and informative feedback on the learning process of the students. Admittedly, the performance appraisal played a small probably too small, role in our case. Workshops, especially when they take place in another country, are sometimes almost regarded as holidays and are not taken as seriously as classes at one’s own university.

However, this is a general statement and has nothing to do with the transformative teaching methods that we have used. We recommend that a performance appraisal is carried out in a differentiated manner despite difficult conditions, due to group work or the lack of examinations. Continuous exchange with the students, self-reflective learning diagnoses such as portfolios, learning diaries, process logs and reflection papers (Schild et al., 2020, p. 65) can facilitate a performance assessment. At the end of each workshop there was also a presentation in which the individual groups explained their work process and the results.

Thereby, the assessment was not only made by the teachers, but also by other involved actors, the fellow students, and the students themselves. This also corresponds with the recommendations of Schild et al.

(2020, p. 65) to supplement grades with comments or discussions, to prevent the assessment from being perceived as a reward or a punishment, but rather as a tool to improve the learning process.

TOWARDS A LIVED SUSTAINABILITY To conclude our reflections and recommendations, we do not suggest to get rid of tried and tested teaching methods and redesign architecture curricula. Teaching formats such as the design studios and classic lectures have their justification. However, transformative and classic teaching formats should complement each other, which probably requires a greater emphasis on transformative teaching formats in many curricula.

Aspiring architects should already have the opportunity to implement small projects and activities for the benefit of the environment and society, in order to experience self-efficacy that encourages them to take on the major challenges of climate change and increasing social disparity. This allows them to make important contacts with “like-minded people” during their studies and gradually build up a network of changemakers. We appeal for an urgently needed expansion of an “imagined” sustainability through a “lived” one, which requires an increased consistency of taught content and lived practices.

REFERENCES Bateson, G. (1972). Steps to ean ecology of mind.

Chandler.

Hattie, J. (2010). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement (Reprinted.).

Routledge.

Herweg, K. G., Zimmermann, A., Lundsgaard-Hansen, L., Tribelhorn, T., Hammer, T., Tanner, R. P., Trechsel, L. J., Bieri, S., & Kläy, A. (2016). Nachhaltige Entwicklung in die Hochschullehre integrieren – Ein Leitfaden mit Vertiefungen für die Universität Bern. Grundlagen. https://doi.org/10.7892/ boris.81842 Pellaud, F. (2011). Pour une éducation au développement durable. Essais. Éditions Quæ. http://site.ebrary.com/lib/ alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10678248 Rogers, M., & Tough, A. (1996). Facing the future is not for wimps. Futures, 28(5), 491–496. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 0016-3287(96)00021-3 Schild, K., Leng, M., Jakob, M., & Hammer, T. (2020). Auf der Suche nach dem rechten Mass: Nachhaltige Entwicklung auf der Sekundarstufe II (1. Auflage 2020). hep verlag.

Schneider, A. (2013). Kernelemente einer Bildung für Nachhaltige Entwicklung. Zürich – Fribourg. BNE-Konsortium COHEP. https://www.education21.ch/sites/default/files/ uploads/pdf-d/campus/cohep/131031_d_Gesamtdokument. pdf Schneidewind, U., & Singer-Brodowski, M. (2013).

Transformative Literacy: Gesellschaftliche Veränderungsprozesse verstehen und gestalten [[Elektronische Ressource]]. https://epub.wupperinst.org/frontdoor/deliver/index/ docId/5432/file/5432_Singer-Brodowski.pdf Sterling, S., & Orr, D. W. (2001). Sustainable education: Revisioning learning and change. Schumacher briefings: no. 6. Green Books.

Wittmayer, J., & Hölscher, K. (2017). Transformationsforschung: Definitionen, Ansätze, Methoden. https://www.umweltbundesamt.de/sites/default/files/ medien/1410/publikationen/2017-11-08_texte_103-2017_ transformationsforschung.pdf

IMPACT MANIFESTO TOWARDS CONSISTENCY BETWEEN TAUGHT, STUDIED AND LIVED SUSTAINABILITY IN ARCHITECTURE SCHOOLS! > Provide more real-life settings where students get in contact with important stakeholders and where designs and planning processes can be implemented and scaled. > Widen the traditional knowledge transfer on an emotional, motivational and actional level so that students also gain responsibility, motivation, and agency to act. > Articulate the roles and train the capabilities of teachers to initiate and deal with co-creative and transformative settings. > Complement system- and target-knowledge with transformative knowledge to empower students to initiate and implement changes themselves. > Introduce a code of conduct that ensures consistency between taught and lived sustainability in the context of the architecture university and beyond.

Further info and reflections of the students: uni.li/seiaa

ACADEMY ORGANIZERS Project Lead University of Liechtenstein Cornelia Faisst Daniel Haselsberger Clarissa Rhomberg (until Sep 2021) Partner Universities Hasselt University Els Hannes Liesbeth Huybrechts Peter Princen Bergen School of Architecture Cecilie Andersson Christian Victor Palmer Royal Danish Academy Anne Beim Lin Kappel Astrid Mody Pelle Munch-Petersen

MEDIATING LIMITS TO BUILDING

ENOUGH

ACADEMY 01

2022 MAY 02 – 06 UNIVERSITY OF LIECHTENSTEIN

INTRODUCTION In the first workshop of the Erasmus+ project “Social and environmental impact academy for architects (SEIAA)”, nineteen architecture students and five teachers from Bergen School of Architecture (NO), Hasselt University (BE), the Royal Danish Academy (DK) and the University of Liechtenstein (LI) have dealt with the topic of sufficiency in relation to the use and design of the built environment. In a five days workshop in the context of the University of Liechtenstein the participants have explored ways to (re)design the built environment so that a sufficient use of it becomes a key to a good life. The findings were brought together and translated into “sufficien­ cy-lessons” that the participants implemented at the high school in Vaduz and the Formatio school in Triesen.

What does a built environment look like whose primary purpose is not economic growth but a good life? This was a question that has guided us through the workshop and hopefully continues to guide us through our lives as architects and users of the built environment. Among the three sustainability approaches – efficiency, consistency and sufficiency – the latter was in the focus of this workshop. Whereas efficiency and consistency relate to our ways of production and depend on technological innovation, sufficiency relates to consumption and depends on social innovation. Certainly, a challenging topic as it confronts the individual with his or her daily actions.

However, for architects and urban planners it is relevant to understand the mutual influence of built structures and behaviour to (re)design a built environment wherein the most sufficient way of living is also the most convenient. Thereby, sufficiency can get rid of its negative connotation that often equates it with renunciation. Especially architects could perceive sufficiency as a creativity-booster in the sense of limitation is the mother of invention.

LOCAL AND NATURAL Buildings and the construction sector have a consider­ able impact on global CO2 emissions and primary energy demand. In addition, the building sector influences the emissions of the mobility sector, as the way we move in the built environment is closely related to its organization. How can architects respond to these negative impacts? An excursion to the production site of Lehm-Ton-Erde in Schlins (AT), founded by the Austrian Martin Rauch, provides promising answers. Earth is used as a building material since the beginning of humanity. No wonder, looking at the various potentials of the rammed earth projects of Lehm-Ton-Erde: Rammed earth involves no or little transportation as it can be found in the right mixture in many places all over the world. Its processing does neither require high temperatures nor toxic emis­ sions. It provides a health-promoting interior climate as it stores heat, balances humidity fluctuations, or absorbs unpleasant smells and toxins. At the end of its life-cycle it can easily be brought back to nature.

It is a material that incorporates important aspects of sufficiency: Local and natural. However, the many advantages come along with a high degree of human labour that is involved in the production of rammed earth walls. This makes it an expensive construction method even though the material itself is almost free.

With a limited lobbying power in relation to other construction material industiries, building regulation and norms have made it difficult for rammed earth to regain its past importance as a building material.

Hence, sufficiency does not only depend on the

HOUSE RAUCH. Photo: Daniel Haselsberger

MOUNTAINS OF WASTE. Photo: Daniel Haselsberger

awareness and the will of the individual, but on political measures that allow and promote its implementation. A consideration of the environmen­ tal burdens in the costs of building materials could be a way to change the imbalance of material and labour costs and thereby make earth an economically more attractive building material.

STOP BUILDING In many western countries the vacancy rate of apartments is rising, while the construction activities are growing at the same time. Many apartments and single-family houses only act as secondary homes standing empty during most of the year. Others are not even used as holiday homes as they are pure investments. This leads to the radical question of whether it is enough to challenge building methods or whether building itself needs to be questioned.

A needs analysis must precede all building projects.

This has become obvious during a visit of the recycling centre in Sennwald (CH). Even though the technologi­ cal facilities of the centre allow a high degree of separation and recycling, to transform the waste into a resource again, there are still considerable amounts of waste that end in landfill or need to be burned releasing CO2 and toxic emissions. Thus, it is not primarily the symptoms of a wasteful society that need further investigation but its roots. Technological innovation alone was and is not able to solve the environmental crises. More efficient technology, circular ways of production and a reduced consump­ tion of services and goods need to go hand in hand.

SUFFICIENCY AS AN ETHICAL PRINCIPLE Sufficiency is an ethical principle as it confronts the individual with his and her responsibility in contribut­ ing to intra- and intergenerational justice. What this could mean for the architectural profession was impressively shown by the German architect Anna Heringer. Following the understanding that architecture is a tool to improve lives, Anna Heringer

aims to contribute to a more sustainable and just world. Whether in Bangladesh, China, Africa or in closer regions, her work expresses an understanding of architecture that is not limited to a physical output but focuses on building as a process, wherein regional added value is created and spatial appropriation happens. The above-mentioned aspects of the local and the natural are here complemented by the social.

LIVING ON A SMALL FOOT The environmental impacts of meat-consumption, individual motorized traffic or travelling by plane have become more acknowledged during recent years and increasing climate change. However, the impact of building is still not commonly known within western societies. Thus, how can people be made aware of the impact of floor-area consumption?

This question was in the centre of the workshop and education was perceived as a relevant way to increase the awareness about our excessive space-consump­ tion. The main task of the workshop was the creation of a sufficiency-lesson. Therefore, four student-groups developed a sufficiency-lesson which they implement­ ed with school-classes from the high school in Vaduz and the Formatio school in Triesen. In playful approaches the participants of the workshops mediated a sufficient use of the built environment to the school classes. Thereby they tried to show that living in tiny apartments or sharing rooms with others could offer potentials for an increased life-quality as one is light and independent or gains social interactions.

ENOUGH IS MORE Sufficiency bears a big potential to become more sustainable and increase the life-quality at the same time. However, this promising potential also comes along with challenges as it works against the logics of economic growth. Even when the responsibility of the architects would be high, their capacity is still limited.

The promotion of sufficiency depends on a social change of values which needs to happen on different

LEFTOVERS AFTER THE INCINERATION. Photo: Daniel Haselsberger

CLAYSTORMING WORKSHOP. Photo: Cornelia Faisst

levels and involves many actors. On a political level a sufficient lifestyle can be promoted or even prescribed through laws, environmental taxes and incentives.

On an educational level, values can be formed, and awareness risen. In the end the individual should be motivated to live a sufficient life because it comes along with other benefits, such saving costs, saving time, gaining independence or gaining social interac­ tions. Technological innovation might come up with the required tools, but only social innovation can make sure that they are used in favour of a more sustainable and just world.

MEDIATION TO THE FUTURE GENERATION Today’s children and teenagers will be the clients, architects, and politicians of tomorrow. Therefore, it is relevant to provide them with options to experience their use of the built environment in more conscious ways and make them aware of the consequences of their daily life practices. This requires a basic under­ standing of an architect’s vocabulary as well as opportunities to learn about and participate in the design of the built environment. The School of Architecture at the University of Liechtenstein has been committed to the implementation of architec­ ture mediation workshops at schools of different levels in the alpine Rhine valley.

A successful workshop requires good preparation.

The topics around architecture and urban planning are hard to understand for people outside these professions, even more for children. On the other hand, architects and urban planners are often not used in translating their professional language for young age groups. The aim is not just to mediate the artistic and technical basics of architecture, but the social and environmental impacts of our built environment in general.

The learning objectives are both technical and interdisciplinary (personal, social and methodical skills).

In terms of technical learning objectives, the following objectives must be emphasized:

• • • • • •

analyzing spaces in the built environment creating awareness of proportion and scale identifying materials and their properties verbalization of spatial impressions creating atmospheres combining creativity and technology

In order to conduct an exciting and instructive workshop, it is advisable to combine different methods and formats, the following are particularly suitable for architecture workshops: • input • brainstorm • individual work • work in groups • discussion • sightseeing / exploration At the end of the workshop, it is advisable to do a short reflection or evaluation with all participants in order to ensure the quality of future projects, if necessary to increase it.

SUFFICIENCY LESSONS The following pages give insight to four different lessons that the workshop participants prepared and implemented with school classes from the Formatio School in Triesen and the Gymnasium in Vaduz.

The lessons are explained in a way that they can be tested and implemented by the reader as well.

They are intended to encourage imitation so that sufficiency as a sustainability strategy (in dealing with the built space) is further applied in schools and mediated to young generations.

SKETCHES OF THE ADOLESCENTS. Photo: Daniel Haselsberger

FOCUS AREAS OF THE WORKSHOP REGARDING THE 17 SDGS.

SUFFICIENT STRATEGIES TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Sufficiency is a key strategy to contribute to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. Dealing with the question of the right measure and placing a good life in the centre of the aspirations, sufficiency has a major impact on several goals. Aiming neither for too little nor for too much, but a condition of enough for everyone, it works towards reduced inequalities (SDG 10). Focusing on a good life which is neither characterized by deficiency nor abundance, good health and well-being (SDG 3) are important aspects, too. Since human behaviour is closely related and shaped by (built) structures and modes of production, sustainable cities and communi­ ties (SDG 11) should enhance responsible consump­ tion and production (SDG 12), promoting sufficient lifestyles. While more efficient and closed production methods of a circular economy depend on techno­ logical progress, which often brings unexpected rebound effects and creates new problems instead of solving existing ones, sufficiency bears a potential that could lead to immediate climate action (SDG 13) independently of any technological progress.

WORKSHOP DIARY

DAY 1

ARRIVAL DAY

The workshop started with a common dinner at the University of Liechtenstein. In an upcycled shipping container, named as “Base-Camp”, the participants introduced themselves by presenting their “sufficiency stories”. Sharing a great variety of ways how a sufficient life can become a good life allowed the students to get to know each other and served as an inspiring start into the workshop. The students are divided into four groups, each group consisting of at least one students from every school. During the workshop every group prepared a sufficiency-lesson which they will implement with classes from the high school in Vaduz and the private school Formatio in Triesen.

CLAY-DAY. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

CLAY-DAY

DAY 2 The day started with an excursion to Schlins in Austria.

Architect Sami Akkach guided us through the production sites of clay-expert Martin Rauch. He explained how building with earth leads to healthy and sustainable living environments and how means of prefabrication have allowed an upscaling of the labour-intense production of rammed-earth walls.

The visit to Martin Rauch’s house and a current construction site exemplify the differences between in situ- and pre-fabrication. Back in the Base-Camp at the University, the students take part in a “clay storming” workshop guided by Daniel Haselsberger.

Unlike in the method of brainstorming, first ideas are not written or drawn on paper, but modelled with the hands. In an intuitive way thinking and doing, brain and hands, are connected and spatial ideas explored. The day ended with the presentations of two uni.li students, who presented a project of their studies, which is related to the mediation topic and served as an inspiration for the workshop participants. This day approached sufficiency through the processing and the transportation of resources.

Earth is a great example for a building material that involves reduced transport distances, no high temperatures for processing and can be renaturized completely.

UNDERSTANDING EARTH. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

DAY 3

RECYCLING-DAY

This day led to the Recycling Center in Sennwald, Switzerland. Marc Baumgartner, head of the RecyclingCenter, explained the different recycling steps.

Modern facilities allow a high degree of recycling which transforms waste into a resource. Nevertheless, there are still significant amounts of waste that can only be burned or dumped into landfill. Directly and perhaps overwhelmingly the students are confronted with the western waste-society. There is hardly anything that people do not through away, even coins are thrown away in considerable amounts. The day continues in the Base-Camp where PhD-student Gabriela Dimitrova talks about her research about recycling and reusing options in the construction sector. This is followed by a discussion about sustain­ ability, lead by the three PhD-students Gabriela Dimitrowa, Daniel Haselsberger and Piotr Piotrowski.

They debate about their different approaches to sustainability. Technological revolution vs behavioural change, green-growth vs post-growth, sufficiency vs efficiency and consistency show only some of the controversies that have been discussed and hopefully lead to a more wholistic understanding of sustainability.

LECTURE BY ANNA HERINGER. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

DAY 4

PREPARATION-DAY

The fourth day started with an input about sufficiency in the building sector by Daniel Haselsberger and a methodological input about mediation techniques by Cornelia Faisst. During the lunch-break the partici­ pants got the chance to listen to a presentation by the German architect Anna Heringer, who is known for her building activities in Bangladesh, China, Africa and in the region, too. In an eloquent manner Anna Heringer explained how limitation in terms of the choice of materials and technological tools can lead to regional added value, spatial appropriation, healthy and sustainable living environments. In the afternoon one group already implemented a clay storming workshop with a school-class from the school Formatio, while the other groups prepared their workshops for the coming day.

RECYCLING-TOUR. Photo: Daniel Haselsberger

DAY 5

WORKSHOP DAY

On the fifth day three groups were at the high school in Vaduz to implement their sufficiency-lessons.

In playful and creative ways, they tried to mediate the importance and the potential of a sufficient use of the built environment to three different school-class­ es. The aim was to show them that a sufficient lifestyle is not only a necessary duty towards other people and our natural surrounding, but also offer the chance to increase our life quality. Decluttering, minimalism and sharing were some of the strategies that have led to inspiring ideas by the students.

WORKING ON A BIG PLAN. Photo: Daniel Haselsberger

DAY 6

PRESENTATION DAY

On the last workshop day the students prepared their final presentations including the documentation and evaluation of the sufficiency-lessons with the school-classes. A small exhibition in the Base-Camp showed the outputs of the week. In the afternoon, an excursion led the students to Triesenberg, where an old traditional Walser house as well as the Walser Museum was visited. This allowed another different approach to sufficiency, one out of necessity.

However, whereas in the past sufficiency was pursued as a survival strategy and as a consequence of necessity, nowadays it should be pursued as a consequence of responsibility. The workshop ended with a common dinner in a restaurant in Vaduz.

GROUP-PHOTO. Photo: Gabriela Dimitrova

SUFFICIENCY LESSON 01

MAKE NON-PLACES MATTER AGAIN

CLAYSTORM SESSION. Photo: Peter Princen

KELVIN AU CHARLOTTE BUSSELS SOFIE HYBHOLT TINE KIERULF KARIN RANIAY

First, the students were divided into four groups.

They were taken on a tour on the University campus.

While walking, short inputs were given on land consumption through building activities. Four lost spaces were identified, one for each group. To stimulate the discussion among the students, the mentors asked questions such as “Would you use this space?”, “Would you want to add to or take away something?” After the tour the students were taken back to the classroom.

Each group had to reflect on their space and make changes to them. All ideas were welcomed, the only restriction was to precisely reflect on whether or not their idea would encourage human interaction in the given space. The task was carried out through models of clay, giving them an opportunity to directly translate their thoughts into models. The groups spent one hour working on their models. Each group had a mentor assigned to them to answer questions and to support them during the process. In the end each group presented their model, explaining how they have transformed their lost space into an exciting and sustainable public space.

“We need new ways to think about architecture, instead of shooting down an idea as stupid, it is important to stop and think: Why not?”

TINE KIERULF

CLAYSTORM SESSION. Photo: Kelvin Au

TRY IT AS WELL! SUFFICIENCY OUTPUT DURATION AGE-GROUP TOOLS • • • • •

• • •

Reduce land-consumption Clay-models 2–3 hours 12–18 years Clay, knife, scraper

Introduce the topic of land consumption, densification measures and lost spaces in a playful way.

Divide the class in groups of four to six people.

Let them explore a given neighbourhood or the immediate surroundings of the school campus.

Together, identify lost spaces and assign one to every group.

Let the students experience their space with all their senses, analyzing what makes this space a lost space and what changes could bring it back to life.

With the help of clay, let the students build a model of their lost space.

Let them model their interventions to reactivate the space.

Let every group present their reactivation interven­ tions in their clay models and discuss them in plenum.

“This lesson was about awareness, more than results. In this case the climate collapse not only represents a threat but also an opportunity.”

SOFIE HYBHOLT

CLAYSTORM SESSION. Photo: Peter Princen

REFLECTION Even though a mentor was assigned to each group, the students worked quite independently. The task of the mentors was to ask questions to stimulate reflection and creativity among the group. Triggered by a small question they were immediately discussing the spaces with a high level of architectural complexity. It was important to let them know that there are no stupid ideas. Creative solutions were welcome. Instead of asking why something should be like this, the students were encouraged to find reasons as to why not. We need new ways of thinking about architecture, and there was a lot to learn from the direct and playful approach of the students.

How to implement a sufficient lifestyle can be an overwhelming question to answer, for an architecture student as well as for a teenager. Therefore, we started the task by asking ourselves: “How can we improve our lost space with a minimal intervention?”

Becoming aware of their goals, the students were immediately driven to imagine necessary changes that would let them reach their goals. It was surprising to see how the group was able to connect one solution to another. Such a solution-oriented thinking is important to tackle the climate crisis that we are in.

SUFFICIENCY LESSON 02

THE MATERIALS AROUND US

TAPING PLANS 1:1. Photo: Lin Kappel

LINA ANNIKA BOOS MAGDA KASPRZAK SOFYA MARKOVA TIES VANDEN BOSCH

In the morning we wanted the students to think about how much space they actually need. So we divided them into groups of two and three and let them choose a place in the school that they liked. Then we gave them two rolls of tape and asked them to tape on the ground a space they would like to live in.

Always trying to keep the space as small as possible but at the same time bringing in all the functions they need. They should use their body to define how big the rooms and furniture has to be. After about an hour we gathered the students and then discussed all the tiny apartments that they taped on the floor.

In the afternoon we wanted them to think about materials they would like to have in the little flat they designed in the morning. Again in groups they should look at magazines, walk around in the school and also go outside in order to find materials they like.

They should then create a collage with the things they found. While arranging the collage they should reflect about why they like the material and also what it means in terms of sufficiency to use these materials.

In the end we made a little exhibition of the collages and had a discussion about the materials they chose.

“It was refreshing to see the groups adding playful elements to their spaces that supported their lifestyle and created a personal atmosphere.”

TAPING PLANS 1:1. Photo: Lin Kappel

TRY IT AS WELL! SUFFICIENCY OUTPUT DURATION AGE-GROUP TOOLS •

•

•

•

Reducing transport and processing of materials Collages of materials 3 hours 15 –18 years Tape, magazines, glue, scissors, paper

Introduce the topic of transportation and processing of building materials: Sufficiency in the sense of less transportation and more local resources, as well as less processing and more natural and untreated materials.

Let the students imagine materials for their taped tiny apartments by creating a collage of materials found in magazines, newspapers or the surroundings of the school.

Discuss these materials in relation to sufficiency considering transport distances, level of processing, and required amounts.

Let the students present their tiny apartments and ideas for materialization. Discuss them in plenum.

REFLECTION The second task evoked many thoughts on the quality of materials that we are surrounded with. Several groups took durability, tactile and sensual qualities into consideration. We were generally surprised how accurate the proportions of the drawn spaces and inventory were. The students’ understanding of proportions and measurements based on their own body was impressive and their minimal space proposals were quite realistic. Using the body as a tool to define spaces was surprisingly effective.

It was refreshing to see the groups adding playful elements to their spaces that supported their lifestyle and created a personal atmosphere. The students did not only focus on organizing the space and choosing the right materials, but also incorporated daylight. Both of the tasks complemented each other well and gave room for possible follow-up tasks.

Introducing a broader spectrum of materials would have improved the second task, allowing a broader discussion of sustainability of materials.

MATERIAL QUALITIES. Photo: Lin Kappel

“We don’t need that much to live. With the most necessary facilities it can easily be called a livable space.”

TIES VANDEN BOESCH

PROCESS. Photo: Sofya Markova

SUFFICIENCY LESSON 03

RETHINKING IDEAL LIVING SITUATIONS

GUIDING THROUGH THE DEVELOPED CONCEPTS. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

WINTHA VAN DEN ABBEELE GUÐRÚN HARÐARDÓTTIR MUSTAFA KARAASLAN CHRISTEL MADSEN BRITT VOSSEN

We rearranged the tables to form one long communal table, on which we rolled out a long paper for the students to draw their dream house. All the students presented their drawings, spanning from huge mansions to tiny house concepts. Even though we have not introduced the concept of co-living yet, a few students already chose to live together.

After a break we divided the students into groups of four and gave them a paper with the size of 1 × 1 meter and some coloured sheets. We showed them how to work in a scale of 1:10. Then we asked them to design a co-living situation for their group on the 1 × 1 m paper, which corresponds to 10 × 10 m in the scale of 1:10. In addition we asked them to distinguish private and public spaces with colours.

“It was rewarding to see how well they were able to co-design.”

GUÐRÚN HARÐARDÓTTIR

ONE COMMON PLAN. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

TRY IT AS WELL! SUFFICIENCY OUTPUT DURATION AGE-GROUP TOOLS

• • • • • •

•

•

Sharing space instead of owning Plan of a shared flat in 1:10 3 hours 15 –18 years Paper, coloured cardboard, pens, scissors

Introduce scales and plan drawings in a playful way.

Let the students draw their individual dream houses on a shared paper roll.

Let them negotiate spatial (paper) demands with each other.

Let them present their designs and discuss them in plenum, also considering sustainability aspects.

Introduce the topic of sharing space through communal living concepts.

Divide the students in groups of four and let them design a shared apartment in the scale 1:10 on a 1 × 1 meter paper.

Let them distinguish private and public rooms to get a better awareness which rooms they are willing to share and how that affects their design ideas.

Let the students present their proposals and discuss Plan of a shared flat in 1:10 them in plenum in comparison to their initial dream houses.

“I was suprised how quickly they changed their mindset towards co-living.”

BRITT VOSSEN

DESIRED FUTURE LIVING SITUATIONS. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

REFLECTION For the first task we deliberately did not mention words such as house, apartment, home etc. to keep their minds more open on what “living” could be.

This resulted in diverse but often quite unsustainable outcomes. It was interesting to see that almost all students started by drawing a rectangle, which they filled with programs. Instead of a design based on the individual needs, the house acted as a container and dictated the programs.

The co-housing task resulted in interesting architectural solutions. Having to negotiate a limited space, the students shifted their mindset, resulting in more shared spaces like bathrooms, wardrobes, living­ rooms, gardens and even shared bedrooms. Using colours enabled the students to consider the different functions of a residential building and the separation of private and public spaces. After their final presen­ tations all students agreed that they would prefer to live in their new co-living house instead of the rather greedy and egoistic first designs.

SUFFICIENCY LESSON 04

TAILORING PERSONAL SPACES

PERSONAL MEASURING RIBBONS TO TAILOR PERSONAL SPACES.

Photo: Workshop Team

FERDINAND AAGENÆS INE GRAJCHEN NJÅL HOMEYER THEA MADSEN VIKTORIA MATRYUK

The first task for the students was to draw their personal rooms, thinking about how they use them and what they find important. We demonstrated a quick sketch of a personal room to show its qualities and what we liked or disliked about it. Both, we and the students then proceeded to present our drawings to share what our rooms look like.

The second task was to explore the idea of personal dimensions and proportions. We asked the students to make a measuring-ribbon based on their bodies instead of a metric system. That way the students ended up with a measuring-ribbon that was specifi­ cally tailored to their individual bodies.

Now we asked the students to make a 1:1 sketch of their own tailored room using their personal measur­ ing ribbons. We finished the day by going through the corridors and letting the students present their 1:1 tape sketches. We had discussions on how they had utilised the space and solutions they had implemented to make a better use of their rooms.

“How to reduce the personal floor area demand while maintaining a good life quality?”

DRAWING THE PERSONAL BEDROOM. Photo: Workshop Team BEFORE AND AFTER A DECLUTTERING PROCESS. Photo: Workshop Team

TRY IT AS WELL! SUFFICIENCY OUTPUT DURATION AGE-GROUP TOOLS • • •

• • • •

Reduction of floor-area consumption Personal measuring ribbons, taped floor plans 3 hours 15 –18 years Paper strips, pens, tape

Introduce measurements and proportions.

Let the students draw their personal rooms.

Let them reflect on what they like or dislike about their rooms and how they could optimize their rooms in terms of floor area demands.

Let the students create their personal measuringribbon tailored to their own body measures.

Let the students tape their ideas for a personal room on the floor using their personal measuring-ribbons.

Challenge them to question their needs and reduce their floor-area-consumption.

Let the students present their proposals and discuss them together.

“The discussion revolved around the topic of what a good living space actually is, rather than just trying to reduce our built footprint.”

THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS. Photo: Workshop Team

REFLECTION What began as an exercise in sufficiency, soon became more of an exercise in spatial qualities. The discussion revolved around the topic of what a good living space actually is, rather than just trying to reduce our built footprint. Body measurement introduced the idea of a tailored space, where the students became more aware of their own physical presence. Our objective was to make the students reflect on the differences between “nice to have” and “need to have”. By first drawing their own bedrooms, the students got a familiar space to work with, and we could then go on to exercises where the students could use their own spatial understandings, and their individual body measurements to explore new ways of organizing their spaces. In the taping exercise, the students got the chance to define their own spaces in 1:1, and apply their own perceptions of quality to the rooms they designed.

THE BODY AS A SCALE. Photo: Workshop Team

LIMITATION AS A CHANCE

SUSTAINABILITY, IN SEARCH OF A DEFINITION Sustainability has become a vague term. It is being (ab)used in ways that disguise its meaning. In a capitalist society sustainability is a selling argument: Every product is appraised to be sustainable in one or the other dubious way, just to calm the consciousness of the consumer. It is also a status symbol: Sustainable is someone who drives an electric car or lives in a passive house, no matter how many times this person goes on holidays by plane. However, in the end it is not primarily a product but its use that needs to be sustainable. And it is the overall emissions and resource demands per capita and no single symbol can define someone’s sustainability. By proposing a simple calculation, based on a concept by Neustart Schweiz, we tried to liberate the term from its many interpretations: The world’s renewable resources divided by the global population equals a sustainable and respectively a sufficient and fair lifestyle.

As obvious this calculation might seem, its result caused discomfort and discussions among us. No wonder, living on 20 square meters, not using cars and planes, radically reducing the consumption of meat,

dairy products, the internet …, poses big challenges for all of us. “This looks like the life of a prisoner!”, commented a shocked workshop participant.

However, most people in the world, especially in the global south, need to live with much less than the proposed lifestyle menu. Thus, how can we take the right to live beyond our means? No doubt, the precision of these numbers may be questioned but they certainly show a direction of where our personal duties should lead to.

The attempt to define sustainability through numbers and to relate it to our personal responsibility during the sustainability debate on the third workshop day caused a lively discussion that helped us gaining a more wholistic understanding of sustainability, which too often is reduced to products or greenwashed through capitalist driven media.

BUILT STRUCTURES AND DAILY LIFE PRACTICES Throughout the workshop we were confronted with the challenge of how our designs could become more sustainable, not only in the ways they are shaped and materialized, but also in the usage that they promote.

How could we transform the built environment so that the most sustainable lifestyle also becomes the most convenient? Trying to answer this question we first explored the relation of built structures and daily life practices. Instead of losing ourselves in theories we observed how our daily life actions are being shaped by the built structures that surround us and how in turn, our practices influence our design decisions. Therefore, we wrote “sufficiency stories” stating the role of sufficiency in our lives, the benefits we gain from it, but also the challenges we are confronted with and how design measures could eventually lead to a sufficiency promoting built environment.

In a more playful approach, we tried to raise the same awareness in the teenagers of two regional high schools. They imagined how living in a tiny apartment, or a shared flat could benefit the environment but

also their own lives. During these “sufficiency lessons” we took on a different role: Instead of proposing designs for the built environment, we proposed alternative uses of it. At the same time, we collected information on the transformations that a future generation requires to live in sufficient ways. We turned into lifestyle experts for a sufficient use of the built environment.

BETWEEN STRICT NUMBERS AND GOOD STORIES On one hand the above-mentioned calculation can provide a wholistic understanding of sustainability, on the other it might appear as a repulsive appeal, scaring people rather than motivating them to live in sufficient ways. This leads to another finding of the workshop: Sufficiency must be packed into good stories without becoming vague. The fact that sufficiency is often equated to loss and renunciation is not helpful in promoting sufficient lifestyles. Our sufficiency stories have shown that the reasons for the sufficient aspects of our lifestyles were usually related to a gain in life quality. Imagination is required to discover this gain, as what must be renounced is usually more obvious than what can be gained by renunciation.

Sharing sufficiency stories or listening to change­ makers such as architect Anna Heringer or clay expert Martin Rauch showed us the possibility of alternative paths. Such stories work against the term’s negative connotations and proof that it is not only key to a sustainable but also a good life. However, there is also a risk that such stories distract from more problematic issues or compensate for unsustainable practices.

Our sufficiency stories have also shown that we tend to focus on specific aspects in our lives, while others remain hidden. We might use a bicycle to go to work, but we travel on holidays by plane. We might live in a passive house, but on a bigger floor area than a sustainable lifestyle would allow. During the workshop we have become aware of the many contradictions that our (un)sustainable actions are entangled in.

Even though we cannot always solve them, it is relevant that we do not shy away from addressing them and try to find a compromise between the unforgiving arithmatic of a sufficient lifestyle and the deceptive incompleteness of pleasing sustainability stories.

FROM THINKING TO DOING Sufficiency as a pathway towards sustainability does not require unseen innovations to have an immediate impact. However, the immediate potential that can be activated by everyone also poses an uncertainty: Do our individual actions matter compared to the unimaginable scale of climate change or biodiversity loss? Our answer to that was clear: They do! Because we are good in creating big visions for a sustainable future, but we are not as good when it comes to taking action. Therefore, every step towards a more sustainable world matters. However, these steps must not only mean a sacrifice for the sake of sustainability but come along with benefits for an improvement of the personal life quality. Therefore, politics, econo­ mies, schools, and designers must set a framework of legal, technological, educational, and built structures that promote sustainable practices. This requires architects to share their field of expertise with others as we tried to do with our potential future clients, the teenagers from two regional high schools.

STUDYING AND LIVING SUSTAINABILITY A main finding of the workshop was that five days only allow an excursion into the field of sustainability.

To promote sustainability in (architecture) education we suggest a holistic approach, which does not only include a single workshop “about” sustainability but a whole curriculum and a campus that is aimed “to be” sustainable. We ask for a consistency between studied, taught, and lived sustainability. Sustainability should not be reduced to slides and theories, but lived through sustainable actions on and beyond the campus. This includes the way students and teachers

travel to their university, the menu of the canteen, the modelling materials, or the amount of print outs required to present a project. This is why we tried to limit the destinations of our excursions to a radius that can be reached by means of public transport in less than an hour. The food provided during the workshop was not vegan, but at least vegetarian. The main modelling material was clay that can be endlessly reused and easily renaturized. The nearby location of the accommodation allowed the workshop participants to reach the university comfortably by foot. Finally, the workshop took place in an upcycled container, which served as an inspiring working environment.

AFRAID OF SUSTAINABILITY? We are aware that confronting our personal lifestyles with sustainability is a challenging endeavor, as it risks to end up in a blame game. However, the experience of our workshop has shown that sufficiency offers not only an urgent but also a fruitful access to the topic of sustainability. The inspiring examples of Anna Heringer and Martin Rauch, but also the many sufficiency stories and lessons that were part of this workshop, have shown that there is no need to be afraid of sustainability. What is needed is curiosity and fantasy to imagine what can be gained through renunciation, how limitations can act as creativity boosters and how a built environment could look like that it is not designed for economic profit but a good life for everyone.

ACADEMY PARTICIPANTS Teachers University of Liechtenstein Cornelia Faisst Daniel Haselsberger Bergen School of Architecture Christian Victor Palmer Hasselt University Peter Princen Royal Danish Academy Lin Kappel Students University of Liechtenstein Kelvin Au Lina Annika Boos Mustafa Karaaslan Tine Kierulf Viktoria Matryuk Bergen School of Architecture Guðrún Harðardóttir Njål Homeyer Sofya Markova Karin Raniay Hasselt University Charlotte Bussels Ine Grajchen Wintha Van Den Abbeele Ties Vanden Bosch Britt Vossen Royal Danish Academy Ferdinand Aagenæs Sofie Hybholt Magda Kasprzak Christel Madsen Thea Madsen

SPECIAL THANKS TO Contributors Lehm Ton Erde Baukunst Sami Akkach Recycling Center Sennwald Marc Baumgartner Architects and PhD Candidates Gabriela Dimitrova Piotr Piotrowski Architecture Students Christian Haller Sarah Zecic Architect Anna Heringer Formatio Schule Triesen Eva Meirer and students Gymnasium Vaduz Christian Marti and students

REWILDING THE GARDEN CITY

RE-WILD

ACADEMY 02

2022 JULY 04 – 08 HASSELT UNIVERSITY

INTRODUCTION In the second workshop of the Erasmus+ project “Social and environmental impact academy for architects (SEIAA)”, twenty architecture students and six teachers from the Bergen School of Architecture (NO), Hasselt University (BE), the Royal Danish Academy (DK) and the University of Liechtenstein (LI) came together in Genk (BE) to adress the issue of re-wilding in relation to the social and ecological dynamics of the Winterslag neigbourhood, which was originally designed as a garden city in the first half of the 20th century. In a five day workshop the participants explored ways to (re)design the built environment so that a sustainable use of it becomes key to a good life.

The workshop was organised as a shortened Live Project. A Live Project is a collaboration between an educational institution and an external client, characterised by design negotiations over a short time period with limited resources or budget. In this case the client was the local social housing organisation “Nieuw Dak”.

The Live Project was part of a larger research framework of the faculty of Architecture of Hasselt University dedicated to facilitating the climate transition of Social Housing in the province of Limburg towards 2050. The focus of the five day workshop was on five selected sites in Winterslag.

This method gives a unique perspective on design whereby the designer is in fact immersed within the

local community, interacting with inhabitants, actors and stakeholders and working bottom-up with material, natural and human features of the sites “as found”, to provide an in-depth understanding of the design issues at hand, often leading to creative and sometimes unconventional responses as the faculty of architecture’s Live Projects Program – estab­lished in 2016) – has shown throughout the years.

The results of the participants’ work are five future fictions reframing the issue at hand and offering a fresh take on specific questions at each of the selected sites.

THE GARDEN SETTLEMENT OF WINTERSLAG The garden settlement of Winterslag (Genk, BE) was built between 1919 and 1950 by the regional coal mining company, inspired by the international garden city model. This model originated when after the industrial revolution population numbers increased in urban areas. They were created to give proximity to nature in a built-up environment and to counteract the pollution in cities and the isolation of rural settlements. The garden city model consisted of specific utopian elements like small communities in a circular pattern to accommodate housing, industry, and agriculture. These developments were surrounded by greenbelts that would limit their growth.

As such, Winterslag is one of several settlements that were constructed in Genk, after the discovery of coal – the “Black Gold” of the times – in the soil. This led to the development of three mining sites (Winterslag, Zwartberg and Waterschei) and housing developments, responding to the the ensuing housing need due to the massive recruitment of workers from other parts of Belgium as well as overseas to work in the mines. Today, these settlements are home to many different cultural communities and are often protected as ensembles of great heritage value.

The settlement of Winterslag was built in phases with major funding discrepancies. Today distinction is made between Winterslag 1, 2 and 4 with significant differences between them. Phase 3 was never built. Winterslag 1 was the most prosperous settlement,

WINTERSLAG IV

WINTERSLAG II SELECTED SITES FOR THE WORKSHOP. Graphics: Workshop Team

TEXTILE MAP OF THE CITY OF GENK WITH WINTERSLAG SETTLEMENTS.

Graphic: Workshop Team

for housing better paid miners and engineers, visually reflecting the inhabitants’ higher status. The remaining phases of 2 and 4 had less and less funding.

This resulted in a hierarchy throughout the neighbourhoods. Originally to separate the miners from the engineers, it now separates the classes of modern-day society, igniting social tensions. The lack of funding has resulted in poor design and the subsequent lower living quality found in the selected sites for the workshop which are located in Winterslag 2 and 4, with the Noordlaan road as the main connectivity route.

RE-WILDING While many houses in these settlements are still owned by the social housing organisation Nieuw Dak, some are privately owned. Often, houses have been renovated and extended, but they still lack energy efficiency and adaptivity to family dynamics. The houses were built in a time where individuals did not own cars for example and did not have the same requirements of modern-day life. This creates a tension between the buildings created over 100 years ago and the 21st century post-industrial communities living there. It is this lack of cohesion along with the heritage status of the “garden city” design which gives true purpose to the workshop taking place here.

Public space however is still abundant, but it resists a more differentiated and collective use by its communities. Originally, the design of public space mainly answered transportation needs. These historically different social groups were unambiguously allocated to certain areas. So, the spatial and social model of the garden city no longer corresponds with the reality of contemporary life. Hence, these settlements face major challenges in both cultural and ecological regard to become the sustainable and resilient cities and communities we strive for today. One strategy that can address both cultural and ecological diversity is embracing actors who have been marginalised in the design of such over orderly public spaces. By involving these “silent actors” in the design process, one enhances opportunities for cultural identification

and collective use of public space. In this strategy an explicit role is given to nature and diverse cultural groups, one is able to allow for diverse appropriations of public space, as a means of “re-wilding”. In this respect “re-wilding” is not limited to “greening” the neigbourhood using design interventions, but is the basis for a new and flourishing community life.

At the same time, re-wilding strategies tackle environmental concerns by introducing a fundamental shift from grey to green matter. Workshop participants used previous research results that focused on identifying “green” patterns of differentiated use of public space by prototyping real-life “re-wilding” interventions with and for the inhabitants of Winterslag.

Although these “re-wilding” interventions subvert the overarching orderly nature of garden cities, they are first and foremost a means to encourage communities to gain control and responsibility of their living environment. Students were introduced to the sites and their inhabitants and by the end of the workshop produced a re-wilding intervention to increase this neighbourhood’s connectivity to nature in both implicit and explicit ways.

FOUR DESIGN CAPABILITIES Inspired by the work of Annemarie Mol, the workshop was pedagogically structured for participants to learn about four ways of being in, thinking about, relating to and acting on their respective sites. “Being” is about the bodily experience of being in a situation.

“Knowing” is something which develops not from a distance, but involves acting and valuing knowledge with others on location. “Doing” with others takes an iterative form of acting with the materialities on the site: building, deconstructing, repurposing etc. It involves a lot of actors, here and there, now and then. Doing is ambivalent, it is not good for everyone, not good enough and goes on and on. “Relating” with others is about relating with different worlds in sustaining future designs.

To support being, knowing, doing and relating to the sites, students are trained in four design capabilities

that are the result of ongoing UHasselt research: re-tracing, re-connecting, re-imagining and re-institutioning.

• Re-Tracing: Instead of teaching students to only project their expert views of the world and on certain groups, we teach them to enter into relation with diverse actors by actively tracing their material and social ways of experiencing the world, using design anthropological approaches. During the live labs students gain capabilities to research and represent these world experiences and views through maps, videos, interviews and so on.

• Re-Connecting: We train students in connecting between actors and their projects, designing translations between their worlds. Students are trained in organising gatherings where different actors can share experiences and projects via workshops, markets, interventions etc.

• Re-Imagining: We train students in capabilities to reimagine together with diverse groups of stakeholders based on their newly formed relations, alternatives for their environment. Through “making” live built interventions, students learn to make future imaginations tangible.

• Re-Institutioining: We train students in developing capabilities to sustain newly formed relations between actors to continue by connecting them to institutional actors and shaping them into living labs and other types of organisations.

To train and explore these design capabilities on site, each group started with three “lenses” for the initial mapping of their site; material borders – both public and private, natural processes, and human appropriations. These mappings resulted in a first pitch-event in the presence of local social workers, inhabitants and representatives of the municipality and the local social housing organisation Nieuw Dak. Taking into account the new information from these events, each group adapted their initial proposals to address the issues at hand and built and presented a final design intervention on site on the last day of the workshop.

FOCUS AREAS OF THE WORKSHOP REGARDING THE 17 SDGS.

TOGETHER TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Re-wilding is a key strategy to contribute to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. In a strict sense, re-wilding is directed to good health and well-being of people (SDG 3) by strengthening their relationship with nature.

Favoring green over grey spaces is also a tried and tested concept in fighting climate change (SDG 13).

The broader notion of re-wilding as a pre-condition for strengthening communal live and togetherness means we are also dealing with the question of sustainable cities and communities (SDG 11). At the same time the re-imagined public domain of the garden city offers more equal opportunities (SDG 10) for the highly diverse cultures and communities living together in the super-diverse city.

WORKSHOP DIARY

DAY 1

ARRIVAL DAY

The workshop began with a communal diner at Hostel H where all participants stay during the workshop week. Participants meet each other for the first time and introduce themselves formally. They are welcomed and given a general introduction. After dinner, everybody enjoys a drink at the “Barousel”-festival site in the park next to the hostel. As a nice coincidence, the festival ran in parallel the whole week and hosted several side-events of the workshop.

BICYCLE TOUR. Photo: Workshop Team

DAY 2

INTRODUCTION DAY

The day started with a briefing on the goals and planning of the workshop, Live Projects and the Winterslag settlements. Practical arrangements and issues for the week are addressed. Participants are divided in groups and assigned to each of the five sites. In contrast to the three other workshops, teachers are also assigned to a specific group and site.

After this introduction, participants travel to Genk by public transport to collect their bicycles. These will be the main means of transport for the week. The bike ride from the rental to Winterslag is at once the first acquaintance with the city of Genk and the typical housing developments from the heydays of the mining era. Arriving in Winterslag, participants had a small lunch and met the actors from the community centre, the social housing company Nieuw Dak and the municipality. Each of them introduced their perspective on the issues at hand on the different sites by walking from site to site. Meanwhile , in a first instinctive reaction, the different groups reacted to all this information by building a very quick and light bamboo-installation on site, to start acting spatially on site right away and to stimulate inhabitants and passers-by to join the conversation and share their opinions.

BAMBOO-INTERVENTION ON SITE. Photo: Workshop Team

DAY 3

MAPPING DAY

The first half of the workshop was more or less dedicated to “mapping”, the second half to “prototyping”. The third day started with a visit to C-Mine culture centre and C-mine experience, to learn more about the history of Winterslag as a coal mining settlement. The C-mine centre is a reconversion of the original conglomerate of industrial mining buildings to a culture centre, with access to an underground visitors centre documenting the daily life of the people who worked in the mines.

During the afternoon, following the instinctive interventions and first mappings of the issues that started the day before, we became more focused on trying to interact with local inhabitants more directly.

Participants are physically present on site most of the day and draw, talk, walk, photograph “things” to initiate more conversations with the public, both on the problems at hand as well as their perceived solutions, leading to more elaborate maps, sketches and analysis.

VISIT TO C-MINE. Photo: Workshop Team

DAY 4

PREPARATION DAY

Between mapping and prototyping activities, the groups pitched their mapping and analysis as well as their first concepts of intervention to the actors and stakeholders they met on day 2. The same format is applied: this happens on site, during a walk along the five different sites and groups. The inhabitants of the different sites are also invited, to share their thoughts. At the end of the day, Arya Arabshahi gave a lecture about various transitions to a more nature oriented society, and how re-wilding on all levels can shift our land usage and planning cultures, from our eating culture to net zero emissions. The lecture focused on how integrating quantitative research into the urban design process can make it more reliable and convincing to make people want to make this change. It was followed by a lively discussion on the topic. In the evening a communal dinner is hosted on the Barousel festival-site with a public lecture

by Josymar Rodriguez on working with children in her own research and participatory architecture practice.

LECTURE BY JOSYMAR RODRIGUEZ. Photo: Workshop Team

DAY 5

PROTOTYPING DAY

The day after the pitch, the groups sharped their initial concepts for interventions and start prototyping them. One or two delegates from each group visited the municipal materials depot to make an inventory of available materials to report back to their respective groups. Experiments and brainstorms on how to build interventions are the main focus of the groups on this day. How to get things done by the final presentation is the main issue to tackle, so no other activities are planned.

PREPARING THE FINAL PRESENTATION. Photo: Workshop Team

DAY 6

PRESENTATION DAY

During the first half of the day, the interventions are finalized on site and the final presentation and documentation for the actors, stakeholders and inhabitants is prepared. Just as at the introduction and the pitch, all presentations are programmed on site and end with the participants, actors and stakeholders coming together informally at the community centre sharing some snacks and refreshments. Together these presentations are the closing event of the workshop week in Winterslag.

AFTER THE FINAL PRESENTATION. Photo: Workshop Team

INTERVENTION 01

THE HAMMOCK

CHILDREN DRAWING ON THE HAMMOCK. Photo: Workshop Team

ARZU ARSLAN LARS HALLARÅKER HELLESØ-KNUTSEN LAURIDS REINICKE-BAGER MARGO VAN DE BROEK

The Dynamo community centre presents an opportunity to foster and deepen relations between the inhabitants in this low-density residential community of Winterslag; it is a starting point of the necklace forest surrounding the built environment. The structure of public spaces is currently introverted, with no relation to the peripheral forest, intensifying the division between the natural and man-made world. Walls, fences, dense bushes and a vast array of built elements are used to assert public and private functions in the area which limits the possibility of engagement with the centre and between neighbours.

It is this labyrinth of barriers, fences and other space divisions which is the focus of Group 1’s intervention strategy.

Once a school for 6–12-year-olds, the now “Dynamo community centre” was shut down for being perceived as a low-quality educational facility, with another school in the area currently facing a similar fate.

Twenty years ago, it was repurposed to become the new community centre with offices for community workers, youth groups and green workers.

“Re-wilding is not ecology, it’s the experience of wilderness.”

TINE KIERULF

MAPPING BARRIERS. Graphic: Workshop Team

The presence of children during the workshop week is evident. During break times they were eager to interact with the participants, asking them to play football together – irrespective of language barriers, the children still had this desire to interact with those on the site, the language barrier is also a common problem for adults in the area due to the variety of languages and diversity in the neighbourhood.

After discussions and drawing activities with the youngest residents (6–8-year olds) and their parents, The group used these children’s sketches to inform their intervention, responding directly to the wants and needs of the children. This was combined with mapping of textures in plan, revealing an inconsistency between large paving areas and the visions of the children. These sketches were interpreted and developed into a cohesive proposal for pitching on Wednesday, with a hammock being the object of intervention. The children could build the hammock together or even draw upon to integrate it in their play space and to soften barriers between different parts of public space.

DRAWING TO GET TO KNOW EACH OTHER. Photo: Workshop Team

Testing if this boundary between the public and private and the man-made and natural can be blurred through a structure that physically occupies this border, integrating the playground with the forest behind. It is this hammock idea that was followed through with, to construct an intervention that enables the area to be an oasis for meeting and play, with the prominence of children really highlighted through how the intervention will serve its users.

Children need a place to rest. This oasis would offer a space between all these barriers, making the thresholds and barriers “soft”, showing the possibilities of integrating nature into the Centre as a way for children to find a place to rest and reclaim the forest as a site for enjoyment and relaxation. At the same time, the hammock questions the role of fences in the community. This project moves away from the typical connotations of “re-wilding” through addition of greenery and restoration of an environment, but focuses on the breaking of the thresholds between the natural environment and the man made.

FINAL PRESENTATION. Photo: Workshop Team

“The Hammock ideology can be expanded as a system for re-wilding, to encourage movement.”

TEXTURE MAP. Graphic: Workshop Team

INTERVENTION 02

THE PERISCOPE

COLLAGE OF PROPOSED INTERVENTION. Graphic: Workshop Team

HEWADG CHANDIMA PHILIP DAM LÜTKEN CECILE LIND HÅNES SANDER PANIS

The site of group 2 is situated at the southern most periphery of the neighbourhood. Inhabitants of this area say it is well defined, occupied mainly by the Polish, Italian and Moroccan communities. A green area here sits as an island between roads, unused by the community, with the houses serving as a wall to the greenery beyond. The group established the need for a link between the natural and man-made worlds in the neighbourhood in Winterslag. This can be done through the creation of a dialogue through connecting green areas between public space and private gardens.

As with many of the sites of the workshop, parking is a prominent problem here again, but especially here in Winterslag 2, cars are a means of identity and status, not simply a practicality. Unlike the culture of the country, “no one uses bikes here”, exacerbating this parking problem. It is this prominence of cars which alienates the community members from the natural world, they need something which brings the natural world back to the space, allowing them to see beyond the divides created by cars and the wall created by housing.

The vast spread of nature to the rear of the properties lacks a visual connection. This is the main issue and could be done through physical pathways for example, right from the centre of this walled green patch that allows it to flow outward to the next space.

“The experience of nature beyond the ‘wall’ of houses creates an immersive experience for community members.”

BOUNDARY MAP. Graphic: Workshop Team

The goal is to experience nature beyond the “wall” of houses and create an immersive experience for community members, whilst still in the confines of the residential area. This was tested by this group through the creation of a self-build periscope.

Initial experimentation revealed the formation of an arch when manouvering the stick, leading to an interpretation of using arches to bridge the road or connecting via an ecoduct bridge for biodiversity to what is beyond the wall of houses.

A mobile phone is strapped to a self-build periscope device and raised in a form of exhibition, where the image from the mobile above the roof line of the houses can be seen. On the ground, physically connecting the two locations through this arch form.

This creates a desire for the connection with nature and opens the minds of those in the community to what this space could become.

The degradation of green spaces is used as inspiration to break the boundary between natural and manmade space. Paths between houses have closed over time and people have forgotten the existence of any connection to the greenery beyond the neighbourhood. The periscope acts as a catalyst to bridge this gap and physically bring nature back into this suburban area.

By taking pictures via the periscope the project aimed to reconnect with the horizon beyond the fenced gardens: some places were controlled green spaces, others surprisingly wild.

For the final project presentation, the group closed the road with bamboo structures adorned with their mapping materials, bringing a standstill to the usual workings of the neighbourhood and disrupting the rhythm of daily life here, bringing attention to the subject with the aim of surprising residents with what exists beyond the human eye line.

CONCEPT SKETCH. Graphic: Workshop Team

“The periscope acts as a catalyst to bring nature back into this suburban area.”

VIEW FROM THE PERSICOPE. Photo: Workshop Team

INTERVENTION 03

DE-PAVING

TAKING OUT THE PAVEMENT. Photo: Workshop Team

TINA ATHARI FREDERIK JANUM FRIIS SARA STOLL BRITT VOSSEN

A key feature of the site is the white church where group 1 picked their station to work on. Between the church entrance and the north border of the plot, lies a bus stop facing the Noordlaan road, the most common visited part of the site. This creates a big contrast between the road and church, especially as the church arranges service once a week, and where not many participants attend anymore due to secularisation. This juxtaposed to the noisy Noordlaan road with many traffic problems, which brings to attention how differently defined both are. Even though religion is very prominent in the neighbourhood still, it is not through the church, but the mosques of the Muslim community instead, which surprisingly are at the furthest ends of the neighbourhood. The initial plan for the proposal was to make a ruin, where nature could grow through. What evolved was an investigation of the relation between church and bus stop to became the core of the proposal. The church used to be the place central to connections has now been replaced by the bus stop. More people meet there instead. The church site is the only public space in the vacinity but hardly used and least appropriated.

The imbalanced with use of space on site alone was analysed, the church empty but filled with plenty of seats while the bus stop outside only has three.

This led to the suggestion of a flexible seating idea.

Students were prompted to look for the interactions taking place on site. Hence why they worked on the existing bus stop, which has the most activity, by hanging a whiteboard with questions such as: “Where are you going?” or “Where have you been?”.

Involving locals with the project and finding out more about them. On the glass an outline of the church was drawn to see how the people would like it to be reused. Ideally the whole bus stop concept could be rethought. There is a clear need for shelter however, how could they be occupied during their waiting time?

Vision of seating was based on what was there before.

The remains of cement behind the bus stop were acknowledged, telling us the space was previously planned. In the same spot a bench was installed in the place where one used to exist. This was accomplished by moving an existing one, adapting them with bamboo sticks. Bricks found on site were used to build extra seats. Based on a conversation with the locals, the team learned that there was a bench on the site before, So, the moved bench fitted perfectly into the remains of cement in the ground.

NEW SITTING OPPORTUNITIES. Photo: Workshop Team

“Religion is not necessarily how people come together now, the concept of bringing people together in an individualistic society is particularly important.”

“Two worlds come together in a newly connected sitting area.”

CREATING NEW SITTING ELEMENTS USING PAVEMENT BRICKS.

Photo: Workshop Team

Because of the continuous movement on the bus site, it is a place of rhythm and continuity. The church takes part in important life events. Whereas the bus stop serves the mundane: the rituals of everyday life, going back and forth from work, meeting friends etc. The religious building is made of brick, with small windows and therefore feeling more enclosed. The bus stop on the other hand is made of glass and shows everything that is going on. Both of them are public spaces, meant to serve people in the neighbourhood.

Nowadays the Church is not so often used, whereas the bus stop serves many times throughout the day.

A feeling of “togetherness” is particularly important in an individualistic society. That is why the intervention formed a space to sit on, when waiting, to think about one’s own rituals. The two worlds come together in a newly connected sitting area.

TESTING NEW SITTING OPPORTUNITIES. Photo: Workshop Team

INTERVENTION 04

BOUNDARY ACT

LIVE DRAWING FOR BETTER COMMUNAL USE.

Photo: Workshop Team

EMMA TRÆLAND STINUS BERTELSEN JULIUS GROSS TIES VANDENBOSCH

The social housing in the Krokusstraat is an ensemble of 8 buildings and 48 apartments with just 25 parking spaces between them. This predominantly social housing area, like other sites in Winterslag, faces problems with parking and public / private space appropriation. There are also problems here identified with storage in the properties and subsequent unconventional use of garages which further exacerbates the parking problems. This was evident when participants had the opportunity to enter one of the flats and see the lack of storage space for themselves.

The group here began by establishing the public and private space for an understanding of the frustrations faced by residents with space appropriation. Some residences have no private garden, with kitchen doors running straight into the public domain, leaving residents asking for just a little greenery area that they can use and occupy. These green spaces can be used to unite the currently diverse community also, public space to unite rather than segregate as it does currently. The area between the buildings is owned by the municipality and is usable by everyone, yet is only used for circulation and traffic, causing a lack of social interaction, intensifying residential frictions with some inhabitants claiming green areas as their own. The inhabitants perceive this space as big spaces that are not used that much. They create a feeling of separation in the community and there is a lack of responsibility for them.

With these challenges alongside previous concepts for redevelopment including a garage as a swap-shop considered, group 4 set about a strategy whereby they seek to redefine the public versus private areas.

This is done by redesigning circulation pathways, parking areas and storage spaces as well as the introduction of private areas to distinguish common public areas allowing social interaction and greenery growth.

This began with initial mapping of flat entrances, greenery borders and barriers, paving and paths, wayfinding routes and public versus private space. This process revealed the true problems of the site to be the lack of definition as to what belongs to who, surfacing the strategy of “re-wilding by redefining the boundaries. A boundary act.”

PRESENTATION OF CONCEPT SCHEMES FOR LOCAL RESIDENTS.

Photo: Workshop Team

“We need a strategy of re-wilding by redefining the boundaries.”

CONCEPT SCHEMES FOR PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SPACES.

Graphic: Workshop Team

The redesigning of the parking lot is set out at 1:1 scale in the setting itself through chalk outlines. This way, it can be physically seen by the residents, and walked through in plan to aid in their spatial understanding. This is a very temporary installation, only visible until the next rain when it will be washed away.

If we are to translate the one thing that unifies them (being the problems associated with parking) into the object of the scheme, it becomes inherently unifying.

The proposal includes 15 more parking spaces for the residents, an attempt to define the space and offer more clarity into what is public and what is private as well as the division of garages to become a storage space for three apartments to share.

Paths are to be minimised where possible as not all require the 4 meter width fire engine access, with public space to include plant boxes to cater to the desire for a little green area each and encourage cohesion together.

The temporality of this method allows for the resident to see the potential changes without physical works being carried out as well as allowing for multiple iterations of the design to be tested in plan at 1:1 scale – something uncommon for masterplan schemes providing a new perspective and understanding, especially for those not from an architectural background.

DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. Photo: Workshop Team

“The 1:1 masterplan provides a new perspective and understanding, especially for those not from an architectural background.”

MOVEMENT DIAGRAMS. Graphic: Workshop Team

INTERVENTION 05

SOFT ROAD

HANGING AROUND AT THE SITE AFTER THE FINAL PRESENTATION.

Photo: Workshop Team

INE GRAJCHEN KIMIA NOORINEJAD LORIS VOGT LAURITZ WAGN MØLLER

This project seeks to counter problems with street encroachment caused by lack of enforcement of urban regulation in the neighbourhood. Situated in a context characterized by Flemish social housing typologies dating back to the 1940s, a cluster of families have appropriated part of the public space by transforming it to private parking outside their plot boundaries.

As the informal streetscape does not have formal boundaries between public and private, the physical divisions are produced by negotiations between residents and local authorities, resulting in encroachment on the streets, whereby the residents slowly alter the physical barriers marking their plots to take over parts of the street space.

This development causes a multitude of problems for the residents, including decreased social interaction in the public sphere, informal voids with underdeveloped potential, and issues of formalizing the landownership. Accordingly, street encroachment leads to the degradation of the garden city as a great heritage value.

A visit to the site helped to understand the issues around the divide of the public and the private this area had. The visit also allowed the group to see the lack of interaction with the green spaces. The current residents park their cars on the green spaces, blocking it for other usage, there also isn’t a clear indication who can park where, creating a tense atmosphere between residents as they take each other’s spaces due to it being a first come first serve basis.

“It was not a problem about cars it was a problem about mobility.”

During the visit the locals interacted and showed their great concern towards the areas issues. Once we proposed what we were doing, the locals said they wanted fewer green areas and that they needed more parking so that it is clear where everyone could park.

They stressed that their children are growing up and will also want cars. After the site survey was complete, it was clear there was a better connection to nature on some of the other streets and rethinking the structure had to be considered, so that green areas could be used.

SUGGSETING NEW COMMUNAL USE OF UNDEFINED SPACES.

Photo: Workshop Team

s,

The idea of re-wilding and “more green” was very contested by the residents: “It’s already green!”, “We don’t want greenery – there is no space for it!”, “We need car parking! Are we meant to tell our children they can’t have cars anymore?”.

The group started to put together what they felt was the main issue around the site as well as using the feedback from the public to find a way forward that would best benefit the area. Sketches and mappings were produced on each site to understand what could be done. The group decided that from the concern of the residents the parking was one of the main issues. The group started to come up with ideas of what to do through their sketches.

Using various gathered materials helped the group to start to explore their sketches in a physical manner.

Bouncing off each other’s ideas, the group started to come up with different scenarios by moving the materials around and starting to get a scale of realistic measurement to how things could work.

MEASURING AND RE-DIMENSIONING EXISTING ROAD (1:1).

Photo: Workshop Team

The group explored 3 scenarios where they investigated how they could re-organize the street and make the boundaries work better. At the moment it is not clear where cars are supposed to park and this needs to be made clear.

(1) the classical way Used the existing layout of the street and change the green areas to be parking. Then introduce a new green barrier between the footpath next to housing and in-between the car spaces.

(2) a semi-option After realizing there are currently 2 parking spots for 4 apartments, and they wanted to make the boundaries all clear. They considered the minimal width of the street to make it possible for cars to cross and introduced parallel parking to generate one parking spot per unit.

(3) the radical way No front parking, all parking at the backside.

Pedestrian-friendly street with soft pavement.

EXPLORING MATERIALS AND TEXTURES OF THE NEW SOFT-ROAD.

Photo: Workshop Team

The radical way was represented at the final presentation as it was the greenest option. The idea of having a soft road meant that kids could go outside and play and that social interaction within the community could increase. Parking is provided at the back of the houses by using the back street of the Mosque.

The removal of bollards on this street also creates better access to the forest.

The new bus stop round the corner gives residents and visitors an option to reduce the number of cars in the area and visitors to the mosque a greener way to travel. New areas of play are created for the children through markings and interventions on the road: children could play hopscotch, use the new swing apparatus or come together for some games with the ball on the new road. This is all a way to connect the community and give the road more purpose to them with greener areas than they originally had.

EXPLORING MATERIALS AND TEXTURES OF THE NEW SOFT-ROAD.

Photo: Workshop Team

VALUING IN PRACTICE

As designers we are invested in the “materiality” we design: buildings, streets, bricks, maps, technologies.

However, in times of immense socio-ecological challenges, designers are increasingly confronted with polarisation around the sustainable futures they envision that do not always entail adding materiality, but also taking it away. As we demonstrated via the Live Project at Arck, UHasselt, often designers, policy makers and other professionals separate our world into those who care for, for example, sustainable building, mobility or water and those who do not care, even enhancing these polarising tendencies.

There is thus a need to design beyond opposition, but for relations between worlds and world views around these futures. In our research we explore how to design for “careful” relations between actors whose worlds, projects – and thus also how they consider the things we design – seem opposed to each other, such as a daily need for a feeling of home and shelter in our society versus an ecological need to build less. During a Live Project, as Participatory Designers – inspired by the work of Annemarie Mol – we explored a design process as a process of “valuing in practice”, negotiating various world-making projects and ways of valuing the world and reconnecting these in new patchworks. This caring approach to design is also what we discuss in the book we launched recently Re-framing the politics of Design (Huybrechts, Devisch & Tassinari, 2022).

COLLECTIVE DESIGN CAPABILITIES In this Live Project we particularly zoomed in on some collective design capabilities that we can build to support such an approach of designing beyond oppositions for complex socio-environmental challenges, inspired by a book by Annemarie Mol “Eating in Theory” (2021). In an ecological crisis, in which we have lost our link with our environment, Mol discusses “eating” as a practice that shows exemplary situations in how we as designers can engage again with more-than-human actors, such as trees. Eating provides imaginaries with which to think, beyond the arrogance of the human, in relation to the more-than- human world. It reveals how situated people behave on a fragile earth, and how they are dependent on each other and actors such as an apple.

We pick an apple from a tree, we eat it, digest it and excrete it. The “politics” of eating is not distant, such as engaging in a distant conversation about e. g. food, energy or water. It rather shows that there are “many ways to do eating” and “many ways to engage with nature in a neighbourhood (e. g. de-paving, reconnecting nature with the street, ...)”. This goes beyond society’s – and also design research’s – virtues of clarity, distinctness, and fear from seduction, evocation.

It enables a shift towards designs, such as eating, as being valued in practice, as labour with e. g. nature, energy and water, which has politics of its own during ongoing, practical socio-material negotiations. Mol summarizes these exemplary situations of eating, in parallel with our daily relations to nature as being, knowing, doing and relating with others.

We use these as inspiration for design with and for the ecological environment. In The Nutmeg’s Curse: Parables for a Planet in Crisis (2021), Ghosh calls this way of dealing with politics, a politics of vitality, where the relationship between nature and human beings is defined beyond ownership, but shapes harmony and co-existence, where otherwise considered inert objects such as the green spaces in neighbourhoods, are lively actors.

BEING Being was explored as the bodily experience of being in a situation, which is necessary in our Live project approach to understand how people experience their world. In the Live Project, we tried to detect how people “are” with the more-than-human actors such as trees or grass, on a daily basis: they search a cool environment, they rest, they contemplate, …

To gain a deep understanding, in one of the five subprojects, at the Community Centre, we engaged in observations, discussions and drawing activities with the youngest residents and their parents. This revealed the need for children to bring neighbouring nature into the community centre as a way for children to find a place to rest, reclaim heather and woodland as a site for enjoyment and relaxation and question the role of fences in community. It became apparent that many of the children in the community centre had busy lives in the evenings in their family homes and came to the centre in the morning, needing rest. This resulted in an intervention of a huge hammock where children could rest.

This raises some questions: Did this way of being with the children, playing and drawing together, a rather soft and kind approach, enable students and researchers to understand the children’s “being in the environment”? Did this way of being with the children lead to insights that were too anecdotal? Did the students and researchers need to engage with additional design research approaches?

KNOWING Knowing in Live Project approaches is not something which develops only from a distance, but involves active engagement with facts and values on the site.

Knowing evolves in not entirely predictable ways, with all subjects and objects, coming from different worlds, being involved. In that sense the act of knowing is about “connecting knowledge between worlds”.

MAPPING BARRIERS. Graphic: Workshop Team

URBAN MINING WHILE REINTRODUCING SPACE FOR BIODIVERSITY.

Photo: Workshop Team

In the Live Project, knowledge was actively connected between students, teachers, neighbourhood developers, city administration, social housing companies, older and younger inhabitants, coming from different backgrounds through speculative interventions or co-design activities; such as workshops.

For instance, in The Periscope, the worlds of international groups of architects, social housing companies, spatial planning actors, inhabitants, … came together, using a self-built periscope to bring the (hidden) “wild” heather and woodland back to the street and front garden. Concretely, the periscope project enabled taking pictures behind the fences, which allowed reconnecting public space with the horizon beyond the fenced gardens: some places are controlled, some wild, others surprising.

This again raises a few questions: Did the periscope as an intervention enable us to bring the different worlds together? Was the periscope as an intervention a good way to stir attention. Does it need additional and more “soft” methods to understand the studied worlds?

DOING In our Live project approaches we “imagine future worlds by doing with others”. In The Church project the participants prototyped real-life interventions with and for the inhabitants of Winterslag focusing on re-wilding the over-orderly “nature” of the garden city as a precondition for more social and ecological diversity. By “doing” – taking away pavement, connecting green areas and building new infrastructure to rest – an old neighbourhood church and a bus stop were brought together. Both public spaces serve people and the neighbourhood, but the church is rarely used, while the bus stop is used many times.

Through de-paving connections between church and bus station and re-using the pavement to build seats on site, people can connect with each other in a new

way while they wait for the bus or for a ceremony in church. Two worlds come together in a newly connected green park.

Again a few questions emerge. Does the de-paving as a way of doing together on location, enables a deep, material and in-situ conversation with actors in the environment? Is de-paving as a way of doing together, too dependent on who is involved at each moment?

Does it inhibit a well-thought through and planned approach?

RELATING In the Live Project approach relations are created between neighbourhood work, policy work, design work and daily practices on a longer term, in new experiments with organisational constellations.

For instance, in the project Boundary Act inhabitants complained about lack of parking, storage, and common spaces. We discovered an area inbetween the 8 buildings that form an ensemble of 68 flats, which is publicly owned and mainly used as circulation and parking area. Together with different partners, the project re-designed – via chalk – a public area by re-organising circulation pathways, parking, storage and private areas to distinguish common public areas that allow social interaction and nature to grow.

Also, in the project Soft Road, located in the northern outer edge neighbourhood, which is characterized by a mosque and woodland, families in semi-detached houses transformed public front gardens into private parking. The lack of formal boundaries between public and private decreased the social interaction of the public sphere, and raised issues of formalizing landownership and degradation of the garden city as heritage. Through interventions, the project engaged locals into taking leadership over the street and regaining a manageable relation between the private and the public by redesigning a bus stop, a playground and relocating parking spaces.

LIVE DRAWING FOR BETTER COMMUNAL USE.

Photo: Workshop Team

This brings about the questions: Does the focus on relating sustain projects over time? Does the focus on relating slow down or even inhibit the design process?

To summarise, we have listed some final reflections that can be taken up in the future in engaging with design education that focuses on social and environmentally sustainable futures: “Being together” in the site – engaging bodily with the studied site – enables educational design projects to engage with the socio-environmental context with fresh eyes. However, this fresh perspective has a downside. Without historical insights, the international students would have missed a lot of the diversity already present in the site: on first sight, they experienced the garden cities as peaceful, clean, not wild. It is only through stories of locals that they learned that many opportunities, challenges – diverse actors, nature areas – were situated in the private sphere or behind the fences, which revealed the need to reconnect them to the public space. Being in the context, needed to be combined with storytelling about hidden and past experiences of the site to get a more nuanced insight.

“Knowing together” – bringing different knowledge worlds together – supports design educational projects to expand their ways of knowing. In this activity, a difficult balance needs to be made between searching friction and searching connection with the situated ways of knowing. The ways in which knowledge was brought together and how people dared/ wanted to bend/test rules, depended on the cultural background, personality, age, gender, education of students, teachers, participants. Some explored more careful approaches of connecting knowledge, such as the hammock, which were easily accepted by diverse groups and external participants.

The Periscope went further in shifting perspectives, but also required more guidance to relate to the situated reality. Sometimes, this caused frictions between the groups and members. One teacher said

that he felt evaluated by other teachers and external experts passing by and questioning the design of the periscope. This shows how important it is to take care as design educators for shaping moments of coming together, adapted to backgrounds, differences, discomfort, …

“Doing together” in design educational contexts – taking material action together – is also very much produced in a continuous tension between what you bring from the outside versus what you use from within the world you study. Some ways of doing were “interventionist” in nature (e.g., the periscope) and some were deeply thought from relations within the world (the hammock made of ideas drawn by the children).

“Relating together”, finally, was a design practice that wanted to create active relations between diverse worlds of human and more-than-human actors. This practice needed to balance in-between activities that matter on a short term versus what is needed for a long-term implementation of the design educational insights and products. For instance, although it could give inspirational input, students and teachers could feel bothered by external policy makers or planners to stop by during the Live project week to ask questions, because this could disrupt their design process that needed to be finalised in one week time. However, on a longer term this engagement with policy and social housing organisations was necessary to sustain the re-wilding interventions over time. Because it was summer; policy makers and institutions were involved less frequently than in our Live Projects during the academic year, which obstructed some short-term decisions. For instance, the students working at the church site felt very insecure about how and if they could take stones out of the pavement without policy permission, which often delayed and inhibited their action on the ground.

TO CONCLUDE In “Re-wilding the garden city” the Live Project approach was used to design for more ecological and cultural diversity in the studied neighbourhood.

It showed that we need to re-wild the relations with human and more-than-human actors. Moreover, in order for design education to support more socio-environmentally sustainable futures, more attention should be paid towards a more careful articulation and shaping of diverse roles, capabilities, and relations of teachers, students and societal actors within and outside our educational programs.

ACADEMY PARTICIPANTS

SPECIAL THANKS TO

Teachers

Contributors

University of Liechtenstein Cornelia Faisst Daniel Haselsberger

Researchers Josymar Rodriguez Barbara Roosen

Bergen School of Architecture Christian Victor Palmer

Expert Commitee Ann Tielemans Daan Symons Anneleen Baptist Raf Vangompel Jorryt Braaksma

Hasselt University Els Hannes Liesbeth Huybrechts Peter Princen Royal Danish Academy Nathan Romero Muelas Students University of Liechtenstein Arzu Arslan Julius Gross Chandima Hewage Sara Stoll Loris Vogt Bergen School of Architecture Lars Hallaraker Helleso Knutsen Cecilie Lind Hannes Tina Athari Emma Traeland Kimia Noorinejad Hasselt University Ine Grajchen Sander Panis Margo Van de Broek Ties Vandenbosch Britt Vossen Royal Danish Academy Laurits Reinicke Bager Philip Dam Lutken Frederik Janum Friis Stinus Bertelsen Lauritz Wagn Moller

Architect Arya Arabshahi Interns Kirsty Barr Melisa Kahrimanovic Wiktoria Zalobka

DANCING WITH TROUT

DANCE

ACADEMY 03

2022 AUGUST 01 – 05 BERGEN SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE

INTRODUCTION In the third workshop of the Erasmus+ project “Social and Environmental Impact Academy for Architects (SEIAA)” 19 architecture students and 11 teachers from Bergen School of Architecture (NO), Hasselt University (BE), the Royal Danish Academy (DK) and the University of Liechtenstein (LI) came together. In Bergen the workshop participants were invited to a five-day empathic exercise to dwell with all the living species that one can find in the shared habitat at the seaside, outside the school.

The workshop was a search for ways to reorient design impulses towards gestures for enhancing the habitats of the living species as alternatives to the proposed municipal seaside-pathway. The encounters during the workshop-week provided the participants with a different attitude to how the urban might coexist with nature in this area, where the new urban seafront strategy only states that the city should meet the sea and where large development projects are enrolled based on the acceptance of urban expansion into the sea.

Our aspiration to dance with the living sprung from Chus Martinez, who held a talk at Bergen School of Architecture the previous year, emphasized the need for an empathic shift in art and design and fronted the attitude of babbling with other species to grasp the co-evolution of life, as a way to engage with the living on more equal terms.

She made us ask; how we can make use of our empathy to develop a more gentle architecture? And how we can explore a concrete poetry of co-experience and through that give form to a co-existence with the living here in Sandviken.

ENCOUNTER WITH THE STUDENTS AND THE SITE We had asked the students to prepare a short introduction about themselves to the group with this task: Tell us (show us) about an animal you have met in a setting where either you or the animal was at home …

This became the introduction to the group and a sharing of narratives from the closest and furthest places. It allowed us to understand how everyday encounters with nature and other species felt rare to many of the students. How we have come to design a human-centred habitat that excludes the presence and premise of most other species and reduce the personal encounters with other species to that of alienation. Where either the people or the other animals sense the intrusion into a foreign territory whenever they are confronted by each other.

Consciously and carefully living side by side with “wild” animals seemed an experience few paid notice to in their everyday life.

The site of encounter is Sandviken in Bergen, a thin urban corridor between the sea and the mountains with a seemingly dormant harbour area. Despite this a third of the Atlantic salmon sold in the world market is traded from Sandviken. Many other sub-sea actors and the general population also have few physical arenas to gesture their co-existence with life in the sea. We keep banging concrete poles into the seabed to anchor new housing developments along the seafront, and the ferries and chains all contribute to the disturbingly loud cacophony that can be experienced under this seemingly calm water surface. With the way we built our city we have already urbanized and polluted our sea in numerous ways, and if we are to have a living sea in the midst of our city in the future we need to act differently in our spatial gestures from now and going forwards.

VIEW FROM THE SEA, BERGEN SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE.

Photo: Bergen School of Architecture

EDGE CONDITION AT THE QUAY, BERGEN SCHOOL OF ARCHITECTURE.

Photo: Cecilie Andersson

CRANE RESTING OUTSIDE THE FISHING MUSEUM.

Photo: Cecilie Andersson

WHALE FLOCK ON A FRIDAY NIGHT TO BERGEN HARBOUR.

Photo: Karsten Johannessen

When Chus Martinez heard of the salmon trade from Bergen, she expressed what it would take for her to come here, and said: I want a salmon dress and I want us to dance with the salmon, only then can we start to understand it … .

After talking with the marine biologists at the fishery museum we discovered that we do not have wild salmon in Sandviken, but its relative, the trout is a Sandviken inhabitant with a peculiar behaviour of swimming along the edge, up-and-down in curves, like in a waltz. Thus, in this workshop we wanted to dance with trout to ground a more sustainable awareness.

DANCE Dancing as a means to register a place and its qualities is usually not the first tool in the toolbox of architects, but it provided us a sensual and tactile experience of the place and the conditions for life and engagement with the living that proved efficient and informative. At the same time the improvisations with movement, placement and engagement provided a degree of awareness to details and understanding the aspect of being in the place and what that might mean for the place as a habitat for other species.

TOPIC In the workshop we addressed the challenges found in the intent to improve the connections between the city and its sea, through a seafront promenade. In the municipal plans this is communicated as a continuous pathway that bring people above and along the water edge with a series of new built interventions. While they address the peoples’ desire to meet the tranquil water it fails to acknowledge that our presence in this zone already contributes a major disturbance for the inhabitants of the water basin and without addressing how this increased connectivity can avoid additional damage to the life of the many affected species in the sea. In its sole focus in providing accessibility to the sea for the city

population there is for instance not a trace of an aspiration to connect the nature on land with the nature at sea, improving the edge condition as a rich habitat for sea- and land-species.

ARTISTIC COOPERATOR As a happy coincidence we had also been approached by the local art gallery Entrée, run by Randi Grov Berger. This summer they were collaborating with the Italian artist Marco Bruzzone, who had approached us with the idea to lower canvases into the sea outside of the school during the summer to let the living sea “paint” and complete the images exhibited as part of his Glub Club – An underwater turmoil project. Their work coincided with our workshop week and contributed an additional layer of engagement and discourse towards the living in the sea and our relation with it. The students took and examined samples from the paintings in the laboratory, and throughout the week the paintings hung to dry in the school with their visual and fragrant reminder of the living sea. The contribution of Entrée and Bruzzone during the workshop was an active participation where they joined the discussions and reviews and gave their own presentation. As a farewell party Entrée and Bruzzone hosted a Sharkathon where we invited all our collaborators from the week to join and celebrate. Shark films where showed from 6 o’clock in the night to 6 o’clock in the morning accompanied by bloody mary in the glasses, seaweed pasta and cake.

EMPATHIC MEDIATION To start the workshop by experiencing the place as humble human beings in nature, the classroom was moved outside, and the participants spent the first night eating by the fireplace and falling to sleep with the sound of seagulls and waves.

After a short introduction to the approach of the week and a presentation of the seafront strategy by James Holtom from the municipality, the participants started dancing. They did various rehearsals together with

DANCING AS A STARFISH TOUCHING GROUND WITH THEIR TENTACLES.

Photo: Cecilie Andersson

MOVING AS A SWARM. Photo: Randi Grov Berger SWAN FLOCK AT THE QUAY OUTSIDE BAS. Photo: Cecilie Andersson

the dancer Karen Eide Bøen. They acted as a swarm, as a group and as individuals, noticing distances of intimacy and tactile qualities of turfs and rusted iron.

They became familiar with the gaps and corners and located where species found an invitation to settle.

Later the students met with the marine biologist Marianna Anichini who took them out in old wooden rowing boats where they collected water samples and sound recordings on the fjord. They also embarked on a sailing boat to sense the sea as a surface and a body of water acted upon by the wind and the waves.

The next day the participants visited the fishery museum and the salmon farm information Centre where they got to use the laboratory facilities to check their samples and learn more about the species they encountered.

Along with the workshop the artist Marco Bruzzone and the curator Randi Grov Berger from the gallery Entrè worked towards an exhibition called Glub Club (An underwater turmoil) where they had lowered paintings into the sea for the summer. During the workshop week the paintings where lifted and hung to dry in school. The artist also gave a lecture and joined in the discussions and presentations and contributed to the larger field of interest stretching from the arts and science to the authorities and capital interests. The paintings brought the constant reminder of the sea through the smell of the ocean into the school building.

DISSEMINATION The student work will be sent in as entries to a municipal hearing on the new urban development plan of Sandviken to strengthen the focus on the relations between the city and the sea.

FOCUS AREA OF THE WORKSHOP REGARDING THE 17 SDGS.

DANCING TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

Empathic excercises are our approach to contribute to the 17 Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations. Acknowledging the unseen and the neglected contributes by building awareness to the manifold living creatures and their habitats coexisting with our human expansion. We highlight the water edge and the importance of sensitively bridging the interface where we encounter and are in conflict today.

We work with the focus on Life Below Water (SDG 14) and how Sustainable Cities and Communtities (SDG 11) could better interact and be responsive to our unvoiced neighbours.

These topics interflict with Clean Water and Sanitation (SDG 6), Industry Innovation and Infrastruture (SDG 9), Responsible Consumption and Production (SDG 12), Climate Action (SDG 13) and Life on Land (SDG 15).

WORKSHOP DIARY

DAY 1

ARRIVAL DAY

We arranged an open house welcoming the participants as they arrived to Bergen with food from a fireplace at the quay outside the school. At 18:00 we gave a tour around the school with Mads Senneseth presenting his Diploma project. Through this presentation he engaged the building and laid out a broad sustainability discussion. Everyone helped cook the shared meal and we had a round of individual introductions with the help of the home task where we had asked: tell us (show us) about an animal you have met in a setting where either you or the animal was at home …)

WELCOME DINNER. Photo: Randi Grov Berger

INPUT DAY

DAY 2 Woken up by the morning rain and the seagulls we had a shared breakfast at school and started the program early with introductions to the workshop by Christian Victor Palmer and Cecilie Andersson. We continued with James Holtom who spoke about the municipal seafront strategy. Before lunch we all worked on Situation – relations; A first encounter with the species w/ dancer Karen Eide Bøen. After lunch we had an introduction to the marine life with Marianna Anichini, with a lecture and a second task mapping habitats and their interface in groups both at land and in sea. We had rented a big old sailing boat and some old rowing boats that took us out in the harbour basin where we collected sound and water samples and we had invited senior advisors in the municipality Stein Håkon Furre and Knut Andres Knudsen to guide us through the situation and further development of the seafront in Sandviken.

DIPLOMA PRESENTATION OF MADS MICHAEL SENNESETH.

Photo: Randi Grov Berger

INPUT DAY

DAY 3 We started this day by visiting the Coastal culture centre and Fishery museum and got an introduction

by Aina Matre and Gitte Bastiansen regarding their activity and future plans. Then we continued to Big Blue, a fishery laboratory where we met the marine biologists Sune Jepsen and Øyvind Reinshol who shared their exhibition and facilitated for use of their laboratory. They also facilitated for the groups to visit a salmon farm out at sea throughout the week.

In the evening the artist Marco Bruzzone held a lecture at school presenting his works and thinking related to life at sea with a big audience of students and local artists.

ANALYSING SAMPLES AT THE BIG BLUE LABORATORY.

Photo: Cecilie Andersson

DAY 4

GROUP WORK DAY

After some hectic input days, the groups finally had a full day of project work tutored by the many teachers and specialists they had been introduced to in the previous days.

GROUP WORK IN THE CANTEEN. Photo: Cecilie Andersson

DAY 5

GROUP WORK DAY

The students continued the group work, and had a diploma presentation by Bastian Düvet Haukefær who had worked on urban implementations enhancing the coexistence with the crows in the city.

GROUP WORK IN THE CANTEEN. Photo: Cecilie Andersson

DAY 6

PRESENTATION DAY

The students finalized their projects and we arranged an open presentation of their results, inviting the many encounters we had met throughout the week.

The work was collected and is compiled in this booklet. Afterwards the students had an afternoon without a program and given the opportunity to visit the city centre where a steam boat festival was arranged in the harbour, but most went on a trip up the mountains. In the evening the artists from Entrée gallery arranged a Sharkaton, a 12-hour shark film festival, serving pasta with seaweed and Bloody Mary accompanied by giant jaws and screams.

POSTLUDE Saturday most of the students travelled home, but some stayed and were invited along with the teachers to the vernissage of the art exhibition of Marco Bruzzone in the Entrée gallery.

FINAL PRESENTATIONS. Photo: Cecilie Andersson

PROPOSAL 01

TAREMAREBY

EXISTING THRESHOLD TO THE WATER IN SANDVIKEN.

Photo: Workshop Team

ELENA GRUBER CHANGKUN MA (WITH DAUGHTER YIYI MA) ERIK OLOFGÖRS TIES VANDEN BOSCH

The quality of the habitats on the quayside outside of BAS is not only determined by the fauna but also by the flora. Accordingly, this concept is intended to support the underwater world and, in part, to make up for past wrongs.

Taremareby pays reference to a norwegian children’s book and television series animation from 1978.

The name could be translated as “seaweed zone city”.

Small islands float in front of the BAS and along the coast of Bergen. Ropes are attached to these islands, which serve as a basis for the growth of the various algae found here. A wide variety of materials can be used for the islands, which can also serve as a base, such as a wooden structure. Other possibilities would be glass buoys or a web knotted from ropes.

Seaweed islands visible from the shore can be used to awaken greater interest in the sea and its inhabitants.

Depending on their location, they can also be used for educational purposes or reached by swimming to pick something to eat.

“A forest in the sea which creates a new habitat for multiple new species.”

ELENA GRUBER

DIFFERENT SEAWEEDS. Photo: Ties Vanden Bosch FIRST IDEAS. Sketches: Workshop Team

WORKING PROCESS IN THE LIBRARY. Photo: Workshop Team

TAREMAREBY. Graphic: Workshop Team

PROPOSAL 02

THE EDGE

BLUE MUSSEL, MYTILUS COTULIS SENSU STRICTO. Photo: Ine Grajchen

PHILIPP-FABIAN LANG INE GRAJCHEN KIMIA NOORINEJAD MAGDA KASPRZAK

In this project our group focused on the intertidal zone, more specific about the species of barnicles and Mussels. We imagine a better life for creatures inhabiting the edge. We propose versatile surfaces inviting all different kinds of species to enjoy life by the edge.

We expect a cleaner water and hope to revive the sandy seabed of Sandviken. The cycle of life, participating in creating a dynamic waterfront. Nature, collaborating in building.

The project focuses on creating a thriving environment for the native species inhabiting the intertidal zone of the Bergen Bay. Starting with two species as an example, Blue Mussel and Barnicle, the project can be extended to include more species. The general idea focuses on interchanging natural, porous materials in the underwater parts of the promenade construction to provide optimal surface for the organisms to attach, inhabit and thrive. Seemingly a simple idea, supports the diversity of the species by providing nutrition, filters the water in the bay and restores the natural sandy seabed, which will eventually contain the dead species.

We have focused on two species living on the edge.

Area of intervention: The edge between the city and the sea.

Graphics: Kimia Noorinejad, Magda Kasprzak

Focus areas of the original promenade project. We focus on how the promenade affects and relates to the seashore and the seabed.

Graphics: Kimia Noorinejad, Magda Kasprzak

We propose the reintroduction of more traditional building materials to support the growth of local species on the promenade structure. Here: granite stone. We hope the organisms would grow on the structure’s porous surface and become an integral part of it, filtering the water and providing nutrition for bigger species.

Graphics: Kimia Noorinejad, Magda Kasprzak

Shifting the materials in the structure would provide diversity of species, which would grow on their preferable textures, leaving others to other species. Timber has been used to build traditional structres in the past.

Graphics: Kimia Noorinejad, Magda Kasprzak

PROPOSAL 03

BYFJÆRA: WHERE THE OCEAN MEETS THE LAND

HISTORIAL RECORD OF TIDAL ZONE IN SANDVIKEN.

Photo: MARCUS archive, University Library of Bergen

BIRGIT FLØYSTAD VALERIA KLEIN BRITT VOSSEN

We humans separate life on land and life on and in the water, although they sometimes take place right next to each other. We focus on our needs but pay little attention to the living creatures in the waters right next to us. The coastline changed a lot over the last decades, the land was extended into the sea, and we got sharp vertical edges replacing the tidal zone.

We want to pay more attention to the living beings in our coastal zone. For that reason, we want to make life between land and sea more visible and present in people’s awareness. The abiotic parts of the sea influence life at land, for example air temperature and light conditions. But the body of sea is full of life, although we often only think of the bigger creatures in the sea. The tides uncover parts of the coastal zone and disclose it again. This movement is the breathing of the sea.

“Our goal is to make the tides more noticeable.”

CHILDREN PLAYING IN THE TIDAL ZONE. Photo: Trondheim Turistforeningen

We want to bring people closer to sea life in the city of Bergen. Our concept is inspired by the tides.

We want to transform the parts of the coast that have an artificial sharp edge towards the sea into BYFJÆRA, the urban tidal park. Our goal is to make the tides more noticeable and thus the sea will be perceived as a living space of its own. At the same time, we want to create a new habitat for living creatures depending on the tidal zone. This can enhance life at sea, land and in the air.

A shallow access to the sea with stones promotes biodiversity, because animals hide between the stones or algae find places to thrive. Small insects thriving become desired meals for wading birds. Different elements should be used in different situations. Access to the water should be guaranteed for everyone, including people, visually as well as physically. For example, ramps can lead to the water to allow people to step into it and interact.

CURRENT SITUATION. PROPOSED URBAN TIDAL PARK. Graphic: Workshop Team

“It is important to us that local materials are used for the transformation.”

PLAN OF POTENTIAL AND HISTORICAL TIDAL ZONE DEVELOPMENT IN KRISTIANSHOLM, SANDVIKEN. Source: Unknown

We demonstrate this concept with the example of a tidal park next to BAS and the fishery museum.

Eventually the goal is that all places in Bergen with unused sharp edges will be transformed into tidal parks. It is important to us that local materials are used for the transformation – stones, wood, maybe material is taken from one place where it is reused in another. We want to make the coast of Bergen a better habitat for the life at sea while at the same time make it more accessible for people and bring the awareness of the sea more apparent to the population.

DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL FOR TIDAL ZONE TO BE RESTABLISHED AND VERTICAL BARRIERS TO BE REMOVED. Photo: Randi Grov Berger

PROPOSAL 04

UPSIDE DOWN

WATERSCAPE OF REARING CAGES. Source: Unknown

DANIEL DIAS DOS SANTOS GUSTAV ENGEDAL BJERRE CECILIE LIND HAANES MARGO VAN DE BROEK

At the Upside Down Island, we want to make people aware of the scale of the fishing industry by using one of the cages used during the rearing phase. We should keep in mind that fish are also a user group of the coast and the new “plan” for the Bergen coast should also be beneficial for them.

Upside Down Island lets people experience what it feels like to be caught in a net, while at the same time making it clear that we are taking away the freedom of the fish and making decisions that affect their lives and environment without giving them a voice and without giving anything back to them.

AERIAL VIEW OF KVAROY REARING FARM. Photo: AKVA Group CONCEPT. Sketches: Workshop Team SECTION OF INVERTED REARING CAGE. Graphic: Workshop Team

“We should keep in mind that fish are also a user group of the coast.”

“UPSIDE DOWN” IN FRONT OF THE WATERFRONT IN SANDVIKEN. Sketch: Workshop Team

PROPOSAL 05

EARS OF THE SEA

PLANKTON IN THE SAMPLES FROM SANDVIKEN. Photo: Workshop Team

AMALIE RAFN MOGENSEN WINTHA VAN DEN ABBEELE SZAMIL MARCIN JACHIMCZYK CHARLOTTE BUSSELS

We live in a noisy world. The ocean is often thought of as a silent wilderness, but beneath the surface is a symphony of sound, sound that creatures rely on to survive, to find food, to communicate and to navigate.

But we humans are increasingly polluting the ocean with noise, we are creating a threat from the smallest to the largest creatures under the surface. Through our actions we affect thousands of animal species.

Many animals in the water depend on perceiving vibrations because water is an excellent medium for sound waves. Fish have an organ on the side that is directly connected to the central nervous system.

When the organ is activated, the fish responds immediately by swimming away. With new human constructions near the shoreline, sea life is disturbed by the amount of noise produced by their construction.

We often assume that noise is not audible below the surface of the water, but on the contrary it is magnified enormously. Instead of destroying habitats in the sea while we build new ones for humans, we should think about solutions to reduce noise under the surface of the water.

We can protect our ears from loud noise, but what about the ears of the sea ...? There are already several solutions to reduce this problem, but there is still a lot to research within different fields. One solution may be to warn the sea life by gradually increasing the volume of the sound, in this way they can leave in advance. Another solution is an air bubble curtain.

Underwater bubbles can inhibit sound transmission through water due to density mismatch and concomitant reaction and absorption of sound waves. Should we solve this problem by changing the way of living or the way of building?

This text accompanied a film that demonstrates the soundscape under water created in the realm of our urban harbour where boats, chains and construction sites transfer their vibrations to the water body and through this effect the habitats of life at sea. They urge us to take this question into consideration when planning our noise-generating activity in and by the water and point to possible ways to take action to lessen the harmful effect of our activity.

MASSIVE MODERN DEVELOPMENT VS. TRADITIONAL CONSTRUCTION.

Photo: Workshop Team

“We can protect our ears from noise, but what about the ears of the sea...?”

THE MOVEMENT OF WATER. EDGE CONDITION BETWEEN SEA AND LAND.

Impression from motion film: Workshop Team

CLEANING AND FEEDING MACHINERY AT A SALMON FARM OUTSIDE BERGEN. Photo: Workshop Team

ENHANCING HABITATS OF COEXISTENCE DIALOGUE OF NATIONS, TRADES AND MINDSETS Our opening task, sharing stories of being guests in the habitat of other creatures highlighted our disparate lives, from those who rarely experienced nature beyond a curated space of a zoo or safari park to others who were often out in the wilderness. But the sea was not home to any of us, and the pioneers of our gathering, the Marine Biologists, were able to lead us through their eyes into the wild. Many of our group travelled from cities that are far from the sea. We gained as beginners a common curiosity for this new realm and our new position to act, or propose, for the benefit of others than humankind.

As perhaps is typical at BAS, we had broad voices and inputs to draw our gestures though, and the embodied question, of being, and being present, and being empathetic was tested by the artist, curator, the three marine biologists, dancer, planners, museum educators, map makers, as well as the range of architecture voices from within the schools. In this short workshop, the access we had to this cacophony of experience gave the working groups an ability to develop the proposals and find a movement into the field of empathetic engagement.

EXPOSURE For us it has been important that the students should get real experiences of engaging with the site, the species inhabiting it and the problematics in question.

We narrowed the scope of area to a small radius, and stayed in the area all through the week as a long and multifaceted site visit that kept revealing new insights to us. Rowing out on the quiet sea, it all feels

so calm. Typically, we would describe such a trip like coming closer to nature, sensing the breeze and the gentle movement in the boat. But through the recording equipment we are exposed to a truly different experience. We can track how the ferries that we can only glimpse in the horizon, are very present with their noise below water. We can see how the chains used to anchor boats along the shore are smashing together to create constant, loud, sharp metal ringing, like church bells on Sundays. Reading that the human activity create a noise problem in our seas is something different than experiencing it, and the urge to respond to it in our design proposals becomes a much more apparent desire.

EMPATHIC ENGAGEMENT To elaborate on the insights from the exposure we initiated rehearsals of focused engagement where each student engaged space and species with their movement, situating and response. This improvised dialogue with the situation became our initial tool to heighten our awareness on the conditions of presence. We engaged space and species with a dance that was an invitation to start a conversation with the otherwise neglected and overseen. With this awareness we wanted to work to grasp the conditioning of coexisting in this contested space between land and sea, between nature and city, where all might be intertwined and where our presence otherwise can come to exclude the others. We invited an experienced experimental dancer to help us engage with the situation, and with her instructions of socially acting and spatially improvising, new aspects were brought to our attention.

In this site of terrenge vague, in a post-industrial waterfront area, nature is already present in the unplanned, informal, in the abolished imperfections of for instance cracks in the asphalt inhabited by soil and grass and insects. Through the empathic engagement the gesture of improving these habitats and finding forms that could allow this coexistence to thrive, became the premise of our design task.

EXPERIENCING THE SEA ON A ROWING BOAT.

Photo: Cecilie Andersson

LED TO SENSE OUR BODIES IN RELATION TO PLACE.

Photo: Randi Grov Berger

IMMERSED IN THE LOCAL With the intense format of a one-week workshop and with students from four different schools and from years 2 to 5, we focused on providing everyone a shared platform to work from with a diverse introduction to the site and scope in question. We purposely worked with a small area, and while the topic mimics global challenges, we never left the local scale. We asked the students to work towards a response to the municipal plan to make a seafront pathway that will pass our school. A simple task that could then be elaborated with multitude responses.

THE MANY VOICES SHARE A FIELD We wanted the students to sense the urgency and the relevance of the topic through the many voices that were brought in. Representatives from the authorities gave talks but also joined us out in the boats. We had introductions by the marine biologists, but also went with them to collect samples and analyse the results.

Thus, the students where never “at school”, but always on site, in action, and meeting people that brought their interests, knowledge and urges to the table. The span of voices was also important to us.

In the input the students were informed by art, policy and science and in their own responses they included history, literature and other departures to broaden the scope.

The marine biologist Marianna Anichini is a researcher that brought the academic perspective but also introduced the students to a traditional coastal culture with clinker built wooden boats.

Along with the workshop we simultaneously hosted the artist Marco Bruzzone, who collaborated with the local gallery Entrée to produce an exhibition in the series of CIAO MONDO (The Glub Club), where he lowered canvases in the sea outside our school during the summer and during the workshop week these canvases were taken out of the sea to dry and be displayed. He also hosted an artist talk on his work that attracted a big external audience and the curator

and the artist contributed in our reviews and brought a vocabulary of critical discourse and precision into our discussions of the student work. They also arranged the Sharkathon in the final night, cooking pasta with seaweed and screening 12 hours of shark movies accompanied with bloody mary for the students, the many collaborators and external voices and others interested. All this contributed to wrap the workshop in a momentum, where the initiatives and engagement were part of setting the stage for the workshop.

THOUGHTS TO THE OUTCOME We see that two of the proposals are reactionary and provocative and represent directly through a pivot or simple presentation what is being done today.

The pivot that the “upside down” proposal beckons, brought a dialogue at the final review of about the ambiguous relation that the intensive Salmon industry has to nature and how this might be responded to when brought into view. Is this a cathedral to the fish or a comment to their plight? The presentation of moving image and sound, of the transmission of man-made noise into the expanse of sea is direct and unflinching as a mirror to our action and inconsideration as societies exploiting a shared resource of water.

The three other proposals are markedly different as active gestures in reinvigorating what was, or could be. The rebirth of tidal pools into the neighbourhood to recreate the lost Byfjære is both a simple but bold strategy. Of all the approaches it is only one that seeks to take back what is lost and refutes the inevitability of sea encroachment. The pier proposal also works to question time and the process of organic building taking over construction harkens to the long now perspective idea of planting woodlands for generations to come and see in fruition.

Both these projects assert that human activity in the sea should recognise the temporality of water and question the permanence and immediacy of our occupations. The final group positioned the Taremareby differently. They are imagining the fishing museum

engaging children, to create an experiential apparatus that both provides and expands the habitat of the seaweed and kelp but also trains it to be an active site for experiencing the beings who are just below the surface.

Perhaps one thread holds all the proposals together, and that is the desire to uncover, or make plain the processes of the marine habitat. Whether by raising its value, or questioning its use, or seeking to embrace its challenges or testing strategies that can be symbiotic with the processes that are already evident.

All the groups have embodied a way of clearly entering a readable threshold to the watery world that surrounds Sandviken and the coastline of the city.

SHARKATHON EVENT ON THE LAST EVENING. Graphic: Marco Bruzzone

QUESTIONS ON MY MIND REFLECTION BY STUDENT CECILIE LIND HÅNES Why don’t we have more empathy with fish and other species in the sea, the source of all life? How can we increase this empathy, learn from other species and become inspired by how they live? On our way to making a more regenerative future as architects, which similarities can be found among us and our fellow species, and how, in the era of mass distinction, can we think more towards a future where all species can thrive together as a community, and feel a greater relation with our planet as a whole.

“A human being is part of the whole – called by us ‘the universe’, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest – a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness […] Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature […].”

Einstein, A (1959) In: Designing regenerative cultures (2016, p. 31) av Whal, D. C.

The well-digger jawfish dig a vertical well, up to one meter deep, which they line with pebbles and shells of snails and bivalves in a manner greatly resembling human mortarless masonry work.

Graphic: p. 60, Frisch, K. v., 1974

See, Sea I am not your backside.

Do you think I take well to being fed with old trams and left over munitions?

I join the world from end to end, to places you never will see.

Your ancestors moved with me and took me well, far and wide.

I am not your pride.

Why do you build walls to hold me back and keep your urbanity dry?

Your waterfront is of crushed rock and concrete not my ancient sands.

While you tease about the polymer plague you ignore how you divide.

But I saw a new score come to see.

With eyes closed for their hearts to sea, to listen and find or agree.

They have the respect of the ancients and didn’t come to take or in greed.

They tried to dance, and learn how to move with me.

One set of them were bold to plan for the young.

They made for them a garden, a children’s garden that floats to give me a face.

Under and over the life I shelter could be swelled to bring joy.

Their hope was to birth a movement to register the unsung.

Another set toyed with my innards.

With molusks and calcium deposits they had a thought to train up arches and tidal bridges.

We yearn for these wet decks rather than absurd orthogonal piers.

I’m wet, if you had learned from the fishers.

Quite suddendly a trio made a bold move.

To undo the damming and to let me wash inland.

They will cut back the asphalt and open my wounds.

It started when they stopped to notice the old cranes in the roofs.

A wilder set still thought of the fishes.

And the industrial fabrics that tame them and feed them and machines that spill them.

They want to flip one factory up and fill it with air.

To trap its human vistors in the bubble and ask how they care.

The most daring of all want to deal with the noise.

As the wretched anchors, chains, motors and ramming piles pierce my skin and ripple their horrors far throughout my thins and depths.

They will use a law to write a zone, and make bubble walls where wet Bergen’s life can be quietly left alone.

It might be a first and the world might take note.

I am a reflection.

Dance then, and close your eyes, to see.

Hear me and let me fill back your lands.

And why are you so afraid of wet feet?

SEE, SEA. Poem by Christian Victor Palmer

ACADEMY PARTICIPANTS Teachers University of Liechtenstein Cornelia Faisst Daniel Haselsberger Bergen School of Architecture Cecilie Andersson Christian Victor Palmer Hasselt University Peter Princen Royal Danish Academy Lin Kappel Lykke Østerby Arnfred Students University of Liechtenstein Szamil Marcin Jachimczyk Elena Gruber Philipp-Fabian Lang Daniel Dias dos Santos Valeria Klein Bergen School of Architecture Changkun Ma with daughter Yiyi Ma Kimia Noorinejad Cecilie Lind Haanes Hasselt University Charlotte Bussels Ine Grajchen Wintha Van Den Abbeele Ties Vanden Bosch Britt Vossen Margo Van de Broek Royal Danish Academy Amalie Rafn Mogensen Erik Olofgörs Magda Kasprzak Gustav Engedal Bjerre Birgit Fløystad

SPECIAL THANKS TO Contributors Invited Teachers Marianna Anichini Marco Bruzzone Randi Grov Berger Karen Eide Bøen Fishery Museum and Store Blå Gitte Bastiansen Sune Jepsen Øyvind Reinshol Sandviken Kystkultursenter Aina Matre Bergen Municipality James Holtom Stein Håkon Furre Knut Andreas Knudsen Architects Bastian Düvet Haukefær Mads Michael Senneseth

BUILDING CIRCULARLY

LOOP

ACADEMY 04

2023 JUNE 26 – 30 ROYAL DANISH ACADEMY

INTRODUCTION The workshop at the Royal Danish Academy has been the 4th workshop and culmination of the Erasmus+ project “Social and Environmental Impact Academy for Architects (SEIAA)”. The research center CINARK – Center for Industrialised Architecture at the Royal Danish Academy (DK) facilitated a five-day workshop in Copenhagen in cooperation with the University of Liechtenstein (LI), Bergen School of Architecture (NO) and Hasselt University (BE).

The academic framework of the workshop has been linked to the topic “ecology of tectonics” that is fundamental to the work executed in our research center: “The physical properties and the lifespan of building materials are to a large extent dependent on the way in which they are designed and built into constructions and subsequently maintained. In a recycling perspective, the design and assembly principles of the constructions become even more important, as they should preferably be able to be disassembled. It points to tectonic strategies – ecology of tectonics – that considers not only the life cycle of building materials, but also the lifespan of the constructions so that buildings are designed for circular economy. The ecology of tectonics holds an understanding that buildings consist of parts that as a whole form part of a wider context of nature-based and cultural systems.

At best, this understanding will contribute to a new ethical dimension within tectonic practice and in architecture in general, which acknowledges the correlation between the materials used, the ecosystems they are part of, and the resources we share seen in a global perspective”.

TWO LOOP CIRCULAR DESIGN As in the previous workshops, students worked in groups mixed across the four universities. Together they explored and defined circular design strategies through hands-on 1:1 experiments, combining functionality, aesthetics and circularity. They could explore questions, such as: What does it mean to build circularly? What characterizes the beauty of circular and tectonic solutions?

As an outcome, they provided material evidence of how two loops of circularity could function in the built environment. The findings have been brought together and materialised into five multipurpose podiums, that demonstrated five strategies of how a random assortment of materials could be translated in a multipurpose podium.

How do we need to think and build in a circular economy? To achieve a meaningful low-impact circular economy in construction, architecture must become proficient at using, reusing and recycling materials so architectural design must be designed for reuse. To practice with such open-ended, adaptable, and reversible qualities, in our workshop we worked with two loops of circularity: At the Architecture School workshops we received two random containers filled with demolition materials from a reusematerial-supplier. The task was to build a multipurpose podium that would be Designed-for-Disassembly.

On the lawn next to the workshops, we re-assembled and recalibrated the construction ready for it be placed on the waterfront. Here the design was re-worked and adapted to its surroundings.

UNLOADING THE WASTE CONTAINER. Photo: Cornelia Faisst RECOGNISING WASTE AS A RESSOURCE. Photo: Cornelia Faisst

HOW WE WORK Five intercultural groups of four architecture students dealt with the environmental impacts that arise through the design and the use of our built environment. Using hands-on methods, we perceived limitations as challenges for our creativity. We searched for beauty in reduction, by focusing on the elemental purposes of architecture. Instead of adding new designs to an increasing pile of waste, we thought about strategies to make better use of the existing.

Neither the teachers nor the students knew the materials in advance, and this is the key pedagogical point of the workshop. In a circular economy the available materials are design-drivers and as such the architectural design can only be loosely planned. The workshop then became a study of creative flexibility where the students adapted their designs in accordance and in dialogue with the materials and techniques available.

THEORY AND PRACTISE Often the Circular Economy is presented by scholars, practitioners, and politicians as a solution to the climate crisis. The Circular Economy is seen as a decoupling of economic growth from the over-consumption of scarce recourses. This arguably is a paradox as growth and increasing material consumption are an interdependent phenomenon. As such the reality of Circular Economy is not as clear-cut as one could hope for. In the workshop we intercept material and products deemed no longer useable on their journey to be decommissioned, cut-up and burned or otherwise discarded. The unfortunate reality is that a lot of these materials will continue to be discarded after our workshop as the task of taking responsibility for the waste of building industry is logistically not feasible. But by presenting this enormous waste for the students – while showing them the design potential that lies in recycling – we hope that the students will leave this workshop with a realistic

image of the waste problem in construction while enabling them to push for a better practice where the Circular Economy and re-/upcycling are natural parts of the design.

In Denmark today there are many stakeholders pushing for Circular Economy in construction and many examples are already built. Buildings based on reuse and recycling are not uncommon anymore and this is a positive development. However, there are equally many examples of Circular construction that cannot participate in a Circular Economy in the future simply because the focus is on reuse and recycling here-and-now and little consideration has been given to reuse at the buildings’ end-of-life. An example of this is the reuse of brick in Denmark. Many buildings are being built with reused bricks but for that to happen the bricks must have been laid originally with weak limestone mortar. That was the case before the 1960s and as such many brick constructions can be reused. Since then, the brick industry has used strong cement-based mortar meaning that the bricks cannot be taken apart in the future for further reuse. The Circular Economy in practice is filled with this kind of example of One-Loop-Design.

FOCUS AREAS OF THE WORKSHOP REGARDING THE 17 SDGS.

CIRCULAR STRATEGIES TOWARDS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The Circular Economy is placed within the 12th Sustainable Development Goal of the United Nations entitled ‘Responsible Consumption and Production’. It directly addresses overconsumption within the field of construction and the crisis of increasing scarcity of raw materials. It aims to mitigate unnecessary use of finite and renewable resources but focuses on the potential of reuse and re-/upcycling of waste materials from demolition sites. It opens the door to novel approaches in design where material awareness and the impact of material use are key in architectural design. Similarly, the 13th Sustainable Development Goal of ‘Climate Action’ is also addressed by the Circular Economy. The most sustainable material is arguably any material we do not use. Such a strategy both mitigates new material use and unnecessary processing. Production of building materials is responsible for up to 40% of CO2 emission and thus hindering material consumption addresses scarcity and Global Warming Potentials.

WORKSHOP DIARY

DAY 1

ARRIVAL DAY

The workshop began with a self-presentation where each participant introduced themselves through a prepared task. The task had been sent in advance and invited everyone to define their relation to the topic of circular building through answering three questions: 1. How do you define circular thinking and making? 2. Have you worked with it in one of your previous projects? and 3. How do you live in a circular way in your everyday life? The task gave the chance for us to quickly see the experiences and interests of all the participants We then walked into the center of the city to enjoy pizza alongside one of the canals.

EXPERIENCING COPENHAGEN. Photo: Cornelia Faisst

INPUT DAY

DAY 2 The day started with an introduction to the department of CINARK and a tour of the RDA campus.

Associate Professor Pelle Munch-Petersen gave a lecture on The Material of the Circular Economy. The two containers that had been delivered with waste materials were then emptied into the workshop’s courtyard and we began sorting the material.

Amongst some 300 year old timber beams, there were also many lightweight timber panels used for temporarily sealing fasades with plastic sheeting during construction, more than 20 selfstanding shelving units, metal railings, thin timber sections and various other artefacts. We shared a dinner in the canteen so we had the possibility to talk across the groups and plan further.

SORTING WASTE MATERIALS. Photo: Cornelia Faisst

INPUT DAY

DAY 3 Christian Vittrup a civil-engineer working with the production of upcycled materials at the design and manufacturer company Again, introduced the processes and history of the products that they have developed into the marketplace. The challenges of scale, testing and certification, and the balance in using certain materials for furniture, interior or exterior dependent on the risk profile was discussed alongside the barriers to entry for new products dependent on regulation. In the afternoon we continued to explore and develop the first version of the Circular Social Podiums and shared dinner again in the canteen.

SEARCHING FOR NEW PURPOSES. Photo: Cornelia Faisst

DAY 4

GROUP WORK DAY

We cycled to an exhibition settlement entitled ‘Living Places’ that the rooflight manufacture Velux showcases sustainable building methods in a series of case study houses, gardens and greenhouses. This was followed by a tour and lecture at Lendager Architects who have based their practise on upcyling materials and reuse at varying scales. After cycling back to the campus Teaching Assistant Professor, Ph.D. Astrid Mody gave us a lecture on Prototyping that gave us methodological frameworks, based on natural, social sciences or the arts that we could use to position our experimentation within the academic field. We returned to the workshops and continued to make iterations of the Circular Social Podiums for the rest of the day. The students had the opportunity to explore the city independently during the evening.

PRESENTATION AT LENDAGER GROUP . Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

DAY 5

GROUP WORK DAY

We began the day on the waterfront outside the Architecture Museum at Søren Kirkegaards Plads with a tour and introduction of one of the three pavilions built to demonstrate technologies that will enable a reduction in emissions by at least 25%. The architect Uffe Leth explained how the research at CINARK had led to collaborations between small actors within the Thatch industry to develop prefabricated Thatch panels. Professor Anne Beim gave a lecture on Biogen and circular approaches. Discussions led to the importance of good tectonic competence in order to find simpler solutions to applying biogen materials and in dismantling structures. A critical aspect of the work of CINARK has been in relation to fire treatments on natural materials, and the testing of clay application to gain an equivalent B rating on thatch was shared. In the afternoon the structures were dismantled then relocated from the workshop and the square to the waterfront. On rebuilding it was possible to make adjustments and further iterations of the podiums, both in the built sense, but also in the positioning to site and the water.

REBUILT STRUCTURES. Photo: Cornelia Faisst

DAY 6

PRESENTATION DAY

The day began with an introduction to the documentation format of the booklet for the students to prepare finished material to summarise their proposals in this booklet. There was also time to make changes to the social podiums ready for the presentation in the afternoon.

Jørn Kiesslinger a partner at Lendager Architects joined the group as an external guest for discussion of the 5 podiums. Members of the public who were passing by also stopped to listen to the presentations.

We shared a final dinner in the H15 Eatery to celebrate the end of this part of the program.

GROUP PHOTO. Photo: Jørn Kiesslinger

DESIGN 01

HIERARCHY IN CIRCULARITY

IN THE CONTEXT. Photo: Mads Christian Hvidberg

INE GRAJCHEN MADS CHRISTIAN HVIDBERG MANTAO AMADEUS JAKOBS MARIA WENYUE JESSEN AAS

During the analysis on the first day, we were all immediately intrigued by a large metal element. We made the decision to utilise it as our foundational base. This choice sparked a deliberation about our subsequent design direction. Once we had a comprehensive understanding of the available materials and the properties of the chosen steel base, we opted to establish a connection between a lightweight wooden structure and the imposing steel framework to achieve a striking contrast. This decision prompted us to delve deeper into the possibilities. By strategically placing wooden panels within the gaps of the steel structure, we created inviting seating areas. These panels were fashioned from repurposed shelves and seamlessly connected using salvaged components from dismantled frames.

The approach aimed to minimise wood modifications and reduce the number of cuts. The existing openings in the metal served as connection points for the new structure. The connection between the two elements was achieved using the screws from the disassembled frames.

“It becomes a part of the architectural language that the wood never aligns in joints but instead offsets from one another.”

MADS CHRISTIAN HVIDBERG

IN THE DETAILS Photo: Mads Christian Hvidberg

In hindsight, it would have been better to use bolts, as it would have facilitated the disassembly of the structure. By utilizing the strong and stable metal frame as a foundation, a solid base was provided for the wooden elements. Simultaneously, the light nature of the wood created a sense of airiness and spaciousness within the structure.

The project is based on a heavy steel base, a horizontally ribbed object. Steel production has significant CO2 emissions, so it is crucial for us to become proficient in reusing this material. To reuse the steel and maintain the weight of this object while highlighting its importance in our design, we chose to incorporate a lighter structure that would subordinate itself to the steel object. A clear hierarchy in the architecture becomes essential in conveying our approach to sustainability.

The wooden frames used to create the lighter structure are redeployed in the lengths they come in.

It becomes an architectural expression that the wood never aligns in joints but instead offsets from one another. This is also done to exemplify that the wood could have had completely different lengths and still be usable.

IN THE PROCESS. Photo: Mantao Amadeus Jakobs

The project is located along the canal at Holmen, positioned with the water on one side and a larger building on the other. As a human, one experiences a grand scale from the large building to the infinity of the water. Our project aims to complement this scale by supporting the horizontal features of the context and incorporating an angled roof that meets the water, signifying the transition from building, to quay, to the water.

Our project creates a shelter-like spaciousness that invites people to stay. It achieves this by considering the human scale and recognising heights, both the seating height and roof height. The space created is open, but the orientation of the columns encourages people to position themselves with their gaze towards the water and the building at their back. Having the building at their back will create a sense of security while staying there. This project is built with a specific context and use in mind. But the sustainability and architectural approach could easily be translated to other places and functions.

IN THE CONTEXT. Photo: Mads Christian Hvidberg

“A clear hierarchy in the architecture becomes essential in conveying our approach to sustainability.”

MADS CHRISTIAN HVIDBERG

IN THE PROCESS. Photo: Mads Christian Hvidberg

DESIGN 02

OFFICE LANDSCAPE

MULTIFUNCTIONAL FURNITURE. Photo: Cornelia Faisst

STEFANY VELASQUEZ SARRIA LENA WINDEREN SANDER PANIS IRIS DENISOV

Our project presents a design concept that repurposes discarded wooden cabinets into a unique seating podium, creating a landscape of functionality and interaction. By rotating and modifying the cabinets, we create an arrangement with multiple levels and versatile seating options. These repurposed cabinets serve as multifunctional elements, providing seating, reclining, and creative spaces for indoor use. On sunny days, they can also be placed outside, expanding their usability and inviting people to enjoy the outdoors. Sustainability and mobility are key considerations, as the cabinets can be easily disassembled and relocated using a box system. This flexibility allows the seating podium to be adapted to different indoor and outdoor environments. By repurposing these cabinets, we embrace creative reuse, challenge the concept of waste, and create an engaging space that showcases the beauty of repurposed materials.

“With only one thing you can do everything you want.”

STEFANY VELASQUEZ SARRIA

SOCIAL PODIUM. Photo: Lena Winderen

Through our exploration, we discovered that making small adjustments to the cabinets allowed us to create a versatile modular system that capitalised on their abundance. We recognized the inherent mobility and transformative potential of file cabinets, prompting us to emphasize these properties in our design.

This led us to envision a dynamic and ever-evolving landscape.

The concept revolves around the idea of a forever changing (office) landscape, where the cabinets serve as the building blocks of an adaptable environment.

By incorporating movable and transformational elements, we enable users to rearrange the layout according to their needs and preferences. This flexibility ensures that the space remains dynamic and can be continually reimagined to accommodate evolving social dynamics and creativity.

By harnessing the logic of the file cabinets’ moveable and transformational properties, we have created a landscape that can be changed individually. The modular system allows for seamless reconfiguration, enabling a sense of empowerment and ownership for users as they shape their work environment. This forward-thinking approach not only maximizes the functionality of the cabinets but also promotes a sense of creativity, collaboration, and adaptability.

EXPLANATION OF THE STRUCTURE. Graphic: Stefany Velasquez

We started our process by looking at what materials we were given and were drawn in many different directions regarding what to use and what situation we wanted to create. We began sketching out some different ideas, but the moment we went out to look and feel the materials again we found the file cabinets to be the most intriguing. They are in good shape and are made from with sturdy materials and designsolutions, but for some reason they have been sent to die, en masse. An entire office-landscape in a pile.

So why are they not loved anymore, and how can some simple gestures make us love them again? Do we need to alter their shape and use them in a new way? Or does the relationship we have to the material hinder us from loving them as they only remind us of what they were created for?

IN THE PROCESS. Photo: Cornelia Faisst

“How can things transform both functionally and structurally?”

LENA WINDEREN

END RESULT OF THE CABINET MODULES. Photo: Sander Panis

DESIGN 03

ENTANGLED

FINAL RESULT. Photo: Sophie Feichtmair

SOPHIE FEICHTMAIR PETTER FINSAETHER BOLSTAD KRISTIN CUHRA ISA LEEMANS

In the spirit of our workshop, we tried to make a social structure that was not only from leftover material, but also built in a way that allows the material to function well into the third loop of use.

In the planning phase we fell in love with the 300-year-old timber beam. We wanted to use its weathered aesthetics and solidity to support something softer and more elegant that could provide some kind of shelter.

We increasingly recognised the interesting opportunities to weave the thin planks. At first more as a backrest/cladding/facade, but our fascination led us into exploring its structural capabilities as well.

“Let the material decide.”

PETTER FINSAETHER BOLSTAD

PROTOTYPING. Photo: Isa Leemans

We began working with the wooden beam as a bench. We wanted to create an angle that was comfortable to lean on and invited people to sit longer and relax. By providing proper support for people this also provided the structural starting point of the arched shelter. The woven arch came out of our exploration of the material capabilities of the thin wooden planks. Weaving is a very old technique which fits well in our circular story because it is easy to build and to dismantle. For this part, it was important to work as much as possible with the capabilities of the material itself. We let the full length of the planks decide the width of the woven frame as they interlaced diagonally in a weave. We tied them together in the intersections, this allowed the whole construction to contract and expand as an accordion. When it was fully contracted it was much stiffer and stronger. We used this ability for moving it and later we extended it on the bench into an arch. Extending the arch was a very exciting event. It revealed many places that should be further supported when forming the arch. This was done with the help of the other groups and some responsive tectonic thinking. In the end it became a combination of weaving additional rows of planks at the ends and in the middle whilst using wooden sticks to bind it together with some screws and rope.

WEAVING THE WOOD. Photo: Petter Finsaether Bolstad

The whole process began with a vague idea and was purely inspired by the found material. The building and forming to finally disassembling and moving it led to trying and failing more than once. It was about figuring out how the material functions and what characterises it. We had to make decisions, stick to them or begin again. Always in mind with the goal to build in a circular manner. Creating not only a space for our needs, but also thinking about the environment and future generations.

STRETCHING THE ACCORDION. Photo: Kristin Cuhra

“Let’s find out, it’s about trial-and-error.”

SOPHIE FEICHTMAIR

IDEA SKETCHING. Photo: Isa Leemans

DESIGN 04

IN-TENSION

TITLE GRAPHIC

JOINTS. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

MUSTAFA KARAASLAN VIDA TRULSDOTTER BOOGH HÉLÈNE SIMONIS ESBEN LINDHE

The point of departure was choosing the materials and letting different structures appear from them.

One principal of circular building is to rework existing materials as little as possible, preferably not at all.

This avoids using more energy than necessary on yet another process of reuse. We attempted this by setting principals for ourself to not cut any of our material and only use our own bodies as tools.

The method for choosing materials was an intuitive attraction to the repetitive and rigid character of the steel structures, which at the same time had a lightness to them with them being hollow and painted in light gray and white, making the surface just a bit uneven.

After agreeing on the rules we had set for ourselves; no cutting, using our bodies as tools; simply reacting to the chosen steel structures, the consequence was to assemble structures according to the principles of pressure and tension. Here the A-frame emerged. By leaning the gray structures towards each other we could lock them in place by sliding the white pieces in between the gaps of the gray ones. The weight of the steel also kept everything in place.

“Playful rigidity in the assembled structure.”

MUSTAFA KARAASLAN

COLLAGE OF POSSIBLE USES. Photo: Hélène Simonis & Mustafa Karaaslan

GRAPHIC

When it came to the form of the assembled structure, we tried out different settings and layers of the material we chose. First assembling the structures in a line looking like two ‘A’s next to each other. But with the strict and see-through characteristics of the materials we thought it would be simple to create an enclosed space, with a clearer center. This would invite people to gather and explore the space. A visible heavy and rigid structure that gives a secure feeling and therefore invites you to put your weight on it. Whether sitting, laying or climbing.

At the end of the process we found a structure that aimed to be honest towards the users and therefore invites them to play and discover it with their bodies.

IN THE CONTEXT. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

Through these days we found a system that has been generous enough to let us experiment. We found that with the materials and the principle of pressure and tension, the structure can be set up and taken apart without anything other than the material and our bodies being involved. It could also be restructured into other constellations by following this system. This means that it can be adapted to different sites, which could potentially extend its life. Steel lives a long time and when the structure has completed its goal in one place, it can potentially move on to a new place, just like people.

It is also interesting to reflect on the life the materials had before they became this construction. At the time of writing, this is uncertain. What did they do in their youth? Were there more of them, and if so where are the rest? And is it okay for them to live on in this new constellation?

BUILDING KIT. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

“The intention is to be part of the context, not be the context” HÉLÈNE SIMONIS

FLEXIBLE ASSEMBLY. Photo: Mustafa Karaaslan

DESIGN 05

WEAVING WASTE

TESTING NEW SITTING OPPORTUNITIES. Photo: Cornelia Faisst

ERIK OLOFGÖRS TONE FIRING GULNARA BOSKOV HANNES HERZOG

Together we explore and define circular design strategies through hands-on 1:1 experiments, which aim to combine functionality, aesthetics and circularity.

Our aim was to make a podium; a place for gathering, sitting, standing on, in a human scale. Following inputs on circular design and making, we realised that the output will occur in a different process than that we are used to. The order changes - the starting point becomes the material, and the material decides the design. We started with looking at the pallet; what is already here, what potential lies in the materials we are given? So we began working directly at with the wooden frame elements. We felt these would enable us to make a structure that could be movable and possible to dismantle.

“Instead of letting it crack anywhere, we are controlling the crack”

ERIK OLOFGÖRS

FRAMEWORK. Photo: Gulnara Boskov

The school is on the waterfront, across the harbour from the Opera. Each morning we started the working day with swim and we wanted to develop our project from this, to create a place for dwelling or interacting with the water. It could be a semi-private and semi-enclosed space where one could feel more comfortable changing, and catching a breath after uniting with the ocean. A place to reset.

Although broad variety of materials were available, we decided to mainly use wooden elements. We found a number of 2”4 wooden frames, timber beams that had been used for 300 years, thin planks and a steel frame as a grounding. Only a few screws at selected places were needed.

Previous experience in steaming and bending wood sparked the idea of weaving wooden planks due to their dimensions. We tested the wood’s bending capacity by soaking it in salt water for a day. Initially, we encountered cracking issues when attempting sharp ninety-degree corners. However, we developed a new technique that allowed us to control the cracking and this enabled us to the weave corners successfully.

CRACKING CORNERS. Photo: Erik Olofgörs

This weaving technique also addressed both the aesthetic and functional aspects, providing options for transparency, privacy, and adapting to the windy environment on site.

To ensure simple assembly and circular thinking, we minimized the use of additional screws and manipulation of the material. Our design involved a wooden frame on a steel foundation, with the rescued logs placed on top without any joining so that their own weight is the anchoring force.

When moving the podium from the workshop to the waterfront, it proved simple to dismantle, transport, and reconstruct the podium. The design was adapted to the new environment by shifting placement of openings or windows within the structure.

The bench consisted of stacked timber logs, showcasing visible iron elements as ornaments. By preserving the material’s origin and avoiding extensive modification, we gave new life to old materials, creating a social waterfront dwelling for passersby.

WEAVING SYSTEM. Photo: Tone Firing

“Reusing materials enhances their value, turning forgotten elements into renewed treasures.”

GULNARA BOSKOV

MATERIALS COMING TOGETHER. Photo: Tone Firing

DESIGNING FOR AN OPENENDED FUTURE

Design for disassembly is key. Making sure that the architectural composition can be taken apart and be reused introduces a humility into the design process where beauty exists partially in recognition that the future is unknown. Materials will then be available for use in the future in a manner we cannot predict and design for now. The possibility for many loops thus, is the focus.

Now, after the workshop some of the podium materials will be used by others, some will be taken apart and reused by others and some will be discarded and burned or otherwise meet their end-of-life.

That is the nature of Circular Economy in the present day. The hope is that by realising this as a potential for design, more architects will begin to base their designs on what is already there and for many alternative futures.

ACADEMY PARTICIPANTS Teachers University of Liechtenstein Cornelia Faisst Daniel Haselsberger Bergen School of Architecture Cecilie Andersson Christian Victor Palmer Hasselt University Peter Princen Royal Danish Academy Anne Beim Astrid Mody Pelle Munch-Petersen Students University of Liechtenstein Sophie Feichtmair Hannes Herzog Mantao Jakobs Mustafa Karaaslan Stefany Velasquez Bergen School of Architecture Maria Wenyue Jessen Aas Vida Trulsdotter Boogh Petter Finsæther Bolstad Tone Firing Lena Winderen Hasselt University Gulnara Boskov Ine Grajchen Isa Leemans Sander Panis Hélène Simonis Royal Danish Academy Kristin Cuhra Iris Denisov Mads Hvidberg Esben Lindhe Erik Olofgörs

SPECIAL THANKS TO Contributors Architects Jørn Kiesslinger Uffe Leth Anne-Mette Manelius Greisen Thomas Nørgaard a:gain Christian Steen Wittrup J. Jensen Genbrug Kenneth Vedel

IMPRINT © 2023, University of Liechtenstein, Hasselt University, Bergen School of Architecture, Royal Danish Academy Editors: Cornelia Faisst, Daniel Haselsberger, Els Hannes, Liesbeth Huybrechts, Peter Princen, Cecilie Andersson, Christian Victor Palmer, Anne Beim, Lin Kappel, Astrid Mody, Pelle Munch-Petersen Cover: Children drawing from the first academy at the University of Liechtenstein.

The project was funded by the National Agency of Liechtenstein (AIBA) and the European Union.

Funded the With thebysupport of the Erasmus+Programme Programme Erasmus+ EuropeanUnion Union of the European