Crossing the Border by Amelia Wu

Crossing the HOUSING BORDER Adriana Pablos, Guadalupe Babio, Wei Wu

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 2. Housing as a Border 3.Crossing the Housing Border 4. Making Heimat 5. Housing Projects 6. Final Project

1. INTRODUCTION

Crossing the Housing Border is an ongoing research project about housing. Housing is a universal and everyday need structuring society. Thus, housing becomes political. Following this understanding, our research seeks potential learning from recent forced transitioning experiences between different housing systems. In doing so, the investigation becomes site-specific to Germany and its housing efforts during the refugee crisis of 2015. The German pavilion at the 2016 Biennale di Venezia, Making Heimat, conducted a first attempt to collect the countryâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s strategy to house the nearly 900,000 refugees that entered the country in 2015 through the creation of a database of refugee housing projects. Today, we stand with enough distance from the 2015 crisis response to establish an initial overview of Germanyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s housing response.

Making Heimat is taken as a starting point. We revise its database and connect with the full curatorial team, including curators Peter Cachola and Oliver Elser, designers Something Fantastic, leading consultant Doug Sounders, and housing photographer Anja Weber. Although the curatorial project of Making Haimat has had continuity through further exhibits and publications, the voices of the refugees have not been included. Crossing the Housing Border seeks to include in the conversation the rich body of knowledge that refugees hold through their experiences in the temporal, semi-permanent, or permanent German housing structures. For this reason, along with a research dossier, our final output is a set of interviews that present the opinionated voices of the refugees that arrived after the 2015 crisis. The final aspiration is to inform better housing practices in the future.

2. CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

metrocosm.com/global-migration-map.html

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

REFUGEES A TYPE OF MIGRATION Migrations fall into several broad categories. First, internal and international migration may be distinguished. Within any country there are movements of individuals and families from one area to another (for example, from rural areas to the cities), and this is distinct from movements from one country to another. Second, migration may be voluntary or forced. Most voluntary migration, whether internal or external, is undertaken in search of better economic opportunities or housing. Forced migrations usually involve people who have been expelled by governments during war or other political upheavals or who have been forcibly transported as slaves or prisoners. Intermediate between these two categories are disasters.

decade about 220 million people lived outside of their country of birth. By the end of the decade that number had risen to 270 million, according to the United Nations. While many of these migrants left for economic opportunity, the three largest migrations between countries were a result of crises. Two-thirds of all refugees worldwide Myanmar and Somalia. The civil war in Syria displaced 12 million people, about 5.6 million of these are refugees. Over 3.7 million people left Syria for Turkey during the 2010s, over 1.1 million left for Lebanon and 500,000 people went both to Jordan and Germany. In search of a better and safe life people have left their countries and entered Europe. This and previous migrations have shaped the character of modern Europe challenging unprecedent number of refugees. Germany has taken in the most refugees. In 2015, its

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

Section 3 Recognition of refugee status (1) A foreigner is a refugee as defined in the Convention of 28 July 1951 on the legal status of refugees (Federal Law Gazette II, pp. 559, 560) if he, 1. owing to well-founded fear of persecution in his country of origin on account of his race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership of a particular social group, 2. resides outside the country (country of origin) a) whose nationality he possesses and the protection of which he cannot, or, owing to such fear does not want to avail himself of, or b) where he used to have his habitual residence as a stateless person and where he cannot, or, owing to said fear, does not want to return. (2) A foreigner shall not qualify as a refugee under subsection 1 where there are serious reasons to believe that he 1. has committed a crime against peace, a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of the international instruments drawn up for the purpose of establishing provisions regarding such crimes, 2. committed a serious non-political crime outside the federal territory before being admitted as a refugee, in particular a brutal act, even if it was supposedly intended to pursue political aims, or 3. acted in violation of the aims and principles of the United Nations. Sentence 1 shall apply also to foreigners who have incited others to commit the crimes or acts listed there or otherwise been involved in such crimes or acts. (3) Nor shall a foreigner be a refugee under subsection 1 if he enjoys the protection or assistance of an organization or institution of the United Nations, with the exception of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees under Article 1, Section D of the Convention relating to the status of refugees. Subsections (1) and (2) shall apply if such protection or assistance is no longer provided, without having finally clarified the situation of those affected in accordance with the relevant resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations. (4) A foreigner who is a refugee under subsection 1 shall be granted refugee status unless he meets the requirements of Section 60 (8), first sentence, of the Residence Act or the Federal Office has decided not to apply Section 60 (1) of the Residence Act pursuant to Section 60 (8), third sentence, of the Residence Act

Artikel aus der National Geographic

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

EUROPE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES FOR ASYLUM COUNTRIES country who would face persecution or violence at home “for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”.

refugee and receive legal protection and material assistance. An asylum seeker must demonstrate that his or her fear of persecution in his or her home country is well-founded. “ The Universal Declaration of Human Rights on 1948 stated on its Article 14: (1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution. (2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations. Building on Article 14, The Refugee Convention or the Geneva are obliged to protect refugees that are on their territory in according to its terms. There are a number of provisions that States parties to the Refugee Convention must adhere to in terms of refugee rights and that contracting states must provide such as travel documents or the right to be treated like nationals in relation to elementary education. In terms of housing, refugees shall be treated at least like other nonnationals and allows each country to regulate according its own laws. Article 21 - Housing As regards housing, the Contracting States, in so far as the matter is regulated by laws or regulations or is subject to the control of public authorities, shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory treatment as favorable as possible and, in any event, not less favourable than that accorded to aliens generally in the same circumstances. Germany stipulates as a basic right in its constitution (1949) the the 1951 Refugee Convention and is understood to protect asylum seekers from deportation and grant them certain protections under

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

asylum was revisited to allow the state to set an upper limit or quota. Article 16a [Right of asylum] (5)Paragraphs (1) to (4) of this Article shall not preclude the conclusion of international agreements of member states of the European Communities with each other or with those third states which, with due regard for the obligations arisÂŹ ing from the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, whose enforcement must be assured in the contracting states, adopt rules conferring jurisdiction to decide on applications for asylum, including the reciprocal recognition of asylum decisions. Convention, refugees are protected and must not be returned for as long as the threat of persecution in their country of origin exists. An asylum seeker is allowed to stay in Germany if he or she is granted political asylum, refugee status, or subsidiary protection, or if the agency declares a deportation prohibition. The German authorities grant refugees a residence permit for three years, after which they determine whether an extension should be granted.

The 1951 Refugee Convention Photo: UN Archive

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

GERMANY A HEAVEN IN EUROPE

In understanding housing as a political problem, not a technical one, we became interested in the experience that every day millions of obliged crossing between different and foreign housing systems. In order to get the residence permit, refugees might be entitled with any of the different status; asylum, refugee status or subsidiary protection. The only difference between being asylum or refugee lies on the way refugees enter Germany. If they enter via a safe third country they are considered as asylum, and all the terrestrial border countries of Germany are safe countries. On the contrary, If refugees Both of the have the same rights such as being allowed to work or take part in vocational training programs. However, If individuals they may be granted subsidiary protection. The German authorities grant a residence permit for three years for asylum or refugee status, after which they determine whether an extension should be granted. However, the subsidiary protection is only valid for a year.

or an initial accommodation center for refugees (“Erstaufnahmeeinrichtung”). Although, the application might seem turn out to be just the beginning of a long journey crossing the border of the different housing systems. Housing and migration have been always connected in Germany. It is the Asylum Act that dictates the living arrangements to a person who expresses his or her wish to apply for asylum. The number of refugees accepted lies on the availability of housing to provide the refugees accepted. authorities promptly transfer asylum applicants to the nearest reception center or the one decided by the computer system EASY (“Erstverteilung der Asylbegehrenden” or First Distribution of Asylum Seekers). In the process to seek for a permanent house, the applicants shelters (arrival centers and initial shelters), temporary refugee housing (containers, ships) and long-term housing solutions (public housing and normal housing market).

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

The residence permit request will need to be processed for around two to three. By the time it is accepted refugees can access to other housing solutions. Due to the large number of allocations, refugees stay up to 6 months in the initial reception centre (Section 47(1) Asylum Act), then they are usually transferred to another place of residence either a temporary or long-term housing solution. The new allocation will depend on the availability of the municipality. Along with their residence permit, refugees get issued a travel document (“Reiseausweis für Flüchtlinge”) that replace the passport from the home country. The travel document for refugees is also known as “Convention Pass” (“Konventionspass “) or “Blue Pass” (“Blauer Pass “) and allow refugees to travel abroad for up to six ensuing months. More than this time could make them lose their residence permit.

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

THE JOURNEY Syria-Germany

APPLY FOR ASYLUM Border authority Police station

AUFNAHMEEINRICH

Initial accommodation centre for refugees (“Erstaufnahmeeinrichtung”)

TAKEN TO AN INITIAL RECEPTION CENT

Erstverteilung der Asylbegehrenden (First Distribution of Asylum

seeker” (BüMA) - photo - name - date of birth - country of origin

0-6 months maximun stay 24 months

DUBLIN EXAMINATION

HEARING AND DECISION

RESIDENCE PERMIT + BLUE Allows refugees to travel abroad for up to six ensuing months. More than this time could make them lose their residence permit.

REISEAUSWEIS FÜR

ASYLUM / REFUGEE - Refugees are allowed to bring their spouse and minor children to Germany. As an unmarried minor, they can have their parents join them.

- Refugees are entitled to child and parental allowance. - Refugees can attend to an integration course. - Refugees can study or participate in a vocational training programme. 14

HTUNG

TRES

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

Section 47(1) Asylum Act. of up to six weeks, but no longer than six months, in the reception centre responsible for receiving them. Section 48(1,2) Asylum Act. The obligation to live in a reception centre shall end before six months have elapsed if the foreigner 1. is required to take up residence in another place or in other accommodation; 2. has been granted asylum status or international protection within the meaning of Section 1 (1) no. 2, or

m Seekers).

GEMEINSCHAFTSUNTERKÃ&#x153;NFTE HOUSING RELOCATION - COLLECTIVE ACCOMMODATION which they have been allocated for the whole duration of their procedure Section 53(1) Asylum Act.

3 years

are not or no longer required to live in a reception centre, should, as a rule, be housed in collective accommodation. In this context, both the public interest

APPLY FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

CONDITIONS IN INITIAL RECEPTION CENTRES SUBJECT TO THE CONTROL OF PUBLIC AUTHORITIES (A 21) The Refugee Convention states in its 21st Article about Housing that the laws or regulations that control the standars of housing are is subject to the control of public authorities. In the case of Germany, there is no common standard for initial reception centres, although Federal States have laid down standards they vary according to regional legislation through the various State the accommodation of asylum seekers exist, the Federal States often take recourse to other regulations, such as general â&#x20AC;&#x153;sanitation plansâ&#x20AC;? as they exist for other forms of communal accommodation (e.g. residential homes or homeless shelters). Many of the centres use former army barracks which have been refurbished. Other facilities are far below standards such as Schwandorf and Stephanposching, halls without rooms and with unsanitary conditions. Also, it is despair the capability of the centers that range from hundreds to thousands. As far as regulations on accommodation standards in the initial reception centres exist, these show considerable variety in terms of the required living space (4.5m2 to other 7m2/person) and equipment. Many of these temporary facilities do not comply with basic standards and do not guarantee privacy. People usually have to share bath and toilet facilities, recommending that one shower should be available for 10 to 12 persons, but either is always followed. cities are situated in or close to big cities. Other initial reception centres are located in isolated areas far away from the next town, conditions differed considerably between regions and sometimes even within the same town. The different policies pursued on regional and local level make impossible to have a general statement on the standards of living in the accommodation facilities.

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

POLICIES VARY CONSIDERABLY BETWEEN THE FEDERAL STATES ASYLUM ACT Section 53 Collective accommodation no longer required to live in a reception centre, should, as a rule, be housed in collective accommodation. In this context, both the public

him, even if an appeal has been made, as long as the foreigner is able to prove that he has found accommodation elsewhere and that this will not result in additional costs for a public authority. The same

shall also end for family members within the meaning of Section 26 (1) to (3). (3) Section 44 (3) shall apply accordingly.

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

Statistisches Bundesamt, Tabelle Asylbewerberleistungen 2012, Empfängerinnen und Empfänger nach Bundesländern/nach Art der UnterbringungEmpfängerinnen und Empfänger nach Bundesländern

4. MAKING HEIMAT

MAKING HEIMAT

MAKING HEIMAT. GERMANY, ARRIVAL CITY GERMAN PAVILLION FOR THE 2016 VENICE BIENALE the efforts of authorities, construction companies, volunteers and designers to offer the new arrivals both a roof over their heads in an emergency situation, as well as a sustainable accommodation for them in the long term. Four big openings in the pavilion represented the state of the country, open to receive this massive refugee migration and that made them the most welcoming country in Europe with more than 100k migrants. Curated by Deutsches Architekturmuseum (DAM) curators Peter Cachola, Oliver Elser and Anna Scheuermann and designed by the

The project started in 2015 with an open call for housing projects that faced the refugee housing, form temporal to permanent. This represented one of the key parts of the pavilion in 2016, and later one of the catalogues of the exhibition along with pictures by photographer Anja Weber. This might also have been the closest The second and last part of the physical exhibition focused on the concept of â&#x20AC;&#x153;Arrival Cityâ&#x20AC;? as described by the eponymous book of Dough Sounder. A series of statements illustrated by photo reports and case studies happening in Germany, like the so call in the exhibition center of Offenbach. Making Heimat is an extensive and major starting point that sums up the efforts taken by Germany to welcome and house years later, the crossing the housing border project intends to revisit the German project by understanding its evolution and the present situation of the people that crossed the German border in 2015 giving

The open Pavilion Photo: Felix TorKar

MAKING HEIMAT

The open Pavilion Photo: Felix TorKar

The Pavilion Photo: Felix TorKar

5. HOUSING PROJECTS

SELECTED PROJECTS

1. Bremen, Container Villages 2. Munich-Aubing, LiWood Collective accommodation 3. Munich, Bellevue di Monaco, 4. Kassel, Follow-Up Accomodation 5. Ostfildern, Apartments for refugees and homeless 6. Freiburg, Collective accommodation 7. Oberhausen, Apartments for refugees and people low income 8. Hamburg, Collective accommodation 9. Berlin, Marzhan

201

RE-USE

1960

1970

1980

1990

Fron the database that Making Heimat started, the housing projects that were built have been analyzed through two main vectors: location(vertical axe), and permanence (longitudinal axe). The combination of the two factors reveals strategic place and community making. Those projects intended to create a community are predominantely built as permanent housing structures in prime locations. Moreover, many times these housing projects include local communities that struggle within the housing system as low-income people, homeless people or students. The selection of nine projects include the wide range of strategies: 1. Bremen,

Container

Villages /

Munich-Aubing, LiWood

Collective accommodation / 3. Munich, Bellevue di Monaco, / 4. Kassel, Follow-Up Accomodation / 5. Ostfildern, Apartments for refugees and homeless / 6. Freiburg, Collective accommodation / 7. Oberhausen, Apartments for refugees and people low income / 8. Hamburg, Collective accommodation

/ 9. Berlin, Marzhan

SEMI

2000

2010

15 KM 40

KM 30

I-PERMANENT

2020

KM 10

KM 05

KM 0

PERMANENT

2030

2040

2050

2060

LIFE-SPAN

PERMANENT

NEW CONSTRUCTION: RE-USE

SEMI-PERMANENT

RE-USE + ENLARGEMENT

EPHEMERAL

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

9. Marzahn-Hellersdorf, Berlin

7. Apartments for refugees+low income, Oberhausen 6. Collective accommodation, Freiburg 3. Bellevue di Monaco, Munich

PERMANENT

NEW CONSTRUCTION:

TEMPORAL

RE-USE

RE-USE + ENLARGEMENT

EPHEMERAL 2020

015 KM 40

KM 30

KM 20

8. Collective accommodation, Hamburg 1960

2020

2030

2040

1970

2050

1980

2060

9. Marzahn-Hellersdorf, Berlin

1990

LIFE-SPAN

KM 10

2. LiWood Collective accommodation, Munich

KM 5

1. Container Villages, Bremen

7. Apartments for refugees+low income, Oberhausen

5. Apartments refugees+homeless, Ostfildern 4. Follow-Up Accomodation, Kassel KM 0

DISTANCE

6. Collective accommodation, Fre 3. Bellevue di Monaco, Munich

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

CONTAINER VILLAGES, BREMEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Hemelingen: 240 residents / 6 buildings Überseetor: 180 residents / 8 buildings Grohn: 162 residents / 7 buildings RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: Hemelingen: January 2016; Überseetor: December 2015; Grohn: November 2015 Lifespan: 5 years

Concept

COMMISSIONED BY Bremen Senator for Social Affairs, Children, Adolescents, and Women (4 locations) ARCHITECT Architekten BDA Feldschnieders + Kisters, Bremen CONSTRUCTION FIRM Bremen, Hemelingen, and Grohn: Firma Algeco GmbH; Überseetor: Firma G. Ungrund GmbH BUILDING METHOD Containers: Steel frame & metal (non-standard dimensions — 3 x 3 x 9 m) CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx. 1,100 Euro/m² GFA Grohn: Corridor / Photo: © Feldschnieders + Kister Architekten

LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 12.5 m²/person (not including general management areas / common spaces)

Grohn: Containers and interior / Photo: © Feldschnieders + Kister Architekten

Grohn: Site plan

DESCRIPTION Containers in clusters The temporary homes were constructed on municipal land and approved for ﬁve years. An employee from the Muslim community sensitised the planning architects to the residents. The outcome was living units of 24 m2 for two persons and 48 m2 for four persons, each with bath and kitchen. A maximum of 16 persons live on one level and are self-sufﬁcient. The architects decided against communal showers, as they can lead to problems, especially with Muslim women. Some residents failed to turn off the taps because they found the noise of running water to be soothing, and for this reason water-stop valves had to be installed. The arrangement of the courtyard houses accommodates the need for peace and privacy, creating a layered system of private, semi-private and public areas. The complex has 24-hour security. “The Bremen examples also show that once these people have spent a few months in temporary housing they are reluctant to move.” Architect Tobias Kister, who planned the container complexes, concludes: “We must create sustainable, higher-quality and durable residential complexes. It is not the residents who move on, but the social workers and managers who are no longer needed.” Kister is currently planning a housing complex made of wood. “A container is not suitable for permanent living,” he says.

Hemmelingen: Interior courtyard / Photo: © Feldschnieders + Kister

Text: Friederike Meyer from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/artikel/Container-2480270. html

Überseetor: Facility / Photo: © Feldschnieders + Kister Architekten

Hemelingen: Floor plan, ground level

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

REFUGEE ACCOMMODATION, MUNICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 300 Residents/ 4 interconnected lines of buildings RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: March 2016 Time to implement: 5 months Lifespan: 5–10 years COMMISSIONED BY Municipal Government, State Capital of Munich, Baureferat Hochbau (Project management) ARCHITECT Gerstberger Architekten GmbH, Munich CONSTRUCTION FIRM LiWood, Munich

Construction site / Photo: © Oliver Elser

BUILDING METHOD Prefabricated wooden room modules (production on site) CONSTRUCTION COSTS – LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Gross internal area: 9.8 m² (including washroom, kitchen, recreation room, resident’s room, storage, laundry room, etc.) GFA: 4,820 m²

Production of room modules / Photo: © Michael Heinrich

Overview / Photo: © Michael Heinrich

DESCRIPTION The shared accommodation is part of the City of Munich’s “Sofortprogramm” (Emergency Program). The primary goal was to build housing as quickly as possible; the spatial program corresponds closely with the guidelines set by the Bavarian stage government. (Excerpt from project description)

Assembly of room modules / Photo: © Michael Heinrich

Transportation of room modules / Photo: © Michael Heinrich

Site plan

Elevations

CONVERSION / UNDER CONSTRUCTION

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 07 DEC 2016

BELLEVUE, MUNICH

HIGH-RISE REFURBISHMENT, OBERHAUSEN MÜNCHEN-LUDWIGSVORSTADT-ISARVORSTADT MÜNCHEN

NUMBER OF RESIDENTS: 40–45 residents NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS RESIDENTS: 82 apartments Refugees with recognized status

A 4

RESIDENTS DATE OF COMPLETION, LIFESPAN: June 2017, 40 years Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized status , people with low incomes COMMISSIONED BY: Sozialgenossenschaft Bellevue di Monaco e.G. DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN ARCHITECT: Hirner & Riehl Architekten und Stadtplaner BDA, Munich COMMISSIONED BY CONSTRUCTION Kitev Oberhausen FIRM: Michael Renner, Bauunternehmung GmbH, Rebel & Sohn GmbH Malerwerkstätte, Anton Ostler ARCHITECTR GmbH & Co. KG, Dachs GmbH, Munich Ateliers Stark & Wnuczak, Ramash Imanifardazar, BUILDING METHOD: kitev Oberhausen Renovation

F J

CONSTRUCTION FIRM CONSTRUCTION COSTS: 830 euros/m² Artists, refugees, engaged citizens and craftsmen

B 8

LIVING SPACE PER PERSON: METHOD 26BUILDING m² Renovation

W 2

CONSTRUCTION COSTS LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 31 - 54 m²/person

Abb. 32: Eine Immobilie in Toplage: Das „Bellevue di Monaco“ nutzt insgesamt drei Häuser in der Müllerstraße im Stadtzentrum von Exterior View / München. Foto: © Christoph Stark

Workshop / Foto: © Christoph Stark

Fig. 36: Good friends: Hasan Beri, 22, from Syria and Andy Kohn,

B F

A S

A H M

A M & G

B S

Fig. 34: The “Bauhütte” initiative took place in October 2016. Walls were torn down, wallpaper stripped, and floors removed to prepare the “Bellevue” for its forthcoming renovation. Abb. 34: Im Oktober 2016 fand die Aktion „Bauhütte“ statt. Wände wurden eingerissen, Tapeten abgekratzt, Böden entsorgt, um das „Bellevue“ auf die anstehende Sanierung vorzubereiten.

Fig. 33: Eze Ifeanyi Emmanuel, 24, from Nigeria, lives in an

Fig. 35: The renovation has a clear architectural concept: to retain

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

FOLLOW-UP ACCOMMODATION AFTER FIRST ADMITTANCE, KASSEL NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 182 residents / 36 apartments RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: September 2016 Lifespan: 7 years Construction time: 5 months Subsequent use possible as conventional social housing possible COMMISSIONED BY GWG Kassel – Gemeinnützige Wohnungsbaugesellschaft der Stadt Kassel mbH

Exterior View / Photo: Jörg Lantelmé / GWG Kassel – Gemeinnützige Wohnungsbaugesellschaft der Stadt Kassel mbH

ARCHITECT ARGE Wohnen Bunsenstraße (Kassel): Baufrösche Architekten und Stadtplaner GmbH, foundation 5+ architekten BDA, fondation 5+ landschaftsarchtekten und planer, HHS Planer + Architekten AG, Clemens Kober Architekt BDA, Reichel Architekten BDA, Spöth Architekten CONSTRUCTION FIRM ARGE GU: Emmeluth Baugesellschaft mbH, Hermanns HMS-Bau GmbH BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall construction: Exterior walls of plastered autoclaved aerated concrete (no exterior insulation ﬁnishing system). Floor slabs of reinforced concrete CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,610 Euro/m² LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 9.7–12.9 m²/person

Complex and Courtyard / Photos: © Jonathan Scheder, Kassel

ground floor: barrier-free units, 4 persons

neighbourhood square

footpath

ground floor: mixed use

courtyard

2P 2P

56 persons

gardens courtyard

88 persons

playground

32 persons

gardens public square

neighbourhood square

laundry

indoor playground

ground floor: barrier-free units, 4 persons

tearoom

workshop administration

ground floor: mixed use

2P 2P

courtyard

multiple use / café gardens

56 persons

courtyard gardens

playground

88 persons 32 persons

Schematic diagram, design

DESCRIPTION In principle, refugee accommodation should aim to meet the same domestic needs as housing for anyone else: private space to retreat, manageable group sizes, well-positioned common rooms, and a variety of differentiated and distinct free spaces for developing a good community. Here in Bunsenstraßen, “entirely normal” and costefﬁcient apartments are under construction. Initially, their primary use will be collective housing; in the future, however, in the same form, they can be rented out as social housing. They can also be transformed into student apartments with a few simple tweaks. Planning process: After a November 2015 workshop hosted by the City of Kassel featuring representatives from the construction industry, city government, Caritas Association, and various architects, a decision was made to avoid building provisional housing, despite the enormous time pressure, and instead construct classic housing. (Excerpt from project description)

Exterior View / Photo: © Jonathan Scheder, Kassel

tearoom

4 persons handicapped accessible 63,4 m2 = 15,9 m2/p.

BTTP tech. rooms

4 persons handicapped accessible 63,4 m2 = 15,9 m2/p.

tech. rooms

4 persons handicapped accessible 63,4 m2 = 15,9 m2/p.

laundry

workshop / caretaker

office

office/ reception

storage

2 persons 25,7 m2 = 12,9 m2/p.

4 persons 52m2 = 13 m2/p.

2 persons 25,7 m2 = 12,9 m2/p.

office

cloakroom

tech. room

8 persons 78,7 m2 = 9,8 m2/p.

WC-B

multipurpose

room

Floor plan, ground level

3-room flat 63,8 m2

student apartment 25,7 m2

roof terrace

one-room apartment 25,7 m2

3-room flat 63,8 m2

one-room apartment 25,7 m2

2-room flat 52 m2

roof terrace

3-room flat 63,8 m2

one-room apartment 25,7 m2

2-room flat 52 m2

4-room flat 78,7 m2

shared accommodation for students 78,7 m2

variants of conversion accommodation for refugees 8 persons 78,7 m2

4-room flat

room 2

one-room apartment & 2-room flat

room 1

room 3

shared accommodation for students

room 2

student apartments

room 1

room 3

living room 4

living

Floor plan, third ﬂoor, and plans for conversion

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

APARTMENTS FOR REFUGEES AND THE HOMELESS, OSTFILDERN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 39 residents / 3 buildings RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status, mixed residential base including people with no home DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: February 2015 Lifespan: 40 years COMMISSIONED BY Sanierungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Ostﬁldern mbH, City of Ostﬁldern ARCHITECT u3ba Arge camilo hernandez urban 3 + Harald Baumann baumannarchitects, Stuttgart

Exterior view / Photo © Markus Guhl

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Weizenegger Objektbau GmbH, Bad Wurzach BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction (visible wooden ceiling beams) CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx. 1,400 Euro/m² GFA (total: 1,400,000 Euro) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 21 m² GFA/person

Exterior view / Photo © Markus Guhl

DESCRIPTION The new building, with 800 square meters GFA, was envisioned to meet all the demands of a modern residential apartment building—particularly when it comes to the energy-efﬁcient building method, ﬂexible apartment partitions, and modular construction. (Excerpt from project description)

Exterior view / Photo © Markus Guhl

Interior space and stairwell / Photo © Markus Guhl

Floor plan, ground level and second ﬂoor

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 18 MAY 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

REFUGEE HOUSING, FREIBURG NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Gundelﬁnger Str: 300 residents Tiengen: 100 residents RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, Refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Tiengen: April 2016 Gundelﬁnger Str: June 2016 Merzhauser Str.: 2016 COMMISSIONED BY City of Freiburg im Breisgau, Building Management ARCHITECT ARGE Architekten Freiburg: FranzundGeyer Freie Architekten BDA dwb, stocker dewes architekten bda, jochen weissenrieder architekten bda

Gundelﬁnger street: exterior view / Photo: © Miguel Babo, Freiburg

CONSTRUCTION FIRM ARGE Holzmodul-Wohnheim BUILDING METHOD Prefabricated wooden room modules: Solid wood panels CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,250 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Tiengen: 21.5 m²/person (GFA: 2.150 m²) Gundelﬁnger Str: 14.1 m²/person (BGF: 6.998 m²)

Gundelﬁnger street: exterior view / Photo: © Miguel Babo, Freiburg

Gundelﬁnger street: interior views / Photos: © Miguel Babo, Freiburg

DESCRIPTION Within a very short timeframe, temporary refugee shelters commissioned by the City of Freiburg will be built at three locations. ARGE Architekten Freiburg have developed a modular system using wood for mass-wall construction as an alternative to the established method using steel containers. Untreated materials, ﬂexible re-use, and the promotion of a regional supply chain will stimulate the population’s acceptance of the housing project. (Excerpt from project description)

Gundelﬁnger street: Delivery of the modules / Photo: © Yohan Zerdoun

Tiengen: exterior view, corridor and bedroom / Photos: © Yohan Zerdoun

Site plans: Gundelﬁnger street, Merzhauser street, Tiengen

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 07 DEC 2016

CONVERSION / UNDER CONSTRUCTION

HIGH-RISE REFURBISHMENT, OBERHAUSEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 82 apartments RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized status , people with low incomes DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN COMMISSIONED BY Kitev Oberhausen ARCHITECTR Ateliers Stark & Wnuczak, Ramash Imanifardazar, kitev Oberhausen CONSTRUCTION FIRM Artists, refugees, engaged citizens and craftsmen BUILDING METHOD Renovation CONSTRUCTION COSTS LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 31 - 54 m²/person

Exterior View / Foto: © Christoph Stark

Workshop / Foto: © Christoph Stark

DESCRIPTION The highrise in Oberhausen was long considered a “problem building,” with high turnover and long-term vacancies. Thanks to the renovation, both local residents and refugees live there today.

Renovation / Foto: © Christoph Stark

Event / Foto: © Christoph Stark

Floor plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 21 JUN 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

CONTAINER ESTATE, HAMBURG NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Lewenwerder: 110 residents / 23 living units Curslack: 100 residents / 19 living units RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status, homeless DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: Curslack 2012; Lewenwerder September 2015 COMMISSIONED BY f&a fördern und wohnen AöR ARCHITECT Plan-R-Architekten Joachim Reinig, Hamburg CONSTRUCTION FIRM Fa. Comma GmbH and others

Lewenwerder: entrance / Photo: © Joachim Reinig

BUILDING METHOD Containers: steel frame CONSTRUCTION COSTS Curslack: 1,550 Euro/m² living space Total costs: Curslack 200,000,000 Euro; Lewenwerder: 2,400,000 Euro LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 15.5 m²/person GFA

Lewenwerder: exterior view / Photo: © Joachim Reinig

Curslack: playground / Photo: © Joachim Reinig

DESCRIPTION Curslack As a complement to the existing pavilion estate in Curslack’s Neuer Deich, a temporary expansion concept was developed to address the urgent need for housing. The “module buildings” developed by Plan –R- consist of 4 living units with 3–4 rooms each, as well as a kitchen, bath, and WC. The living units are connected via an open, central, loggia-style stairwell. In order for them to be experienced as domestic spaces, the units—each composed of 18 individual containers—are given a wooden pitched roof construction with corrugated steel cladding. The 5 buildings each feature a facilities room with heating and warm water boilers. A central laundry room and community room are set up in one building. The prefabricated containers were installed using a truck-mounted crane. The modules were assembled on strip foundations at the building site; the connection to the existing mains and the construction of the roof also took place on site. The assembly time for a complete house is one week. The division into small-format living and building units creates a domestic climate for people living in publically administered lodging.

Curslack: exterior view / Photo: © Joachim Reinig

Lewenwerder: Because of the severe need for publically administered lodging, a facility with 6 buildings was built for temporary use on part of a parcel planned for industrial buildings in Hamburg. This building form was developed by Plan –R- as “module buildings” for the expansion of the shelter in Curslack. Despite being built using the temporary container method, the buildings were intended to look like proper “houses” and not be discriminatory. Each container building consists of 4 living units with 3–4 rooms, a kitchen, bath, and WC. They are connected by an open, central stairwell and have a pitched roof. In Hamburg, a total of 120 module buildings are being built across 11 locations in line with this concept by Plan –R- Architektenbüro Joachim Reinig.

Curslack: building site / Photo: © Joachim Reinig

(Excerpt from project decription) VH hs

1.75

VH oc leitu

1.73

lag b 1,5

1,55

Mastleuchte

5,07

18,55 m2

1,50

2,45 m2

Haus 1

+ 1.7 5

60,40 m2

662504336 0.00 0000

1.90

+ 1.7 0 + 1.80

1.78

B 17 Schließung

Parkplatz

+ 1.6 8,49 5

Wabenstein Rasengitter

93,45 m

1.81

NR.

1.69

3,00 5

6 Stpl.

1.82 1.92

= 1.43

1.42

1.33

1.67 1.55

1.68

20,12 m2

1.65

1.62

1.39 1.33 1.22

1.28 1.17 1.26 1.10 1.15 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.07

1.33

1.49 500004 1.42 1.54

1.15 1.31 1.43 1.20 1.221.20

662500590 0.00 0000

500005

15,36 5

662501255 0.00 0000

1.44

1.28

Müllbereitstellung

662501117 662501256 0.00 0.00 0000 0000

1.55

1.37 1.48

Sperrrpfosten rot /Weiß

6,30 5

Zaun H

90,00°

1.55

1.71 1.58

68,61 m2

+ 1.2 8

1.69

1.54

3,12

3,50

Mastleuchte

5 Stpl.

1.79

1.86

Laubb. Ø 0.08 - 2.0

6,50

82,15 m2

5,00

127,00

662501141 0.00 0000

107,23 m2

Zaun h

1.65 1.68 1.73 1.83 1.75 1.78 1.64 1.74 1.63 1.73 1.74 1.80 1.72 1.62 1.64 1.70

Gemeinschaftshaus

Mastleuchte

Bauzaun = Zaun nachFertigstellung insgesamt 330 m ( 1,27 x 36,5)

662501160 0.00 0000

2.00

HS NR.

= 1.43

Spielen > 240 m2

Plattenbe

Müllsammelplatz Einhausung Stabgitter h 1.80 berankt

1.90 1.87 1.84 1.97 1.94 1.92 1.82 Laubb. Ø 0.10 - 2.5 2.00 1.92 1.94 1.82 2.01 1.96 1.89 1.84 1.84

2,99 5

1.92

7,30°

Parkplatz vorhandenFHH

Kies

HS NR. 16

31,64 m2

5,99

im Spielbereich Bodenaustausch 331,44 m prüfen

Gehweg

107,06 m2

Schran ke

Zaun

36,50 5,57 5

1.82

+ 1.7 0 OK

662501116 0.00 0000

7,20°

1.79

+ 1.6 5

+ 1.7 0

Aufstellfläche FW Wabengitterstein

172,80°

1.97

12,12

+ 1.80

HS NR.

122,41 m2

662504352 0.00 0000

662501161 0.00 0000

1.83

1.67

Haus 2

Mastleuchte

Baustrasse b = 6,0 m / befahrbar 12 To

+ 1.71

500003

2.07

N ÜN

Wabengitterstein b 1,5 m Feuerwehrzufahrt 6,00

1.95

Haus 3

662504333 0.00 0000

Laubb. Ø 0.11 - 2.5

1,48

0m 12.0

Com

weg

1.72

+ 1.73

8,445

130,47 m2

5 5 50 10 20 1,49 1,50

zum

ns unio

18,83 m2

+ 1.85

4.635,50 m2 HS NR.

HS NR.

Mastleuchte

1.62

18,30 m2

+ 1.83

2,23

Schwingtor b= 1.50

+1,90

1.80

Kies

662504335 0.00 0000

54,07 m2

500002 1.53

1.69

+ 1.80 + 1.80

1.81

1.86

+ 1.95

+ 1.75

18,93 m2

1.94

2.00PF 1.78

51,27 m2

2,53 50 90,00°

1.83

2500214 00 00

+1,90

Haus 4

18,16 m2

1.75

max

14,98

15,18

2,53 50

1.97

Haus 5

+2.00

+ 1.90

18,71 m2

1.95

+ 1.90

14,98

Haus 6

de äu eb -G

1.76

+ 1.85

50 2,45

1.56

+ 1.7 0 OK

12,18

1.91

Laubb. Ø 0.85 - 16.0

Regenwasser versickerung

12,12

+2.00

Laubb. Ø 0.16 - 4.0

1.81

+1,80 OK Kies

50 10265

662500215 0.00 0000

1.81

41,42 5

un nn

2,24

10 50 2,235 20

2,50 50

+1,80 OK Kies

1.68

662501203 0.00

Leitungsgräben 0000 Abstand Leitungsgraben -fester Zaun, mind. 1,0 m Abstand Leitungsgraben zur Sohlplatte , mind. 2,0 m

1.63

9,89

10 50 2,245 27

K 110

+ 1.90 OK Kies

Nordgrenze Baufeld fester Zaun, h = 1,43

12,12

+ 1.90 OK Kies

662504334 0.00 0000

127,00 662504365 0.00 0000

12,12

HGF AKF

1.29

12,12

12,12 27

662501206 0.00 0000

erei

662501207 0.00 0000

Laubb. Ø 0.40 - 8.0

90,00°

Regenwasser versickerung

662500216 0.00 0000

1.83

Baugrenze

1.97 1.96

Laubb. Ø 1.00 - 20.0 1.36

1.26

Baufeld

2.51

662501208 0.00 0000

1.69

Grundstücksfläche 2.44

662501209 0.00 0000

Leitungsgräben Abstand Leitungsgraben -fester Zaun, mind. 1,0 m Abstand Leitungsgraben zur Sohlplatte , mind. 2,0 m

renb

1.86 1.85

leitu

Büsche und Sträucher

662500218 662500217 0.00 0.00 0000 0000

1.95

efah gG

1.95

662501212 0.00 0000

1.85

renz

4,92

133,56

1.98

1.96Laubb. Ø 0.40 - 8.0

Laubb. Ø 0.22 - 6.0

Laubb. Ø 0.60 - 12.0

Beg

Laubb. Ø 0.22 - 5.0

Zaun H

1.87 500001

0.71

un nn pa

5,07 5

662501213 0.00 0000

1.34

1.23

Laubb. Ø 0.08 - 2.0

1.00

Erdgeschoss

Obergeschoss 57.50/ 59

Lager / Putzmittel 96.20/ 133.5

57.50/ 59

12.12

1.8 m2 WC

147.2/ 133.5

Bad

KÜ 7 m2

12 m2

2.6 m2

4.5 m2

Ausgussbecken

15.2 m2 6.8 m2

Gruppenraum 31.4 m2

4 x WM / Wäschetrockner BA 12 m2 +- 0.00

96.20/ 133.5

1.8 m2 WC

147.2/ 133.5

15.2 m2

12 m2

20 30

15.00

Abst +- 0.00 9.4 m2

3.00

OK G - 0.15

HA Raum 5.2 m2

14.7 m2

26 D P

17 Stg 18/26

1.5 m2 12 m2

96.20/ 133.5

15.2 m2

12 m2

147.2/ 133.5

11.9 m2 Abst 1.4 m2

+- 0.00

6.8 m2 96.20/ 133.5

KÜ 7 m2

Bad 2.6 m2

57.50/ 59

WC 1.8 m2

147.2/ 133.5

KÜ 7 m2

6.8 m2 15.2 m2

c Bad 2.6 m2

57.50/ 59

Site plan Lewenwerder and ﬂoor plans modules

WC 1.8 m2

15.2 m2

MUF 2.0: Murtzaner Ring 68: Luftbilder DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

MARZAHN, BERLIN

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

g 68: Luftbilder

Exterior View / Photo: Jörg Lantelmé / GWG Kassel – Gemeinnützige Wohnungsbaugesellschaft der Stadt Kassel mbH

Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen Berlin | Abteilung V

CONSTRUCTION FIRM ARGE GU: Emmeluth Baugesellschaft mbH, Hermanns HMS-Bau GmbH BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall construction: Exterior walls of plastered autoclaved aerated concrete (no exterior insulation ﬁnishing system). Floor slabs of reinforced concrete

g 68: Materialität

CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,610 Euro/m² LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 9.7–12.9 m²/person Complex and Courtyard / Photos: © Jonathan Scheder, Kassel

ground floor: barrier-free units, 4 persons

neighbourhood square

footpath

ground floor: mixed use

courtyard

2P 2P

56 persons

gardens courtyard

88 persons

playground

bteilung V

32 persons

gardens public square

neighbourhood square

laundry

indoor playground

ground floor: barrier-free units, 4 persons

tearoom

workshop administration

ground floor: mixed use

2P 2P

courtyard

multiple use / café gardens

56 persons

courtyard gardens

playground

88 persons 32 persons

Schematic diagram, design

MUF 2.0: Murtzaner Ring 68: Einpassung nach Bürgerdialog

MUF 2.0: Erdgeschoss mit - Pförtner - Sozialarbeiterräumen - Waschmaschinenraum

Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen Berlin | Abteilung V

MUF 2.0 Wohngruppen mit 1 Bewohnerzimmer 2 Bewohnerzimmern Senatsverwaltung für Stadtentwicklung und Wohnen Berlin | Abteilung V

3 Bewohnerzimmern

OTHER PROJECTS

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS —20 JAN 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

RESIDENTIAL AND COMMUNITY BUILDINGS, HÜNFELD / MUNICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Hünfeld: 90 residents / 2 buildings: Two-story residential building with large modules (15 residents each) and a community building Munich: 300 residents / 6 buildings RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: Hünfeld, August 2015; Munich, unknown Construction time: Hünfeld 4.5 months, Munich 1.+2. construction phase 8 months COMMISSIONED BY Hünfeld: German League for Human Rights, District of Fulda, and DRK Kreisverband Munich: The City of Munich

Refugee housing in Hünfeld / Photo: © Dr. Michael Fladung

ARCHITECT trapp wagner_Architekten und Ingenieure, Hünfeld CONSTRUCTION FIRM Holzbau Gutmann GmbH BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS Hünfeld: 1,016 Euro/m² GFA (construction costs without optimization, 938 Euro/m² GFA) München: N/A LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Hünfeld: 1,674 m²/GFA for 90 refugees München: 4.600 m² for 300 people

Exterior view / Photo: © Dr. Michael Fladung

DESCRIPTION Hünfeld: A 1-story living module accommodates 15 people. The living modules can be arranged either on top or beside one another. A corresponding access module is incorporated into each living module. The 1-story community module contains the building facilities, administration and storage rooms, and a common area. (Excerpt from project description)

Construction site / Photo: © Dr. Michael Fladung

Hünfeld: Floor plan, second floor

Munich: Floor plan, two-room apartments with communal kitchen and sanitation area

Modulbauweise als Schema 1 x Wohnmodul = 15 Personen (1-geschossig)

2 x 18 Pers.

2 x Wohnmodul = 30 Personen (2-geschossig)

2 x 18 Pers.

Zentraler Bereich

Erschließungsmodul (variabel)

2 x 14 Pers.

2 x 18 Pers.

2 x 14 Pers.

Die 3 Module ergeben eine Einheit und können variabel formiert und gekoppelt werden.

2 x 18 Pers.

Gemeinschaftsmodul (1-geschossig)

2 x 14 Pers. 2 x 18 Pers.

Beispiel - Unterkunft für Flüchtlinge in Hünfeld

Lageplan

Munich: Site plan and diagram of modular building method

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

APARTMENTS FOR REFUGEES AND THE HOMELESS, OSTFILDERN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 39 residents / 3 buildings RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status, mixed residential base including people with no home DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: February 2015 Lifespan: 40 years COMMISSIONED BY Sanierungs- und Entwicklungsgesellschaft Ostfildern mbH, City of Ostfildern ARCHITECT u3ba Arge camilo hernandez urban 3 + Harald Baumann baumannarchitects, Stuttgart

Exterior view / Photo © Markus Guhl

DESCRIPTION The new building, with 800 square meters GFA, was envisioned to meet all the demands of a modern residential apartment building—particularly when it comes to the energy-efficient building method, flexible apartment partitions, and modular construction. (Excerpt from project description)

Exterior view / Photo © Markus Guhl

Interior space and stairwell / Photo © Markus Guhl

Floor plan, ground level and second floor

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

Concept

LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 12.5 m²/person (not including general management areas / common spaces)

Grohn: Containers and interior / Photo: © Feldschnieders + Kister Architekten

Grohn: Site plan

DESCRIPTION Containers in clusters The temporary homes were constructed on municipal land and approved for five years. An employee from the Muslim community sensitised the planning architects to the residents. The outcome was living units of 24 m2 for two persons and 48 m2 for four persons, each with bath and kitchen. A maximum of 16 persons live on one level and are self-sufficient. The architects decided against communal showers, as they can lead to problems, especially with Muslim women. Some residents failed to turn off the taps because they found the noise of running water to be soothing, and for this reason water-stop valves had to be installed. The arrangement of the courtyard houses accommodates the need for peace and privacy, creating a layered system of private, semi-private and public areas. The complex has 24-hour security. “The Bremen examples also show that once these people have spent a few months in temporary housing they are reluctant to move.” Architect Tobias Kister, who planned the container complexes, concludes: “We must create sustainable, higher-quality and durable residential complexes. It is not the residents who move on, but the social workers and managers who are no longer needed.” Kister is currently planning a housing complex made of wood. “A container is not suitable for permanent living,” he says.

Hemmelingen: Interior courtyard / Photo: © Feldschnieders + Kister

Text: Friederike Meyer from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/artikel/Container-2480270. html

Überseetor: Facility / Photo: © Feldschnieders + Kister Architekten

Hemelingen: Floor plan, ground level

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

LIGHT-FRAME CONSTRUCTION HALL EMERGENCY PROGRAM, MUNICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 230 people / 3 light-frame construction hall + containers RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: December 2015 Lifespan: 2 years

Sketch

COMMISSIONED BY Project Management: State Capital of Munich, Municipal Department, Buildings and Construction Department ARCHITECT Jan Schabert (günther & schabert Architekten), Munich CONSTRUCTION FIRM Eschenbach Zeltbau Containers: IQ-box, Filippi, Finsterwalder Interior assembly: Zimmerei Höfle, Die HuberSchreiner BUILDING METHOD Light-frame construction; Storage and shipping containers

Aerial view / Photo: © Guido Helmschmid

CONSTRUCTION COSTS N/A LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 9 m²/person

Interior, light-frame hall / Photo: © Michael Heinrich

Construction of light-frame hall / Photo: © Jan Schabert

DESCRIPTION Winter-proof lightweight halls are a part of the City of Munich’s crash programme to relieve the accommodation crisis. Almost 20 halls in various parts of the city are currently planned or have already been built, in addition to the use of barracks and other existing buildings in which a major part of the 20,000 refugees received in Munich are now living. The office of günther & schabert has prepared feasibility studies for the City of Munich for 17 locations, and at three locations it was commissioned with the work. The main concern of the architects was to avoid a rigid camp character. “We don’t want to build a good German camp.” says Jan Schabert, “Despite the time restriction of two years, we attach importance to the quality of space, urban planning and interiors.” Three snow load halls and 42 containers have been set up at the Max-Pröbstl-Straße site in the city’s Daglfing suburban district. Two “living and sleeping halls”, each with 116 beds, adjoin a “catering hall”; 15 sanitary containers with a doctor’s practice dock directly onto the halls; office and storage containers are arranged along the street front. The conversion of the halls for living purposes proved to be a feat of strength: the 17.5 by 51 metre system buildings are normally used as marquees without floors or windows suitable for living accommodation. The architects planned an insulated floor made of wooden planks with foam glass gravel fill, canopies connecting to the sanitary containers and floor-to-ceiling glass doors to a create a visual reference to the outside – details which repeatedly led to disputes with the profit-motivated hall manufacturers, who were intent on short construction times. The interior design also differs significantly from other locations: a system of 1.60 metre high wooden panels was used to separate off areas for two, four and five beds. The offset arrangement formed entrance niches and avoided monotonous hallways. The main meeting places are the “loading bays” opposite the glass doors, wide sofa benches on the outsides of the sleeping areas, where mobile phones and other devices can be charged at numerous sockets. To enable the residents a maximum level of participation, on moving in they were invited to select from various curtain colours as doors to the sleeping compartments. The walls and floors made of three-ply sheets were constructed by a carpenter who is currently working under intense pressure to produce the element system for further halls: the role model is being copied. The project demonstrates how costly it is to implement a temporary location when architects insist on halfway acceptable housing. At other locations lightweight halls had to be demolished because they were unable to withstand the elements. Text: Doris Kleilein from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/themen/bauten/Sofortprogramm-Leichtbauhallen-2480290.html

Skizze HAN

Interior, light-frame hall / Photo: © Michael Heinrich

Study of wall partition elements and model / Photo: © Jan Schabert

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

Construction site / Photo: © Oliver Elser

Production of room modules / Photo: © Michael Heinrich

Overview / Photo: © Michael Heinrich

Assembly of room modules / Photo: © Michael Heinrich

Transportation of room modules / Photo: © Michael Heinrich

Site plan

Elevations

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23.03.2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

REFUGEE RESIDENCE, HANOVER NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 96 residents / 3 two-story residential rows RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: Beginning of 2016 Useful life: minimum of 20 years Possible subsequent use as student dormitory COMMISSIONED BY Building Department, State Capital of Hanover

Complete facility / Photo: © Olaf Mahlstedt, Hannover (www.olafmahlstedt.de) - Images may only be published by agreement with the author and the architect

ARCHITECT MOSAIK Architekten BDA, Hanover with Drewes + Speth (loadbearing structure planning), Hanover Riedel + Partner (TGA), Hanover, trinity consulting, Uetze (energy consulting), CRP, Hanover (fire safety) Recreation space planning: LINNEA Landschaftsarchitektur, Hanover CONSTRUCTION FIRM Plot preparation (TGA): TGW Planungsgesellschaft mbH, Laatzen with ezs Planungsgesellschaft mbH General contractor: Kaufmannbausysteme GmbH, Vorarlberg (AT) with Ecotec, Bremen (TGA) and Merz, Kley + Partner, Vorarlberg (AT), (loadbearing structure planning), Dekra, Hamburg (fire safety) BUILDING METHOD Prefabricated wooden room modules CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx. 1,600 Euro/m² GFA (building and engineering costs)

Delivery of the modules / Photo: © Olaf Mahlstedt, Hannover (www.olafmahlstedt.de) - Images may only be published by agreement with the author and the architect

Producing the modules in Vorarlberg / Photo: © MOSAIK Architekten BDA

LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 17 m²/person

DESCRIPTION Affordable living in wooden modules. Steigerthalstraße, Hanover Kaufmann Bausysteme, a modular building giant based in Vorarlberg, has been in the prefabrication business for countless years. Its commitment in Hanover is attributable to a pan-European invitation for tender in May 2015 in which the company underbid the competition. The local office of Mosaik Architects has planned three housing complexes with wooden modules at various different sites in Hanover. Proposed for long-term use, in addition to being quickly built, the living units should also conform to ecological and urban planning standards. According to architect Kay Marlow, the Linden district, where the first complex is to be completed by the end of December, is

Housing units, exterior view / Photo: © Olaf Mahlstedt, Hannover (www.olafmahlstedt.de) - Images may only be published by agreement with the author and the architect

Hanover’s Prenzlauer Berg, where the refugees are being welcomed with open arms. The architects’ plans call for 96 single rooms in three two-storey buildings grouped around a courtyard with a community house, sport and recreation areas. At present the rooms are double-occupied by refugees, but in the long term students and families with low income will be accommodated here. The floor plans dispense with hallways: the dwelling units are accessed through the kitchen. Three or five rooms can be connected to form a unit with one or two baths. For this purpose a double

Interior view: Kitchen and bedroom / Photo: © Olaf Mahlstedt, Hannover (www.olafmahlstedt.de) - Images may only be published by agreement with the author and the architect

door was factory-installed in the room adjoining the kitchen/living room. The complex is modelled on the Danish Tinggården housing developments to the south of Copenhagen dating back to 1978, with their striking individual staircases leading from the first floor apartments directly to the garden. In Hanover the garden stairs had to be omitted in favour of a second escape route; instead, a wide access gallery connects the upper units. At 2.7 by 12 metres the dwelling units correspond to the maximum truck haulage dimensions. All the modules – including installations, heating, bath, kitchen and façade panels – were made at the factory and set on strip footings in Hanover. Only the access balconies, steel stairways and outer wood panelling were assembled at the site. The massive timber construction is made of plywood conforming to EnEV. The quality of living promises to be significantly higher than in steel containers, alone due to the wood-faced inside walls. Parallel building modules of steel were prescribed for the construction in Steigerthalstraße, and these proved to be significantly more expensive. Eight months lapsed between the opening day of tenders and completion. Construction of the second refugee accommodation with 150 rooms in Dorotheenstraße started in January. Here the wooden modules are to be stacked in three layers. The City of Hanover, which in the past year took in 4,000 refugees, has opted for a “Three pillar model” with dormitories, housing projects and apartments. In 2016 Hanover is expecting 300 further refugees per month; 16 locations for modular structures and 13 residential projects with “contingents” for refugees are at the planning stage. Following an amendment of the Building Code in November 2015, construction is to be permitted on sites for which no land-use plan exists. Text: Doris Kleilein Aus: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/themen/bauten/BezahlbaresWohnen-in-Holzmodulen-2480053.html

Site plan and floor plan, ground level

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS —22.FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

FIRST ADMITTANCE FACILITY, ESSEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 800 residents / 10 buildings (6 buildings with 100 residents each; 4 buildings with 50 residents) RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: January 2016 Construction time: 14 months Lifespan: 25 years COMMISSIONED BY The City of Essen ARCHITECT GVE Grundstücksverwaltung Stadt Essen GmbH CONSTRUCTION FIRM Residential and administrative buildings: KLEUSBERG GmbH & Co. KG Common area and facilities building: ADAMS Holzbau-Fertigbau GmbH

Delivery of the first modules on 28 Apr 2015 / Photo: © GVE

BUILDING METHOD Residential and administrative buildings: Prefabricated room modules: I-beams and roughcast plaster on exterior insulation finishing system (EIFS) Common area and facilities building: Timber frame construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total cost: 35,183,000 Euro LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 6 m²/person (not including adjoining and common areas) Total area: 14,500 m² Living modules / Photo: © KLEUSBERG Modulares Bauen-Fotograf Rüdiger Mosler (www.architecfoto.de)

Aerial view / Photo: © GVE

DESCRIPTION On commission from the City of Essen, ten residential buildings and other multi-function buildings were built to register and administer health screenings to refugees. Costs have been covered by a 25-year rental agreement with the state of North Rhine-Westphalia. Only 14 months elapsed between the decision to build the structure and its completion. After a probabley stay of a few weeks, asylum seekers are then assigned to individual municipalities. To achieve the best possible administrative synergy, the site also features a registration office (REG) and a branch of the Federal Office for Migration and Refugees (BAMF).

Canteen and bedroom / Photo: © GVE Overhammshof

Zaunanlage h = 1,20 m

Spielfläche 2.500 m²

Zaunanlage h = 2,00 m

6,64

2,42

Toranlage, Doppelflügel b = 4,00 m h = 2,00 m

(Excerpt from project description)

Pförtnercontainer mit Vordach 6,0 x 3,0 m, EFH ≈ 120,05 Zaunanlage h = 2,00 m

d Baumreihe Bestan

Hydrant 03 Grober Schotter / Natursteine 95,00 95,60

Fläche für Müllentsorgung

6,02

5,00 02.0.14 RW,P 32dB

02.0.15

02.0.16

02.0.17 BD 300/300 (S)

RW,P 32dB

Wandhöhe 2,00

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

H≈1200 mm (Fliesen) 02.0.32

rechts F-7 2200/1510

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen F-4.1

1385/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

F-4.1

1385/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

Fensterelement 1075/2250 fest Fensterelement 2215/2250 fest

Trennwände h=2m

ITE.09-L 2400 2250

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

rechts

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

rechts

01.0.31

F-3.1 F-3.2 790/720 790/720 DK/DIN links DK/DIN rechts Ornamentglas Ornamentglas

ITE.10-R T30 RS 1650 2250 OTS 01.0.35

01.0.34 T30-RS 885 2135 OTS

01.0.33

01.0.32 T30-RS 885 2135 OTS

ITE.03-R T30 RS 1250 2250 OTS

Fensterelement 2215/2250 fest

01.0.40

rechts

1025 2135 RW,P 32dB

BD 300/300 (S) 01.0.36

BD 300/300 (S)

01.0.39

01.0.06 Bereich zur Medieneinführung. vor Ort bauseits Schachtdeckel entsprechend aussparen.

01_H

01_21

01_20

01_19

01_18

01_17

01_16

01_15

01_23

01_22

BD 965/965

DD 300/300 (S)

01.0.37

BD 300/300 (S)

01.0.41 1025

01.0.38

2135 RW,P 32dB

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (S)

01.0.05

01.0.43

5,00

01.0.47

01.0.42

1025 2135 RW,P 32dB

F-4.2

RW,P 37dB DD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (WW)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

01.0.46 OTS

BD 300/300 (S)

RW,P 42dB 1025 2135 01.0.49 BD 300/300 (S)

1025 2135

RW,P 37dB

01.0.50

01.0.51

01.0.52

01.0.53

01.0.54

Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 1400/1500mm

01.0.48

Trennwände h=2m

01.0.45 OTS

DD 300/300 (H)

ITE.05-R 1410 2250 OTS

DD 300/300 (H)

01.0.55

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) F-4.1

01.0.02

F-4.1

01.0.44

ITE.07-R 1250 2250 OTS

01_I

1,10

F-4.1

01_14

01_13

F-10 2500/1510

F-10 2500/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

rechts

Sonnenschutz F-4.1 1385/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

F-10 2500/1510

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

rechts

Sonnenschutz F-4.2

F-10 2500/1510 DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

01_12

01_11

01_10

01_9

01_8

01_7

01_6

01_5

01_4

01_3

01.0.30

Sonnenschutz F-4.1 1385/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

rechts

4,00

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

01_2

01_1

DD 1530/650 (H/L)

DD 300/300 (H)

01.0.01

H≈1200 mm(Fliesen)

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

F-10 2500/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

rechts

4,00

F-7 2200/1510

F-7 2200/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

4,00

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

1385/1510 DK/DIN rechts mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

F-7a 2200/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz Alu-Fenster RC3

F-7 2200/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

rechts

OTS 02.0.28

BD 300/300 (S)

1385/1510 DK/DIN rechts mit Rolladen

BRH: 725mm

1775 1410 Achtung Rohbaumass

P6B Schiebemulde

Zutrittskontrolle durch Pförtner

RR-100/60/3

F-4.2

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

Trennwände h=2m

1385/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

Wandhöhe 2,00

F-10 2500/1510

03.0.01

F-7 2200/1510

F-7 2200/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

rechts

Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 1400/1500mm

1385/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

RR-100/60/3

Wandhöhe 2,00

Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 1400/1500mm

F-7 2200/1510 DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

02.0.27

1025 2135 OTS

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

RW,P 32dB

F-7 2200/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

DD 300/300 (E)

02.0.26 T90 RS 2300 2250 Antrieb

02.0.29 02.0.30 02.0.31

OTS Wandhöhe 2,00

03.0.40 ITE.05-L 1410 2250 Antrieb

RW,P 32dB

RW,P 32dB RW,P 32dB

01_F

Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 1400/1500mm

Wandhöhe 2,00

Zutrittskontrolle

1385/1510 DK/DIN rechts mit Rolladen

03.0.31

DD 550/1050 (L)

BD 300/300 (S)

Wandhöhe 2,00

P6B 1600 1235 Achtung Rohbaumass

RR-100/60/3 RC 3 RW,P 32dB

RW,P 32dB

01_F'

01_0

Strahlenschutz

ITE.05-R 1410 2250 Antrieb

BRH: 900mm 03.0.38

≈1200 mm(Fliesen)

DD 550/1050 (L)

rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen Sonnenschutz

F-7 2200/1510

01.0.28 1025 2135 RW,P 37dB

01.0.20 T30 RS 1010 2135

01.0.23 1025 2135

01.0.24 1025 2135

DD 300/300 (H)

DD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (H) Wandhöhe 2,00

Wandhöhe 2,00

03.0.39

DD 300/300 (H)

03.0.37

H H≈1200 mm(Fliesen)

RW,P 32dB

6,15

01_G

DD 300/300 (E)

RW,P 32dB

02.0.13 RW,P 32dB DD 300/300 (WW)

RW,P 32dB

OTS

03.0.41 03.0.44

03.0.45

01_G

Türelement 2400/2250 01.0.64

01.0.22 01.0.25

Fensterelement 1250/2250 fest

OTS

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

01.0.21

01.0.26

01.0.65

Drücker/ Knauf

03.0.43

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

1025 2135

∅ 3,50

DD 300/300 (L)

DD 400/400 (L) 1025 2135 BD 300/300 (S)

01.0.03

Pelletssilo

01.0.57

1025 2135

01_K 1025 2135 01.0.58

01.0.56

Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 1200/1500mm

3,20

F-4.1

F-4.2

Feuerwehreinspeiseschrank nach DIN 14462

0,40

0,40 ∅ 3,50

1385/1510 DK/DIN rechts mit Rolladen

01_J

1385/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

03.0.46

BD 300/300 (S)

OTS 03.0.24

03.0.36

03.0.30

1025 2135

RW,P 37dB 1025 2135

Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 2000/1500mm

03.0.42

DD 400/300 (E)

Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 1400/1500mm

03.0.18 OTS

03.0.25 ITE.04-R T30 RS 1410 2250

Feststellanlage+OTS

03.0.35

01_E

Strahlenschutz 01.0.27

01.0.27a

1025 2135

01.0.29

03.0.23

BD 300/300 (S) 03.0.26

03.0.34

03.0.33 03.0.32

Kaminanlage

DD 300/300 (H)

01.0.16 RW,P 32dB

02.0.11 ITE.04-R T30 RS 1410 2250

Feststellanlage+OTS

BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S)

03.0.27

DD 300/300 (H)

Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 1400/1500mm

Toranlage, Doppelflügel b = 4,0 m h = 2,0 m

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S)

BRH: 865mm

01.0.18 ITE.04-L T30 RS 1410 2250 OTS

Wandöffnung

8379/1590 BRH=1060 mm (Rohbaumaß)

02.0.10

DD 300/300 (H)

DD 900/500 (L)

03.0.19

03.0.17

03.0.15

BD 300/300 (S)

03.0.29

Antrieb

RW,P 32dB 02.0.09

02.0.08

02.0.07

01_B

1025 1270

1025 2135

01.0.19

01.0.11

01.0.14

01.0.15

02.0.22

1025 2135 02.0.21

RW,P 32dB

RW,P 32dB RW,P 32dB

DD 300/300 (H)

Feststellanlage+OTS

BD 400/300 (S) DD 400/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (H)

DD 300/300 (S)

03.0.28

RW,P 32dB

03.0.02

OTS

1385/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

03.0.16 ITE.04-R T30 RS 1410 2250

03.0.11

03.0.12

03.0.13

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

BD 400/300 (S) DD 400/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

01_D

01.0.07

ITE.04-R T30 RS 1410 2250 OTS

01.0.12

OTS

01.0.13

02.0.23

02.0.25

Zutrittskontrolle

03.0.21

02.0.12

03.0.14

03.0.03

01_C 01_C'

1025

2135 RW,P 32dB

1025 2135

RW,P 32dB

01.0.17 Wandhöhe 2,00

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) OTS 02.0.06

OTS

02.0.03

RW,P 32dB

03.0.06 RW,P 32dB 03.0.20

DD 300/300 (WW)

RW,P 32dB

RW,P 32dB RW,P 32dB

01_B

01_B'

1,10

DD 300/300 (H)

RW,P 32dB 03.0.22

RW,P 32dB

1025 1010

ITE.04-R T30 RS 1410 2250

1025 2135

BD 300/300 (S)

Schiebetür

Wandhöhe 2,00

02.0.05

DD 300/300 (WW)

ITE.04-L T30 RS 1410 2250 OTS 02.0.02

Antrieb

DD 300/300 (WW) Trennwände h=2m

Trennwände h=2m

BD 300/300 (S)

Zeiterfassung

DD 300/300 (K)

BD 300/300 (S)

Grober Schotter / Natursteine

DD 300/300 (K)

02.0.04

Zutrittskontrolle Datenkabel für

03.0.07

03.0.08

03.0.09

03.0.10

01_A

Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 1400/1500mm

DD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

BD 965/965

BD 300/300 (S)

Durchgang i. L. 2000 mm

Fahrradaufstellfäche

BD 300/300 (S)

RW,P 32dB RW,P 32dB RW,P 32dB

Bereich zur Medieneinführung. vor Ort bauseits Schachtdeckel entsprechend aussparen.

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

Bereich zur Medieneinführung. vor Ort bauseits Schachtdeckel entsprechend aussparen.

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

Anleiterpunkt Sammelpunkt Dach

Rampe, eingefasst mit Gabionen

01.0.10

02.0.20 02.0.19

02.0.18

Wandhöhe 2,00

BD 965/965

F-10 2500/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

rechts

Wandhöhe 2,00

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

4,00 6,00 RW,P 32dB

Poller als Anfahrschutz

F-10 2500/1510

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

rechts

BD 300/300 (S)

DD 400/300 (E)

01_A

12,00

6,15

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

mm(Fliesen) ≈1200 H DD 300/300 (S) Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 1400/1500mm

01_A

0,60

F-10 2500/1510

F-10 2500/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

F-3.1 790/720 DK/DIN links Ornamentglas

790/720 DK/DIN rechts Ornamentglas

F-10 2500/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

rechts

Sauberlaufmatte b/h = 1400/1500mm

Fensterelement 1250/2250 fest

F-7 2200/1510

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

rechts

03.0.04 Bereich zur Medieneinführung. vor Ort bauseits Schachtdeckel aussparen. entsprechend

01.0.09

Strahlenschutz

1,55

F-7 2200/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

F-7 2200/1510

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen 03.0.05

rechts

1185/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

01.0.63

10,00 F-3.2

F-7 2200/1510

DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

rechts

01.0.08

F-5.1

F-4.2 1385/1510 DK/DIN rechts mit Rolladen

F-7 2200/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

22,50

0,50

4,30

3,00

1,50

02.0.01

F-7 2200/1510 DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

F-7 2200/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

22,50

F-7 2200/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

17,00

BRH: 865mm

22,68

F-7 2200/1510 rechts DK/DIN links-DK/DIN mit Rolladen

3,35

01_29

01_28

01_27

01_26

01_25

01_24

01_23

2,00 0,50

Strahlenschutz

4,45

Win kels t

01_6

01_5

01_4

01_3

01_2

01_1

01_0

2,30 0,50

01_22

01_21

01_20

01_19

01_18

01_17

01_16

01_15

01_14

2,30 01_13

01_12

01_11

01_10

01_9

01_8

01_7

6,00

17,00

5,70

ütz Ne max igung wand 1:1.5

1,10

Trafostation Mensa EFH ≈ 119,40

1,10

01.0.04 01.0.59

01.0.60 1025 2135

01.0.61

01.0.62

01_K

1025 2135

F-4.1 1385/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

1025 2135

01_L

F-4.2

F-4.1

1385/1510 DK/DIN rechts mit Rolladen

1385/1510 DK/DIN links mit Rolladen

F-4.2

01_L

1385/1510 DK/DIN rechts mit Rolladen

Hydrant 01 01_28

01_27

01_26

01_25

01_24

01_23

01_29

Feuerwehrsauganschluß nach DIN 14210

maximale Aufbauhöhe 2,5 m

05_D

05_A

05_B

2,15

3,00

12,36

BD 300/300 (S)

BD 965/965

DD 300/300 (H)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

05_1

DD 300/300 (E)

12,23

11,00

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

Abwasserpumpanlage R1,00

05_C

4,00

8,00

1,67

4,50

maximale Aufbauhöhe 5,0 m

DD 300/300 (L) BD 300/300 (L)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

I 30

05_2

4,00 DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

05_2

09_10

Medientrasse

I 30

4,00

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

05_10

05_4

07_9

BD 965/965

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (H)

05_11

09_9

DD 300/300 (E)

05_3

(S) BD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 DD 300/300 (S)

Medientrasse

09_8 RR

05_9

BD 300/300 (S)

05_5

BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (L)

09_7 05_8 07_7

BD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

Winkelstützelemente

09_6

DD 300/300 (L)

RR RR BD 300/300 (S)

07_5 DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

05_4

09_2 07_2 BD 965/965

09_1

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

05_3

BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (L) BD 300/300 (L)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

Medientrasse

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

BD 965/965

1,00

3,00 6,00

07_1

4,00 BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (H)

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

(S) BD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 DD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (L)

DD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (E)

BD 965/965

09_A

09_B

09_C

09_D RR

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (H)

BD 965/965

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

05_7

05_5

Medientrasse

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

05_6

Medientrasse

DD 300/300 (L) BD 300/300 (L)

DD 300/300 (E)

BD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

05_6

DD 300/300 (H)

DD 300/300 (L)

BD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

BD 965/965

DD 300/300 (L)

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (E)

RR BD 300/300 (S)

BD 965/965

DD 300/300 (E) DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (H)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (L)

07_C

07_B

07_A

05_8

I 30

05_2 05_1

I 30

DD 300/300 (L) BD 300/300 (L)

DD 300/300 (S)

05_7

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

05_A

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

I 30

05_B

05_11 05_10

05_9

05_C

05_8

07_D

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

I 30

05_D

05_10 05_9

05_2

3,00 6,00

3,00

6,00

07_3

Medientrasse

3,00

6,00 3,00

Medientrasse

1,00

05_5 BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

3,00

05_11

07_4

BD 300/300 (S)

BD 965/965

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (H)

DD 300/300 (E)

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

05_11

Medientrasse

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

09_3 BD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

05_6

09_4

BD 300/300 (S)

I 30

DD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (L)

I 30

05_10

BD 965/965

09_5

BD 300/300 (S)

05_9

DD 300/300 (E)

BD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

05_8

DD 300/300 (H)

05_7

07_6

DD 300/300 (L)

05_7

DD 300/300 (S)

07_8 05_6

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

Toranlage, Doppelflügel b = 4,00 m h = 2,00 m

Toranlage, Einzelflügel b = 1,50 m h = 2,00 m

Medientrasse

2,80

Außenbereich

05_5

Medientrasse

05_4

05_3

Medientrasse

05_2

Medientrasse

05_3

Medientrasse

05_4

2,45

2,65

05_2 RR

05_2

1,00

05_2

3,00

05_1

1,00

1,30

05_1 05_B

05_C

05_D 05_A

05_B

05_C

05_D

05_A

4,00

Hydrant 02

05_11

DD 300/300 (E)

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

I 30

Schachtabdeckung 1010/1010 für Kriechkeller

(S) BD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 DD 300/300 (S)

05_10

BD 965/965

BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (H)

Medientrasse

6,00 3,00

3,00 6,00

BD 300/300 (S)

DD 300/300 (L)

DD 300/300 (S)

BD 300/300 (S)

05_9 DD 300/300 (L)

BD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S) DD 300/300 (S)

05_8

05_7

I 30

DD 300/300 (S) BD 300/300 (S)

05_6 RR

05_5 Medientrasse

05_3

Medientrasse

05_4 05_2

05_2

1,00

3,00

05_1

1,00

1,30

05_1 05_A

05_B

05_C

05_D

4,00

Hydrant 02 Site plan and floor plan for living units

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 18 MAY 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

REFUGEE HOUSING, FREIBURG NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Gundelfinger Str: 300 residents Tiengen: 100 residents RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, Refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Tiengen: April 2016 Gundelfinger Str: June 2016 Merzhauser Str.: 2016 COMMISSIONED BY City of Freiburg im Breisgau, Building Management ARCHITECT ARGE Architekten Freiburg: FranzundGeyer Freie Architekten BDA dwb, stocker dewes architekten bda, jochen weissenrieder architekten bda

Gundelfinger street: exterior view / Photo: © Miguel Babo, Freiburg

Gundelfinger street: interior views / Photos: © Miguel Babo, Freiburg

DESCRIPTION Within a very short timeframe, temporary refugee shelters commissioned by the City of Freiburg will be built at three locations. ARGE Architekten Freiburg have developed a modular system using wood for mass-wall construction as an alternative to the established method using steel containers. Untreated materials, flexible re-use, and the promotion of a regional supply chain will stimulate the population’s acceptance of the housing project. (Excerpt from project description)

Gundelfinger street: Delivery of the modules / Photo: © Yohan Zerdoun

Tiengen: exterior view, corridor and bedroom / Photos: © Yohan Zerdoun

Site plans: Gundelfinger street, Merzhauser street, Tiengen

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

REFUGEE ACCOMMODATION, LANGENBACH-FREISING NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 78 residents / 1 building RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Beginning of construction: November 2015 Date of completion: February 2016 Subsequent use possible on short-term notice with slight modifications COMMISSIONED BY Adldinger Bauwerk GmbH ARCHITECT Fiedler + Partner, Freising CONSTRUCTION FIRM Adldinger Bauunternehmen e.K., Kranzberg

Exterior view / Photo: © Reinhard Fiedler

BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx. 2,000 Euro/m² Total: approx. 2,000,000 Euro LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 8 m²/person not including common rooms

Exterior view / Photo: © Reinhard Fiedler

Interior views: Recreation room and central axis / Photo: © Reinhard Fiedler

DESCRIPTION This refugee accommodation in Langenbach is a two-story timber frame structure that can house up to 78 refugees. In addition to 15-square-meter rooms designed for two people, the facility also includes a central axis, showers, bathrooms, shared kitchens, and recreation rooms. Each room features â&#x20AC;&#x153;French windowsâ&#x20AC;? (combination window/doors) that connect to a wraparound balcony. The design of the facade is defined by its use of blue and green fiber cement siding. The outdoor facilities include a football field and a beach volleyball court usable by both refugees and locals. Thanks to the use of easily removable drywall for the interior walls, the building can be adapted to different uses later. Such subsequent uses could range from a kindergarten, homeless shelter, student dormitory, offices, to the site of a community college or music school.

Rendering

(Excerpt from project description)

Site plan and Floor plan, ground level

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

Exterior View / Photo: Jörg Lantelmé / GWG Kassel – Gemeinnützige Wohnungsbaugesellschaft der Stadt Kassel mbH

ARCHITECT ARGE Wohnen Bunsenstraße (Kassel): Baufrösche Architekten und Stadtplaner GmbH, foundation 5+ architekten BDA, fondation 5+ landschaftsarchtekten und planer, HHS Planer + Architekten AG, Clemens Kober Architekt BDA, Reichel Architekten BDA, Spöth Architekten CONSTRUCTION FIRM ARGE GU: Emmeluth Baugesellschaft mbH, Hermanns HMS-Bau GmbH BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall construction: Exterior walls of plastered autoclaved aerated concrete (no exterior insulation finishing system). Floor slabs of reinforced concrete CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,610 Euro/m² LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 9.7–12.9 m²/person

Complex and Courtyard / Photos: © Jonathan Scheder, Kassel

ground ﬂoor: barrier-free units, 4 persons

neighbourhood square

footpath

ground ﬂoor: mixed use

6P 2P

56 persons

courtyard

gardens courtyard

88 persons

playground

32 persons

gardens

public square

neighbourhood square

laundry

indoor playground

ground ﬂoor: barrier-free units, 4 persons

tearoom

workshop administration

ground ﬂoor: mixed use

2P 2P

courtyard

multiple use / café gardens

56 persons 8P

courtyard playground

88 persons

gardens 32 persons

Schematic diagram, design

DESCRIPTION In principle, refugee accommodation should aim to meet the same domestic needs as housing for anyone else: private space to retreat, manageable group sizes, well-positioned common rooms, and a variety of differentiated and distinct free spaces for developing a good community. Here in Bunsenstraßen, “entirely normal” and costefficient apartments are under construction. Initially, their primary use will be collective housing; in the future, however, in the same form, they can be rented out as social housing. They can also be transformed into student apartments with a few simple tweaks. Planning process: After a November 2015 workshop hosted by the City of Kassel featuring representatives from the construction industry, city government, Caritas Association, and various architects, a decision was made to avoid building provisional housing, despite the enormous time pressure, and instead construct classic housing. (Excerpt from project description)

Exterior View / Photo: © Jonathan Scheder, Kassel

tearoom

4 persons handicapped accessible 63,4 m2 = 15,9 m2/p.

BTTP tech. rooms

4 persons handicapped accessible 63,4 m2 = 15,9 m2/p.

tech. rooms

4 persons handicapped accessible 63,4 m2 = 15,9 m2/p.

laundry

workshop / caretaker

storage

2 persons 25,7 m2 = 12,9 m2/p.

2 persons 25,7 m = 12,9 m2/p. 2

ofﬁce

ofﬁce/ reception

2 persons 25,7 m2 = 12,9 m2/p.

4 persons 52m2 = 13 m2/p.

2 persons 25,7 m2 = 12,9 m2/p.

ofﬁce

cloakroom

tech. room

8 persons 78,7 m2 = 9,8 m2/p.

WC-B

multipurpose

room

Floor plan, ground level

3-room ﬂat 63,8 m2

student apartment 25,7 m2

roof terrace

one-room apartment 25,7 m2

3-room ﬂat 63,8 m2

one-room apartment 25,7 m2

2-room ﬂat 52 m2

roof terrace

3-room ﬂat 63,8 m2

one-room apartment 25,7 m2

2-room ﬂat 52 m2

4-room ﬂat 78,7 m2

shared accommodation for students 78,7 m2

variants of conversion accommodation for refugees 8 persons 78,7 m2

4-room ﬂat

room 2

one-room apartment & 2-room ﬂat

room 1

room 3

shared accommodation for students

room 2

student apartments

room 1

room 3

living room 4

living

Floor plan, third floor, and plans for conversion

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 03 MAY 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

REFUGEE HOUSING, GÖTTINGEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 180 residents / 3 Buildings RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: September 2015 Lifespan: 5 Years COMMISSIONED BY City of Göttingen, Department of buildings ARCHITECT City of Göttingen, Department of Structural Engineering, Climate Protection, and Energy, Bernhard Boy, Göttingen

Exterior view: inner courtyard / Photo: © Bernhard Boy

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Firma Gerlach Schlüsselfertigbau GmbH & Co. KG, Einbeck BUILDING METHOD Prefabricated room modules : steel frame CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,503 Euro/m² GFA Total costs: approx. 1,400,000 Euro net LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 11.5 m²/person / 2.909 m² GFA Total living space: approx. 1.992,57 m²

Exterior view: corridor / Photo: © Bernhard Boy

Exterior view: south side / Photo: © Bernhard Boy

DESCRIPTION The City of Göttingen has built a new refugee accommodation center on a municipal lot to house 180 people for a 5-year period. To ensure a quick implementation, a modular steel-frame design was used. The three 3-story wings of the building, connected by exterior stairs and corridors, accommodate 30 apartments and a common area. The apartments are suitable for 6 people each, and consist of 3 rooms, a kitchen, bathroom, and hallway. 7 of the apartments as well as the common area are handicap accessible. The modular design allows for a high degree of prefabrication on the production end. The modules were then put together quickly on foundations that had already been laid on-site, where they were assembled into a finished building. The individual modules are insulated steel-frame structures that conform to the F30 fire-safety standard. All the surfaces were prefabricated. The interior doors have a solid chipboard core and a laminate surface, and the apartment entry doors are insulated metal doors. The bathroom walls and floors, as well as the floors of the kitchens, are tiled, while living rooms and hallways have linoleum flooring. The windows are made of synthetic material and have aluminum roller shutters on the outside. The kitchens were each fitted with a built-in kitchenette. Each bathroom has a washing-machine connection. The facility is heated via district heating; the hot water supply is decentralized, with a water heater in each apartment.

Exterior view: street side / Photo: © Bernhard Boy

Gemeinschaftsbereich 8

± 0,00 OKFF =277,80müNN

The complex is rounded out by outdoor facilities like walkways, driveways, parking, and green areas. The green outdoor space features seating areas, children‘s play toys, and a ball court. The exterior lighting comes from lampposts and wall lamps. A neighboring sports club has made a covered sports area available, which allows for a wide variety of recreation, athletic, and social activities.

(Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, ground floor

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

MODULAR ASYLUM SEEKER ACCOMMODATION, BAD SODEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS – RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN – COMMISSIONED BY The Kreisausschuss Main-Taunus-Kreis – Hochbauand Liegenschaftsamt, Hofheim ARCHITECT rigoll architekten, Wiesbaden CONSTRUCTION FIRM Schneider Fertigbau GmbH, Stimpfach

Corridor / Photo: © Olaf Rigoll

BUILDING METHOD Timber frame CONSTRUCTION COSTS – LIVING SPACE PER PERSON –

Interior courtyard / Photo: © Olaf Rigoll

Back side / Photo: © Olaf Rigoll

DESCRIPTION On the southeastern outskirts of the Bad Soden municipality in the Taunus mountain range, a residential building has been constructed as family housing for 80 asylum seekers. The 2-story building was built using the modular timber construction method and encompasses 16 residential units in three different sizes.

Hausanschluss

Waschküche

Gemeinschaftsraum

Fahrradabstellplatz

Mülltonnenabstellplatz

The U-shaped building surrounds a central courtyard that is bounded on the street-side by the 1-story community building. The residential building is accessed via three corridors which each lead to 2 or 3 living units on the upper floor.

Briefkastenanlage

Bad

Each living unit features its own bathroom and a small kitchen with a seating area.

Diele

Schlafen 1 Büro Sozialarbeiter

Wohnküche Schlafen 2

Bad

2 Stellplätze

The 40 timber frame spaces / modules are mostly prefabricated in the factory and delivered to the construction site. The interior assembly, hung wood-panel cladding, and the large roof planting were finished on site. (Excerpt from project description)

Luftraum

Floor plan, ground level

Laubengang Luftraum

Schlafen 1

Schlafen 2

Schlafen 3

Schlafen 4

Wohnküche

Bad

Floor plan, second level

Gemeinschaftshaus

Wohngebäude

Kitchen and site plan / Photo: © Olaf Rigoll

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

ASYLUM SEEKER ACCOMMODATION, FLÖRSHEIM AM MAIN / KRIFTEL NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS – RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN – COMMISSIONED BY The Kreisausschuss Main-Taunus-Kreis – Hochbauund Liegenschaftsamt, Hofheim ARCHITECT rigoll architekten, Wiesbaden CONSTRUCTION FIRM CMS Container Modul Systeme GmbH, Düsseldorf BUILDING METHOD Container, steel frames

Flörsheim am Main: residential building / Photo: © Olaf Rigoll

CONSTRUCTION COSTS – LIVING SPACE PER PERSON –

Flörsheim am Main: community building / Photo: © Olaf Rigoll

Flörsheim am Main: Corridor and stairway residential building / Photo: © Olaf Rigoll

DESCRIPTION Flörsheim am Main: On a former parking lot in the municipality of Flörsheim am Main‘s industrial area, accommodation for 48 asylum seekers has been built in modular fashion using prefabricated containers. The shelter encompasses a 2-story residential building with an attached corridor, and a 1-story community house with rooms for social work, the facilities manager, laundry room, and a facilities room. Each wing of the building features 8 small apartments for 2 people, each with a small kitchen, bathroom with shower, and a bedroom/living room. The buildings, in the form of 28 containers, were largely prefabricated in the factory and delivered to the construction site. The interior assembly, the hung wood-panel cladding, the corridor, and the metal roof construction were finished on site.

Kriftel: Back side / Photo: © Olaf Rigoll

Kriftel: On the northern outskirts of the Kriftel municipality in the Taunus mountain range, a family residential building has been built to house 40 asylum seekers. The 2-story building was built using the modular container method and comprises eight building units in two different sizes. The L-shaped building surrounds a central courtyard that is bounded on the street side by the trash area / bike box and a strip of planters. The residential buildings are accessed by two corridors that lead to 2 or 3 living units in the upper floor. Each living unit features its own bathroom and a small kitchen with a seating area. The buildings, in the form of 22 containers, were largely prefabricated in the factory and delivered to the construction site. The interior assembly, the hung wood-panel cladding, the corridors, and the metal roof construction were finished on site.

Kriftel: Corridor second floor / Photo: © Olaf Rigoll

Sitznischen

Sozialarbeiter

Haustechnik

Hausmeister

Waschküche

Küche

Bad Mülltonnenplatz Abstellraum

Technik

Schlafen

(Excerpt from project description)

Flörsheim am Main: floor plan, ground level

Büro

Bad

Schlafen 1

Schlafen 3 Wäschestangen

Wohnküche

Schlafen 2

Büro

Waschküche

Sitzblock

Haustechnik

Sitzblock

Gemeinschaftsraum

Sitzblock

Sandkasten

2 Stellplätze

Mülltonnen

-/ Fahrradabs

tellung

Kriftel: floor plan, ground level

Sozialgebäude Wohngebäude

Site plan Flörsheim am Main and Kriftel

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 25 APR 2016

FIRST ADMITTANCE FACILITY, WOOD PANELED STRUCTURE, LAUTZENHAUSEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 200 residents RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN December 2015 COMMISSIONED BY Ministry of finance Rheinland-Pfalz, Mainz ARCHITECT Holzbau Kappler GmbH & Co.KG, Gackenbach-Dies CONSTRUCTION FIRM Holzbau Kappler GmbH & Co.KG, Gackenbach-Dies BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,025 Euro/m² GFA (building and engineering costs) Total costs: approx. 1,450,000 Euro net (without property and Outdoor facilities)

Construction site / Photo: © Carsten Costard, Mainz

LIVING SPACE PER PERSON –

Construction site / Photos: © Carsten Costard, Mainz

DESCRIPTION This first admittance facility was built in a very short time using high-quality construction materials in a high-density structure. This 3-story building was planned in 3 weeks, constructed in 4 months. The building (33 m long, 15 m wide, 9 m high) was built using prefabricated wooden panel elements (3 x 6 m grid modules). Domestic wood was used for the interiors and exteriors. Ideally, the building will be used subsequently as a hostel or office. (Excerpt from project description)

Detail facade / Photo: ยฉ Carsten Costard, Mainz

Bedroom / Photo: ยฉ Carsten Costard, Mainz

%5+ DE 2.5)

%5+ DE 2.5) 55

=LPPHU

Pรฐ P

O +

1DVV]HOOH +HUUHQ

/DJHU _ 7HFKQLN Pรฐ P

Pรฐ P

O +

=LPPHU

Pรฐ P

O +

=LPPHU

Pรฐ P

=LPPHU

Pรฐ P

=LPPHU

%5+ DE 2.5)

1DVV]HOOH 'DPHQ

%5+ DE 2.5)

QWZ

5H JH QH

6FKPXW]ZDVVHU '1

lV VH UX QJ '1

Pรฐ P

0HKUEHWW]LPPHU

=LPPHU

Pรฐ P

O +

6WJ ย 2.))% (* P ย 11 2.5)% (*

O +

55 55

$ 5HWWXQJVZHJ

%5+ DE 2.5)

)OXFKWWUHSSH 0HKUEHWW =LPPHU

O +

Pรฐ P

%5+ DE 2.5)

$VSKDOWIOlFKH

Floor plan, ground level

%5+ DE 2.5)

O +

Pรฐ P

O +

=LPPHU

Pรฐ P

=LPPHU

Pรฐ P

=LPPHU

)OXFKWWUHSSH

O +

:& 'DPHQ

6WJ

:& +HUUHQ

Pรฐ

*) XQWHU 7UHSSH

5HWWXQJVZHJ

O +

Pรฐ P

Pรฐ P O +

O +

)OXU

7UHSSHQKDXV

O +

Pรฐ P

6WJ

7 56

)OXU 5HWWXQJVZHJ

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDING / COMPLETED

HOUSING FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS, TÜBINGEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 96 residents RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: April 2015 Lifespan: 5 Years. Another 5 years are optional COMMISSIONED BY District council Tübingen ARCHITECT Haefele Architekten, Tübingen

Facility as a whole / Photo: © Heiner Holme

CONSTRUCTION FIRM ALHO Systembau GmbH, Morsbach BUILDING METHOD Room modules in steel CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,762 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 14.5 m²/person GFA

Exterior view / Photo: © Heiner Holme

Playground / Photo: © Heiner Holme

DESCRIPTION At the suggestion of Tübingen District Council the container housing was erected on a site owned by the State of Baden-Württemberg in the administrative quarter of Tübingen. The visual link to the District and Regional Administration was the explicit aim. The main station can be reached in 15 minutes on foot. The use has been approved for five years, with an option to extend for ten years. The three buildings are three-storey with access walkways and freestanding steel staircases. They accommodate 2- and 3-room apartments for self-sufficient residents who can live here for up to a year while waiting for their asylum applications to be processed. The architects designed the façades in bright colours. On the upper floor the modules were offset by two metres to allow for access galleries and covered terraces. French windows on the ground floor enable direct access and provide better ventilation. The machinery is located in an outbuilding. The complex, which is currently functioning well, is now to be expanded to five times its present size. On the adjacent open space the State of Baden-Württemberg is planning a reception centre consisting of containers for 500 persons. The first part is due to open in early 2016. Text: Friederike Meyer, from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/artikel/Container-2480270. html

Floor plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

FIRST ADMITTANCE FACILITY / PERMANENT REFUGEE HOUSING, COLOGNE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 68 residents RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN May 2016 COMMISSIONED BY Gebäudewirtschaft der Stadt Köln ARCHITECT pagelhenn architektinnenarchitekt Planungsbeteiligte: Bert Böcking Planungsbüro Haustechnik GmbH, ISRW Dr.-Ing- Klapdor Bauphysik GmbH, Stracke Ingenieur GmbH, Atelier Grünplan Olaf Conrad CONSTRUCTION FIRM Diverse

Exterior view / Photo: © Jens Kirchner, Düsseldorf

BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall masonry: Perforated bricks, filigree ceilings CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,100 Euro/m² GFA net LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 13,7 m²/person GFA

Bedroom / Photo: © Jens Kirchner, Düsseldorf

Floor plan

DESCRIPTION This residential concept for refugees is oriented toward subsidized housing and will be built in two locations in Cologne. It provides a structure that can be adapted to specific locations through terracing, rowing, and setback alignments. The organization of the floor plan allows for 2-, 3-, 4- and 5-room apartments. Thanks to the placement of the fuse boxes, and the ability to separate or combine different units, the apartment partitions are very flexible and can be easily adapted to meet different needs. The top-lit central circulation and the all-around orientation allows for variation without conveying the impression of “modular construction,” which can often be at odds with a sense of “being at home” and permanence. The separate flats, which feature underfloor heating and plastered walls and ceilings, consist of a bathroom, living room/kitchen area, and bedrooms. The compact bathrooms feature a walk-in shower, vanity, and toilet, and are equipped with porcelain stoneware. Each unit has a balcony. (Excerpt from project description) Inside views / Photos: © pagelhenn architektinnenarchitekt

Inside view / Photo: © Jens Kirchner, Düsseldorf

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 09 MAR 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

WINTER ACCOMMODATION FOR REFUGEES, HALBERSTADT NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 320 people / 8 buildings RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: December 2015 Unlimited lifespan COMMISSIONED BY Bau- und Liegenschaftsmanagement Sachsen-Anhalt ARCHITECT Opitz Holzbau GmbH & Co. KG

Building in first admittance facility / Photo: © Ulrich Schrader for Opitz Holzbau

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Opitz Holzbau GmbH & Co. KG BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction (walls and floorboards made of wood-panel elements with OSB panels; heavily insulated exterior walls) CONSTRUCTION COSTS N/A LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 6.25 m²/person NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 80 people / 40 modular units

Overall view / Photo: © Ulrich Schrader for Opitz Holzbau

Interior / Photo: © Ulrich Schrader for Opitz Holzbau

DESCRIPTION Opitz Holzbau has constructed two large refugee shelters for the first admittance facility in Halberstadt. 2,500 refugees live in Halberstadt (population 50,000). The only first admittance facility in the state of Saxony-Anhalt is located here. The environmentally friendly choice of wood offers high energy efficiency: Exterior walls are heavily insulated. The choice of wood as a building material also offers domestic comfort and benefits the environment. (Excerpt from project description)

Construction site / Photo: ÂŠ Ulrich Schrader for Opitz Holzbau

Floor plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 17 MAR 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

SOCIAL FACILITY, KÖNIGSBRUNN / LINDENBERG NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Königsbrunn: 120 residents / 20 modular units Lindenbach: 78 residents / 18 modular units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: Königsbrunn, July 2015; Lindenbach, November 2015 (2nd construction phase: May 2016) COMMISSIONED BY Königsbrunn: HGI GmbH, Neresheim Lindenbach: Grundwert Bayern GmbH & Co. Lindenberg KG, Munich ARCHITECT VARIAHOME – Bauer Holzbausysteme GmbH & Co. KG, Neukirch

Königsbrunn: residential building and interior courtyard / Photo: © VARIAHOME

CONSTRUCTION FIRM VARIAHOME – Bauer Holzbausysteme GmbH & Co. KG, Neukirch BUILDING METHOD Prefabricated wooden room modules CONSTRUCTION COSTS Both projects: 1,700 Euro/m² LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Both projects: 7.6 m²/person

Producing the modules / Photo: © VARIAHOME

Königsbrunn: Delivery of the modules / Photo: © VARIAHOME

DESCRIPTION The project’s aim was to facilitate the best possible integration of asylum seekers. Human dignity was the core focus in the project’s planning and implementation. Particular emphasis was planed on meeting individual needs in the sanitary area, installing a playground for children, and creating a room for volunteers to enable active social support. (Excerpt from project description)

Königsbrunn: delivery of the modules / Photo: © VARIAHOME

Lindenbach: exterior view / Photo: © VARIAHOME

Lindenbach: corridor and floor plan, ground floor / Photo: © VARIAHOME

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 26 APR 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

FIRST ADMITTANCE FACILITIES FOR REFUGEES, KÖNIGSBRUNN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 120 residents / 8 buildings RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: December 2015 Lifespan: unlimited COMMISSIONED BY GWG Gesellschaft für Wohnungsbau u. Gewerbeansiedlung d. Stadt Königsbrunn mbH, Königsbrunn ARCHITECT Wunderle + Partner Architekten mbB, Neusäß-Steppach Brugger_landschaftsarchitekten_stadtplaner_ökologen

Exterior view / Photo: © Foto Zolleis

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Gumpp & Maier GmbH, Binswangen BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS 2,000 EUR/m² (ready for occupancy – building and engineering costs) Total costs: approx. 4,100,000 Euro (incl. outdoor facilities) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 11.2 m²

Total facility / Photo: © Foto Zolleis

Outdoor view / Photo: © Foto Zolleis

DESCRIPTION An ensemble consisting of eight two-level wood frame buildings. One half of one building is being used by the administration. (Excerpt from project description)

Playground / Photo: © Foto Zolleis

Indoor / Photo: © Foto Zolleis

Floor plan and site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 27 APR 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

ASYLUM-SEEKERS ACCOMODATION, JESTETTEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 90 residents RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: March 2016 Lifespan: 30 years Construction time: 10 months COMMISSIONED BY District of Waldshut ARCHITECT Schanz Architekten, Hohentengen a. H. CONSTRUCTION FIRM – Outdoor view / Photo: © Schanz Architekten

BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall construction: limestone with curtain walls CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,151 Euro/m² GFA (building and engineering costs) total costs: 1,570,000 Euro LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 10 m²/person 1.393 m² GFA

Court / Photo: © Schanz Architekten

Overview / Photo: © Schanz Architekten

DESCRIPTION (Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, ground floor

Floor plan, first floor

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS —23 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

EMERGENCY AND FIRST ADMITTANCE FACILITY, HAMBURG NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Hamburg, Schnackenburgallee: A total of 9 units in an existing tent and container village; Bergedorf and Jenfeld: 5 units Hauptbahnhof (Central Station): 2 units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers Concept

DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: Schnackenburgallee and Hauptbahnhof, October 2015; Bergedorf and Jenfeld: November 2015 COMMISSIONED BY N/A ARCHITECT Daniel Kerber, Hamburg (MORE THAN SHELTERS) CONSTRUCTION FIRM MORE THAN SHELTERS, Hamburg BUILDING METHOD DIY: Tents can be put together in 20 to 40 min by 4 people Tent system: Loadbearing structure made of aluminum; fitted components of stainless steel; tent flooring and dust walls: PVC tarp; outdoor tent cover in differing versions: 100% cotton, technical cotton (mixed cotton blend), ripstop polyester with PU coating

View of the tents at night / Photo: © Malte Metag

CONSTRUCTION COSTS 3,500 Euro / tent. (No construction costs. Including experts for assembly: 3,590 Euro / tent) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 24 m² floor space per unit

Schnackenburgallee, Hamburg: Tents / Photo: © Mari Wahdat

Schnackenburgallee, Hamburg: Interior of tents / Photos: © Mari Wahdat

DESCRIPTION Hamburg‘s social services have developed a new kind of refugee tent: the Domo. Inhabitants can customize it to different climatic conditions onsite and adapt it to their cultural and social needs. In this way, the Domo provides more than merely protection against wind and weather, but provides a real retreat—a temporary home. An emphasis has been laid on creating adequate solutions in the humanitarian context and planning efficiently for emergency aid. The Domo is easy to expand so that it can be adapted to changing needs and challenges. As many Domos as needed can be linked together at the awning via zippers. There are limitless ways to set the tents up; the system can be adapted to any amount of people or any spatial context. Domo is not another tent. It‘s the first mobile “transitional shelter” solution to lastingly improve the living conditions of people driven from their homes by conflict and natural disaster.

Concept drawing of DOMO camps

Instead of constantly buying new tents or replacing them with inflexible, expensive products, it’s easy to expand the Domo system. The individual Domo units can be connected like “building blocks.” (Excerpt from project description)

Schnackenburgallee, Hamburg: Interior of tents / Photo: © Mari Wahdat

Floor plan, elevations, loadbearing structure, and cotton cover

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 01 JUN 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

REFUGEE ACCOMMODATION, SCHWEICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 56 residents RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, Refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: February 2016 Construction time: 12 Weeks COMMISSIONED BY Kreisverwaltung Trier-Saarburg ARCHITECT Cooperation with Lamberty Architekten GmbH, Harald Lamberty

Aerial view / Photo: © Holzbau Henz GmbH

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Holzbau Henz GmbH (general contractor) BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1.350 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 10,5 m²/person GFA 585 m² GFA

Exterior view / Photo: © Holzbau Henz GmbH

Interior view / Photo: © Holzbau Henz GmbH

DESCRIPTION The refugee accommodation was realized in predefined grid sizes with later uses planned in. (Excerpt from project decription)

Bedroom / Photo: ÂŠ Holzbau Henz GmbH

Floor plan, first floor

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 07 JUN 2016

CONVERSION/ COMPLETED

CONVERSION OF A LISTED MASS-WALL BUILDING, BERLIN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 56 residents / 12 rooms RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, Refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: February 2016 Lifespan: 4 years COMMISSIONED BY Salaground Projekt GmbH ARCHITECT dreigegeneinen - architektur | urbane stragegien | gestaltung, Berlin CONSTRUCTION FIRM Drywall+ installation: PSM Bauausführungen GmbH; product design: Maximilian Schmahl and Fabian Schnippering; graphic design: Christine Lange

Canal / Photo: © Nina Röder

BUILDING METHOD Conversion of a listed building CONSTRUCTION COSTS 285 Euro/m² GFA Total costs: 250,000 Euro LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 15.6 m²/person GFA 875 m² GFA; living space: 575 m²

Facade and entrance / Photos: © Nina Röder

Common room / Photo: © Nina Röder

DESCRIPTION The Haus Märkisches Ufer is a privately initiated shelter for lodging refugees. What makes this project unusual is how it uses an existing historical building, as well as its excellent central location in BerlinMitte, directly on the water, with a view of Berlin’s Fernsehturm (TV tower) and the new City Palace. Also unusual is the high degree of creative ambition applied to the project’s interior—above all in the community areas. What has emerged is a place where people can arrive home to children playing in the halls and the smell of good food. Because of the low occupancy, residents can identify with the building, fostering the emergence of a community. We have accompanied the project through all its phases: from the various use studies, the lengthy and protracted approval process in a landmark-protected building, to the execution of the building, all the way to the complete furnishing and installation of amenities. (Excerpt from project decription)

Bedroom and kitchen / Photos: © Nina Röder

kitchen life / Photo: © Nina Röder

Floor plans

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 21 JUN 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

Lewenwerder: entrance / Photo: © Joachim Reinig

Lewenwerder: exterior view / Photo: © Joachim Reinig

Curslack: playground / Photo: © Joachim Reinig

Curslack: exterior view / Photo: © Joachim Reinig

Curslack: building site / Photo: © Joachim Reinig

(Excerpt from project decription) VH oc

1.75

hs pa

5,07 5

Büsche und Sträucher Grundstücksfläche

127,00

18,83 m2

1.80

+ 1.95

Zaun

+ 1. 70 OK

Kies

1.73

2.01

Haus 1

60,40 m2

662504336 0.00 0000

Müllsammelplatz Einhausung Stabgitter h 1.80 berankt

Mastleuchte

+ 1. 75

1.78

B 17 Schließung

662501160 0.00 0000

8,49 5

Gemeinschaftshaus HS

1.81

NR.

1.69

93,45 m2

Mastleuchte

3,00 5

107,23 m2

6 Stpl.

1.79

1.55

1.42

1.33

1.39

= 1.43

6,30 5

Zaun H

5,00

1.33 1.22

1.67 1.55

1.28 1.17 1.26 1.10 1.15 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.07

Sperrrpfosten rot /Weiß

1.68

20,12 m2

1.62

1.33

1.49 500004 1.42 1.54

1.15 1.31 1.43 1.20 1.221.20

662500590 0.00 0000

500005

15,36 5

662501255 0.00 0000

1.44

1.71 1.58

Müllbereitstellung

1.65

1.37 1.48

1.28

90,00°

662501117 662501256 0.00 0.00 0000 0000

1.55

1.54

68,61 m2

+ 1. 28

1.69

1.86

Laubb. Ø 0.08 - 2.0

3,12

Mastleuchte

5 Stpl.

= 1.43

662501141 0.00 0000

1.82 1.92

6,50

82,15 m2

3,50

Zaun h

127,00

1.65 1.68 1.73 1.83 1.75 1.78 1.64 1.74 1.63 1.73 1.74 1.80 1.72 1.62 1.64 1.70

Parkplatz

+ 1. 63 Wabenstein Rasengitter

Bauzaun = Zaun nachFertigstellung insgesamt 330 m ( 1,27 x 36,5)

1.90 1.87 1.84 1.97 1.94 1.92 1.82 2.00 1.92 1.94 1.82 1.96 1.89 1.84 1.84

HS NR.

= 1.43

2,45 m2

2.00

Laubb. Ø 0.10 - 2.5

18,55 m2

lag b 1,5

1,50 31,64 m2

331,44 m2

Spielen > 240 m2

Plattenbe

Aufstellfläche FW Wabengitterstein 107,06 m2

2,99 5

1.90

+ 1. 70 + 1.80

HS NR. 16

im Spielbereich Bodenaustausch prüfen

Gehweg

122,41 m2

Mastleuchte

662504352 0.00 0000

1,55

6,00

1.95

8,445

5,99

Wabengitterstein b 1,5 m Feuerwehrzufahrt Baustrasse b = 6,0 m / befahrbar 12 To

+ 1.71

+ 1. 65

+ 1. 70

HS NR.

130,47 m2

5 5 50 10 20 1,49 1,50

weg

+ 1.73

Zaun H

HS NR.

Mastleuchte

1.92

+ 1.80

18,30 m2

2,23

Schwingtor b= 1.50

5,57 5

1.82

1.67

Haus 2 4.635,50 m2 HS NR.

HS NR.

662501116 0.00 0000

7,20°

1.79

Parkplatz vorhandenFHH

12,12

+ 1.83

Schran ke

36,50

2,53 50 90,00°

1.83

ions

1.97

7,30°

+ 1.85

54,07 m2

mun

172,80°

1.83

1.95

500002 1.53

om mC

1.72

Haus 3

2.07

N ÜN

1.81

1.86

1.97

Kies

662504335 0.00 0000

662501161 0.00 0000

1,48

0m 12.0

14,98

15,18

2,53 50

+ 1.90

18,71 m2

+1,90

1.78

1.62

+ 1.80 + 1.80

2.00PF 1.75

max

Haus 6

1.69

+ 1.75

18,93 m2

Haus 4

18,16 m2

662504333 0.00 0000

Laubb. Ø 0.11 - 2.5 500003

de äu eb -G

Haus 5

+2.00

+1,90

14,98

50 2,45

+ 1.90

1.94

1.81

51,27 m2

1.56

2500214 00 00

+ 1.7 0 OK

1.76

+ 1.85

1.91

Laubb. Ø 0.85 - 16.0

Regenwasser versickerung

12,12

+2.00

Laubb. Ø 0.16 - 4.0

leitu

50 10265

12,18

662500215 0.00 0000

1.81

41,42 5

10 50 2,235 20

2,24

+1,80 OK Kies

9,89

2,50 50

+1,80 OK Kies

+ 1.90 OK Kies

1.68

662501203 0.00

Leitungsgräben 0000 Abstand Leitungsgraben -fester Zaun, mind. 1,0 m Abstand Leitungsgraben zur Sohlplatte , mind. 2,0 m

1.63 12,12

+ 1.90 OK Kies

Nordgrenze Baufeld fester Zaun, h = 1,43

662504365 0.00 0000

12,12

662504334 0.00 0000

12,12

10 50 2,245 27

HGF AKF

1.29

Laubb. Ø 0.40 - 8.0

662501206 0.00 0000

90,00°

Regenwasser versickerung 662500216 0.00 0000

662501207 0.00 0000

K 110

1.83

Baugrenze

1.97 1.96

Baufeld

2.51

662501208 0.00 0000

1.69

Laubb. Ø 1.00 - 20.0 1.36

1.26

2.44

662501209 0.00 0000

Leitungsgräben Abstand Leitungsgraben -fester Zaun, mind. 1,0 m Abstand Leitungsgraben zur Sohlplatte , mind. 2,0 m

5,07

1.86 1.85

662500218 662500217 0.00 0.00 0000 0000

1.95

leitu

4,92

133,56

662501212 0.00 0000

1.85

1.95

Laubb. Ø 0.60 - 12.0

1.98

1.96Laubb. Ø 0.40 - 8.0

Laubb. Ø 0.22 - 5.0 Laubb. Ø 0.22 - 6.0

ch erei renb efah gG un renz Beg

500001 PF

0.71

1.87

662501213 0.00 0000

1.34

1.23

Laubb. Ø 0.08 - 2.0

1.00

Erdgeschoss

Obergeschoss 57.50/ 59

Lager / Putzmittel 96.20/ 133.5

57.50/ 59

12.12

1.8 m2 WC

2.6 m2 Bad

147.2/ 133.5

15.2 m2 6.8 m2

Gruppenraum 4.5 m2

Ausgussbecken

31.4 m2

4 x WM / Wäschetrockner BA 12 m2 +- 0.00

96.20/ 133.5

1.8 m2 WC

KÜ 7 m2

12 m2

147.2/ 133.5

15.2 m2

12 m2

20 30

15.00

Abst +- 0.00 9.4 m2

3.00

OK G - 0.15

HA Raum 5.2 m2

14.7 m2

26 D P

17 Stg 18/26

1.5 m2 12 m2

96.20/ 133.5

15.2 m2

12 m2

147.2/ 133.5

11.9 m2 Abst 1.4 m2

+- 0.00

6.8 m2 96.20/ 133.5

KÜ 7 m2

Bad 2.6 m2

57.50/ 59

WC 1.8 m2

147.2/ 133.5

KÜ 7 m2

f M

6.8 m2 15.2 m2

c Bad 2.6 m2

57.50/ 59

Site plan Lewenwerder and floor plans modules

WC 1.8 m2

15.2 m2

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 17 SEP 2016

CONVERSION/ COMPLETED

RENOVATION OF A LANDMARK-PROTECTED RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, MUNICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 102 residents / 17 living units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: May 2015 COMMISSIONED BY Regierung von Oberbayern ARCHITECT Team Modal M GmbH: Geschäftsführer Reiner Nowak, March Architekt | BA (Hons) | DipArch | | RIBA; Dipl.-Ing. Architektin Nele Bayer; Dipl.-Ing. Architektur Stephanie Nafziger; Designer Flor Faini CONSTRUCTION FIRM SIGISMUND KOZIURA

Exterior view / Photo: © Christian Krinninger

BUILDING METHOD Renovation of a landmark-protected residential building from ca. 1900 CONSTRUCTION COSTS – LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 18 m²/person GFA

Stairwell / Photo: © Nele Bayer

DESCRIPTION Since 2014, when the building operator, the District Government of Upper Bavaria, decided to increase the number of inhabitants and develop additional living areas, the residential building in Munich Haidhausen has been used as community accommodation to house and support refugees. The residential building is located along the eastern bank of the Isar in the Munich neighborhood of Haidhausen. The area is inhabited by middleclass residents, its population is diverse, and the atmosphere is tolerant. Since the renovation of the landmark-protected corner building from ca. 1900, the neighborhood also now accommodates 102 asylum seekers. To create additional living area, an existing laundromat on the ground floor was converted into a living space. The apartments on the upper floors were partially restructured through minor alterations, which aimed to integrate the inhabitants into the existing structure of the residential building. Thus, instead of dormitory-like structures, there have emerged 17 separate 2â&#x20AC;&#x201C;3-room apartments, each with its own bathroom and kitchen where residents can cook independently. Abiding by the asylumseeker-housing guidelines, which stipulate 7 square meters of living and sleeping space per person, each apartment has a maximum occupancy of six people. The property houses families and individuals of different nationalities.

Floor plan, ground floor

(Excerpt from project description)

Elevation

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

MODULAR BUILDINGS IN WOOD-PANEL CONSTRUCTION, TAUFKIRNUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 224 residents / 28 living units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: : January 2016 Lifespan: 10 years COMMISSIONED BY FEEL HOME GmbH & Co. KG ARCHITECT Concept and project development: ehret + klein GmbH, Dipl.-Ing. Michael Ehret; architect: Sacher GmbH, Dipl.-Ing. Bernd Sacher

settlement / Photo: © FEEL HOME GmbH & Co. KG

CONSTRUCTION FIRM DiamondModule GmbH, Vienna BUILDING METHOD Timber frame CONSTRUCTION COSTS – LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 7 m²/person GFA GRÖSSE UND BELEGUNGSART DER WOHNUNGEN 65 m² pro Wohneinheit; 8 Personen je Wohneinheit; 2 separate Schlafzimmer und Bäder.

Duplex / Photo: © FEEL HOME GmbH & Co. KG

DESCRIPTION The guiding principle of the FEEL HOME housing concept is the following: to effortlessly integrate architecturally ambitious temporary and masonry structures into existing residential developments, in order to provide accommodation for asylum seekers in a timely and humanitarian way that speaks to the existing population. Taufkirchen is one of 11 projects that have been planned or realized in the administrative district of Munich. The “asylum village” is connected to a residential development along the S-Bahn to Munich, and is located next to a secondary school and daycare center, just 5 minutes from a shopping center at the station. (Excerpt from project decription) Floor plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23 FEB 2016

CONVERSION / COMPLETED

HARZER STRASSE, BERLIN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 600 residents (including 220 children) / 8 buildings, 137 apartments RESIDENTS EU citizens (Sinti and Roma people) DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: September 2012 COMMISSIONED BY Aachener Siedlungs- und Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH (SWG) ARCHITECT Benjamin Marx, Berlin View of the exterior / Photo: © Aachener Siedlungs- und Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, Cologne

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Local contractor with the help of residents with a trade license BUILDING METHOD Building renovation CONSTRUCTION COSTS N/A Rent: 4.50 – 7.80 €/m² LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 12 m²/person Building after renovation work / Photo: © Christian T. Joergensen

Interior view / © Aachener Siedlungs- und Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, Cologne

DESCRIPTION Aachener SWG began renovating the buildings in September 2011. This necessitated disposing of 150 cubic meters of trash and installing large-scale recycling containers. Marx [the architect] dismantled the “mattress camp” and examined rental contracts to figure out whether those paying rent truly lived in the buildings, or were only extorting the residents in exchange for a mattress. This put an end toThe goal was to stop the exploitation. Because not only had the property fallen into deep neglect, but a kind of legal vacuum prevailed there, which apparently the district of Neukölln had no means to counter. Only after this initial process could the process of renovating the eight houses to structural and energy-efficiency standards begin. Paco Höller, together with ten of his students, painted the courtyard. After nearly twelve months of work, the renovation of the building complex was finished in summer 2012 and the buildings were given a white plaster coat. The facades and roofs were insulated, new bathrooms and windows were installed, stairwells were renovated, and the piping and heating was replaced. The pathways are now paved and lead into a courtyard that resembles a small park, filled with flowerbeds and junipers. 600 people (220 of whom are children) now live in 137 apartments between 30 and 140 square meters large. Apartments that become unoccupied are sold on the open market. New leases to non-Roma residents are currently given priority, in order to ensure an ethnic and social mix that will finally clear the buildings of their “ghetto” reputation.

Interior courtyard / Photo: © Theo Schneider

(Excerpt from project description)

Residents / Photo: © Theo Schneider

Courtyard prior to renovation / Photo: © Aachener Siedlungs- und Wohnungsgesellschaft mbH, Cologne

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 10 MAY 2016

CONVERSION / COMPLETED

YOUNG REFUGEE CENTRE, MUNICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 150 resitents / 1 building RESIDENTS Unaccompanied minor asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN April 2016 COMMISSIONED BY Municipal Government, State Capital of Munich ARCHITECT Modal M, Munich CONSTRUCTION FIRM Jaeger Ausbau, Heinemann Elektro, Otto Hermann HLSK BUILDING METHOD Conversion of an existing office building CONSTRUCTION COSTS approx. 2,900,000 Euro gross LIVING SPACE PER PERSON approx. 4–6 m²/person

Exterior view / Photo: © Martin Mai

Corridor and stairway / Photo: © Martin Mai

DESCRIPTION In 2015, 150,000 refugees arrived in Munich, and around 5,000 of these were unaccompanied minors. A vacant office building near Munichâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s central station offered the ideal conditions for the establishment of an arrival center for minors, the Young Refugee Center (YRC). For instance, the building features two entrances and two gates. Here, the youths will be fed, registered, and medically examined before they are brought to the appropriate facilities. The YRC will be operated by the City of Munich in collaboration with private sponsors. The office Modal M is planning the conversion. The main focus was to install a new fire alarm and water fire-extinguisher system, new bathrooms, as well as an orientation system in the seven-story building. To help residents find their way, the corridor sections on each floor are painted in different colors, and symbols that are understandable for all cultures designate the different rooms. The interior courtyard features benches, table tennis, and an herbal and berry garden for recreation. (Excerpt from project description)

Exterior view / Photo: ÂŠ Martin Mai

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 03 MAY 2016

CONVERSION+NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

EUROPADORF, AUGSBURG-HOCHZOLL NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS New building: 48 residents / 16 units Existing buildings: Originally 110 residents, now approx. 80 residents / 20 residential units RESIDENTS In the late 1950s, the building provided housing for displaced persons (former forced laborers who could not return to their homelands because they might be accused of collaborating). After this, it also housed “boat people,” Russian Jews, refugee families, and individual asylum seekers. DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Completion of new buildings: 2002; Modernization of the existing buildings: 2003 Lifespan: Unlimited COMMISSIONED BY Tür-anTür e.V. Augsburg

Europadorf / Photo: © Thomas Körner-Wilsdorf

ARCHITECT Architektengemeinschaft Gilg-Peer-Wolff, Weißbrod, Augsburg CONSTRUCTION FIRM Fa. Ruisinger, Baar BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall masonry construction: Ceiling of reinforced concrete, brick walls; South-facing facades: timberframe construction with facade panels CONSTRUCTION COSTS New buildings: 1,340 Euro/m² GFA (construction and technical facilities); Total costs: 1,164,700 Euro gross Modernization of existing buildings: 1,505 Euro/m² GFA (construction and technical facilities); Total costs: 766,600 Euro gross

LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 20,5 m²/person Total living space: approx. 982 m²

South side Building: Floor plan, ground floor

DESCRIPTION In 1999, the organization “Tür an Tür” took over “Europadorf,” which had been built in the late 1950s to house former forced laborers and displaced persons and consisted of 20 apartments. The organization added 16 apartments in 2002. The “Europadorf” is the only one of originally 7 estates that is still being used according to the intentions of the founder, Belgian Dominican priest Dominique Pire. To this day, the estate houses former “boat people,” refugee families, individual asylum seekers, Russian Jews, as well as Turkish and Kurdish refugees, and it is operated by the non-profit “Tür an Tür—miteinander wohnen und leben GmbH.” The new structures close off two lengths of the square plot along the road, but are situated behind the building lines of the old buildings. The courtyard is almost closed off; however, the corners remain open. The north-facing exterior corridors that access each apartment enable every apartment to have a front door as well as a reception area. The materials here are left rough—concrete, galvanized steel, and untreated larch. The common areas are south-facing and aligned one after another in a row. They do not have balconies, so that the new buildings aren’t seen as more desirable than the old buildings and to underline the importance of the green space.

(Excerpt from project description)

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 10 MAY 2016

CONVERSION / COMPLETED

CONVERSION OF A LANDMARK-PROTECTED BUILDING, MUNICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 9 residents / 2 units RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completiob: April 2016 Lifespan: estimated 5 years COMMISSIONED BY State Capital of Munich, Markthallen Munich ARCHITECT Andreas Holzapfel uns Architekt, Munich CONSTRUCTION FIRM Diverse group of contractors (contracted individually), including the construction firm Wildgruber BUILDING METHOD Conversion of a listed building

CONSTRUCTION COSTS – LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 33 m²/person

DESCRIPTION The landmark-protected building on Thalkirchnerstrasse 112 dates back to 1904 and was planned as a railway gatekeeper’s building for the municipal slaughterhouse and stockyard. The building originally contained living and sleeping quarters for workers and train conductors on the ground floor and apartments upstairs. As part of the current construction project, 2 apartments have been combined into a single large unit. Together with another apartment, the entire first upper floor of the building is now available to house refugees. The expansion was carried out to a simple standard, without incurring heavy costs. The main considerations were meeting standards for preventive fire protection and landmark preservation. (Excerpt from project description)

Installationswand

Zimmer 1 14,86 qm

Zimmer 2 15,02 qm

Küche 10,71 qm

Bad 7.21 qm

Zimmer 3 11,73 qm

Essen/Aufenthalt 13,15 qm

Ausbau historusche Tür, Bestand, Wiedereinbau als Zimmertür

Tür neu

Flur 1 7,64 qm

Bad 10,54 qm

Bestehende Flurtür wiedereinbauen

Zimmer 3 10,00 qm

Flur 2 19,80 qm Tür neu

Flur 1 10,87 qm

Tür neu

Flur 2 5,67 qm

Zimmer 4 14,35 qm

TRB Wand, neu

Essen 14,87 qm Küche 11,82 qm Zimmer 5 13,05 qm

Zimmer 6 14,71 qm

Zimmer 1 13,40 qm

Zimmer 2 18,91 qm

Floor plan, second floor

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

CONVERSION / COMPLETED

RENOVATION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING FOR REFUGEES, SOLINGEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 11 apartments RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status Long-term family residence, not intended for individuals DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: Early 2016 COMMISSIONED BY Private benefactor from Solingen ARCHITECT Ladleif Architekten BDA, Kassel CONSTRUCTION FIRM Building shell: Bauunternehmen Schwarting Roofing: Wadenpohl Locksmith: Heinhaus Exterior view/ Photo: © Lucius Ladleif

BUILDING METHOD Old building renovation CONSTRUCTION COSTS 641 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 12 / 15 m²

Floor plan: Basement and ground level

Floor plan: First floor and second floor

DESCRIPTION Renovation of a multifamily building into living space for refugees, including a vacant restaurant space on ground floor. A new throughway is being built down the middle of the ground floor to enable better access to basement and waste disposal area; also usable as a fire-escape route. Total renovation: new building facilities, new windows, roof renovation, new interior, new heating and electricity. (Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan: third floor and fourth floor

Section and south elevation

West elevation

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 01 MAR 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

CONCRETE SHELTERS, AHRWEILER NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 300 residents / 30 double modules (4 residents / module unit) RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN January 2016 Subsequent use possible COMMISSIONED BY State of Rheinland-Palatinate ARCHITECT Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Peter Görgen, Hachmeister CONSTRUCTION FIRM End-to-end design/build: Hachmeister, Andernach Aerial image / Photo: © OPTERRA / Sven-Erik Tornow

BUILDING METHOD Modular prefabricated elements: Concrete (slab assembly) CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx. 1,000 Euro/m² UFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 3.5 m² in accordance with “Sphere Handbook” (Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response)

DESCRIPTION The plans for 15-square-meter living containers made of prefabricated concrete components was were first developed for use abroad. With the addition of the necessary insulation and heating, they can now be used in Germany. Thanks to the concrete, the buildings can be placed close to each other without incurring fire-safety concerns. The concrete’s high heat retention and the added thermal insulation means that an infrared heating element on the ceiling entirely suffices for temperature control. The ten-centimeter concrete elements can also be cast without reinforcement on a concrete slab with two-by-fours to serve as partitioning. Therefore, the shelter can also be produced onsite in crisis areas and developing nations. One building weighs a total of 22 tons and consists of six individual concrete elements, which can be offloaded from a truck with a car crane.

6–8 people can reside in a finished living container. (Excerpt from project description)

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

REFUGEE RESIDENCES REUTLINGEN, KÜRNBACH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Storlachstraße: 162 people / 2 building structures, 28 living units Kürnbach: 66 people / 4 building structures, 12 living units

,,,

, ,, ,,,

, ,

,,,

,, ,

, ,

,, ,,

,,,

DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: Storlachstraße: September 2016 Kürnbach: December 2016 Unlimited usage Can be converted to rental apartments

,, , ,,,

RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status or “ttolerated status”

, ,, ,,, ,

, ,,

, ,

, ,, ,,,

Schematic diagram

COMMISSIONED BY Reutlingen: GWG Wohnungsgesellschaft Reutlingen mbH Kürnbach: Landratsamt Karlsruhe ARCHITECT PWS Architekten GmbH, Pforzheim, Berlin CONSTRUCTION FIRM Reutlingen: Holzbau Büker GmbH, Eichstetten BUILDING METHOD Timber-frame construction Kürnbach: Mass-wall construction, cast with Gisoton

Exterior view, rendering

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Reutlingen Storlachstraße: 1,632 Euro/m² GFA (total costs: 5.363.000 Euro) Kürnbach: 1,725 Euro/m² GFA (total costs: 2,950,000 Euro) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 19.30 m² GFA/person Module for use-neutral space: minimum 14 m².

Exterior view, rendering

Section

DESCRIPTION The design was developed with a particular focus on flexibility of use. The question was: how can the building react in the future to an ever-changing number of refugees seeking help? The idea of building a temporary building, to be deconstructed when demand tapers off, was quickly ruled out. Neighbors and users donâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t tend to welcome the classic, temporary container solution. This design solves that problem through its ability to be reused as normal rental apartments. Planning for the long-term and deciding to take priority-housing standards into account enabled the designers to achieve a high level of quality for the refugee apartments without being fiscally irresponsible. The exterior stairwells are connected to terraces offering direct access to the living units. The building structure can be realized in varying lengths, finished with head-end structures, positioned in groups, or made to stand alone. (Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, ground level, second floor, third floor

Site plan: Storlachstrasse, Reutlingen / Sternenfelser Strasse KĂźrnbach

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS /COMPLETED

CUBITY_ENERGY PLUS AND MODULAR FUTURE STUDENT LIVING, FRANKFURT / MAIN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 12 residents, 12 modular units RESIDENTS The aim is a mixed population of local and refugee students supported by social programs. DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: November 2016 Lifespan: 3 years COMMISSIONED BY A research project at TU Darmstadt funded by the Hessian Ministry of Economics, Energy, Transport, and Regional Development and the Hessian Ministry for Higher Education, Research, and the Arts ARCHITECT TU Darmstadt, Department of Architecture, Prof. Anett-Maud Joppien, Prof. Manfred Hegger, and 45 students

CONSTRUCTION FIRM DFH Deutsche Fertighaus Holding AG, Forschungsund Materialpartner BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction: Timber-frame construction (main hall) – Wooden wall panels (Cubes) CONSTRUCTION COSTS Prototype approx. 1,200 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 7.5 m² individually, 25 m² communal area per person

DESCRIPTION Cubity was developed by students at the TU Darmstadt as an out-of-competition entry for the Solar Decathlon 2014 in Versailles as a student dormitory. The individual areas have since been optimized and the main space includes the common areas: the private 7.5-square-meter “cubes” consist of a bed, desk, shower, and toilet, and are grouped around a 16 x 16 m public space made up of a “market place” and a kitchen. The spaces in between the buildings form semi-public areas. Cubity is currently being built in Frankfurt where its social and environmental aspects will be studied for a three-year period. The places will be allocated by the Studentenwerk Frankfurt, and 3 cubes are reserved for refugee students. (Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan

Section

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

SHARED REFUGEE ACCOMODATIONS, SCHWÄBISCH GMÜND NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 164 residents / 5 buildings RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: Early 2016 Subsequent use possible as student dormitory COMMISSIONED BY Ostalbkreis represented by Mr. Landrat Pavel, Aalen ARCHITECT architektur:labor martin hoiker, Schwäbisch Gmünd; Cooperation with: Dipl. Ing. Juanita Cardenas, Dipl. Designerin Anke Fischer CONSTRUCTION FIRM Shell: Traub GmbH & Co. KG, Aalen; timber: Holzbau Rieg, Schwäbisch Gmünd

BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction on reinforced concrete base plate CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx 1,365 Euro/m² GFA (building and engineering costs) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 7 m²

DESCRIPTION With the construction of the new shared refugee accommodations in SchwĂ¤bisch GmĂźnd, the district of Ostalbkreis will create a replacement for the existing shelter in a former barracks building. In the new structure, the unusual life situations of the affected people as well as the urban-planning concerns have been taken specifically into account. An architectural competition held for the site awarded first prize to this design. The complex consists of four identical two-story accommodation houses and a single-story communal building. This functions as an entrance hall as well as common area. The new shared accommodations are grouped around a communal courtyard. The new buildings will accommodate 164 refugees, community and recreation rooms, as well as office space for the maintenance and administration of the facility. The windows, window glazing, and external components meet the minimum requirements of the current Energy Saving Ordinance (EnEV). (Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, ground floor

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / COMPLETED

MASONRY REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECT, HANOVER NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 59 residents / 13 residential groups RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN April 2016 COMMISSIONED BY GBH Gesellschaft für Bauen und Wohnen Hanover GmbH ARCHITECT KSW Architekten + Stadtplaner GmbH, Hanover CONSTRUCTION FIRM W. Wallbrecht GmbH & Co. KG, Hanover BUILDING METHOD mass-wall construction: Poroton masonry, reinforced concrete

CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,450 Euro/m² LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 18 m² GFA: 2.168 m², UFA: 1.895 m²

DESCRIPTION Based on the urban planning competition entry by KSW Architekten, a new urban quarter is being developed in stages on the site of a former freight yard. And, in the middle of this district, a refugee housing project was recently built: a four-story white building with single-pitch roof elements, with 4 units to a floor. The building’s residential units each house 4 to 5 people, and it also features care facilities and a commercial unit on the ground floor. In the long-term, the units will be converted to rental apartments with 6 apartments on each floor. The external fire escapes that were initially required will be removed. In this way, the structural interferences will be reduced to a minimum. All floors are barrier-free, and can each accommodate one apartment suitable for disabled persons. (Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, ground floor

Floor plan, levels 2–4

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM â&#x20AC;&#x201D; CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 06 DEC 2016

CONVERSION / COMPLETED

CONTAINER RENOVATION FOR REFUGEES, WEITERSTADT

NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 46 residents / 22 modular units

-" ' ." ' .2 .

RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN April 2016, The project was finished according to plan, but is not being used.

Scheme

COMMISSIONED BY Eduard Schuster, Eduard Reinhardt ARCHITECT SWAB Architekten, Frankfurt am Main CONSTRUCTION FIRM Awarded individually BUILDING METHOD Container renovation CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total: 540,000 Euro

Design concept

LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 7mÂ²/Person

Design concept: Soccer and gardening

DESCRIPTION The concept was, rather than producing new container modules, the concept was to reuse existing modules and window elements instead. The Pproject is the private initiative of a client who spent time himself, as a German ethnic repatriate, living in collective housing. (Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, ground level

Floor plan, top floor

Family apartment, interior

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 22 MAR 2016

NEW BUILDING/ COMPLETED

MUNICIPAL CONTAINERS, ZÜRICH (CH) NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 114 Residents / 70 room modules in 12 residential units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN

Concept

Date of completion: December 2015 Lifespan: temporary COMMISSIONED BY Asylum organisation AOZ, Zürich ARCHITECT NRS in situ, Zürich Project architect: Sebastian Güttinger, Pascal Angehrn CONSTRUCTION FIRM JägerPartner AG, Zürich BUILDING METHOD Container CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total costs: 6.300.000 Euro LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 15,5 m² DESCRIPTION

Interim use with containers The Asylum Organisation Zürich (AOZ) already started looking for short-term accommodation for asylum seekers in 2010. In Leutschenbach, to the north of Zürich city centre, they found what they were looking for: the City of Zürich acquired a former beverage depot, the “Heineken site”. Thanks to the intense efforts of all involved, the temporary residential area was planned, approved and built within six months. Beverages continue to be sold in the head-end structure, but the warehouse has been demolished to the foundation and the three levels of containers erected on it. The latter were offset-stacked to create a covered access balcony on each floor. The 70 room modules are grouped into 12 dwelling units. A dwelling unit (124-150 m²) for 8 to 10 persons consists of 4 to 5 residential modules together with a kitchen and bath module.

The two ends of the warehouse remain as covered exterior areas. In one of them is a container that is used as a launderette. Some of the adults perform regular duties on a daily basis. Those who have no job make use of the educational and employment programmes. About 20 children attend kindergarten or the local public school. At the end of the year an extension for 36 persons was completed, but the complex must soon be relocated because a residential area is to take its place. Text: Friederike Meyer / Yvonne Michel from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/artikel/Container-2480270. html

Exterior view / Photo: ÂŠ Martin Zeller

Site plan

Grundriss

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 18 MAR 2016

NEW BUILDING / COMPLETED

ASYLUM SEEKERS CENTRE, TER APEL (NL) NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 2000 residents / 258 modular units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, asylum seekers whose application was rejected DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: November 2015 (1. building phase) Lifespan: 30 Years Scheme: section - Privacy

COMMISSIONED BY Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers in thze Netherlands (COA) ARCHITECT De Zwarte Hond, Gröningen Landscape Architects: Felixx, Rotterdam CONSTRUCTION FIRM BAM Building Contractors BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall construction: brick facades CONSTRUCTION COSTS N/A LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 5 m² (without common spaces) DESCRIPTION

Camp architecture for 30 years

For anyone seeking asylum in the Netherlands there is no avoiding Ter Apel. Refugees with very diverse statuses – ranging from first-time applicants to asylum seekers whose application was rejected in the last instance – are accommodated in the central reception centre at a former NATO military base on the border to Lower Saxony. From Ter Apel the residents are distributed to other quarters. In summer 2014 the Dutch COA (Central Agency for the Reception of Asylum Seekers) launched a competition for the redesign of its “capital city”. It was won by De Zwarte Hond Architects together with BAM Building Contractors. The existing centre is to be extended and newly structured on a site of almost ten hectares by 2017. The first phase was completed in November. Plans call for 2,000 asylum seekers to be accommodated in 258 residential buildings, in addition to offices, a health centre, leisure facilities

and a school. The agency had originally proposed eight enclosed courtyards, a cluster formation for social control. The architects reacted to this requirement with Dutch pragmatism and a high degree of sensitivity to the needs of the residents: they opened the courtyards to a central green zone in which all service facilities were accommodated in pavilions. The courtyards were reduced from 50 to 30 metres in width, a size the architects knew from other projects to be ideal for neighbourhood contacts. In order to promote communication, launderettes and kiosks at which the residents can collect utensils such as towels and toothbrushes are located at the boundary between the courtyards and common open space. “We drew an analogy to a camping site,” says project manager Martine Drijftholt. The message: if you have to spend the whole day waiting, why not make it as pleasant as possible?

Floor plane

The human scale was introduced to the mass accommodation in city planning terms right down to the last detail: 250 people now live around a courtyard; 16 inhabitants share a house, eight per unit. Instead of the access walkways so typical of container architecture, the architects implemented the Dutch layout principle of a double front door with a steep stairway upwards. In compliance with requirements, the single rooms are very small, with a floor space of only five square metres and a width of 1.80 metres. Wide hallways were favoured over common rooms next to the kitchen. Experience has shown that residents prefer to retire or go out into the open. The architecture ensures a minimum of privacy within a confined space. The asylum centre has been designated as a camp for the next thirty years. At the tender stage the building contractors had to commit themselves as operators of the site, a special circumstance that had a positive effect on the selection of materials and construction standard: durable brick façades in various designs, a zero energy house standard with solar panels and efficient thermal insulation. The isolated location outside the village of Ter Apel is hardly conducive to subsequent uses, nor are such uses intended. According to the architects, other refugee centres with more rural house typologies are considered by many to look more like holiday camps, and that is not politically viable in the Netherlands.

Scheme: program and neighborhood

Text: Doris Kleilein from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/themen/bauten/Lagerarchitektur-fuer-30-Jahre-2480342.html

Scheme project

bird‘s-eye perspective terrain

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / UNDER CONSTRUCTION

CENTRAL ACCOMMODATION FACILITY, NEUSS NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Approx. 1,000 residents / 8 connected, 3-story living modules (each houses around 125 residents) and a central facilities building RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, and refugees with recognized refugee status seeking apartments N

Plangebiet

DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: January 2017 Scheduled Lifespan: 25 years Mass-wall buildings can be used afterward

Quartiersanalyse – Verortung Distanzen

COMMISSIONED BY Neusser Bauverein AG, City of Neuss, State of NRW – District Government of Düsseldorf ARCHITECT Schmale Architekten GmbH, Grevenbroich / Markus Schmale, Dipl.-Ing. Architekt BDA Project team: Michael Müller, Dipl.-Ing. (FH) Architekt, Oliver Breithor, Dipl.-Ing. Architekt, Manuela Rath, Dipl. Ing. (FH) Architektin, Paul Jarosch, B.Sc. Architektur, Thomas Gilbert, senior site engineer CONSTRUCTION FIRM Diverse group (separate elements commissioned individually) BUILDING METHOD Dining hall, administrative rooms, kitchen, stairwell: Mass-wall construction, concrete Residential buildings: Modular construction, steel frames, insulated steel panels

Facility as a whole

R-WC / DU

WC / DU

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx: 2,286 Euro/m² GFA Total: 32,000,000 Euro (including property costs) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 12 m²/person (including usable space) Total usable floor area approx. 12,000 m² (living areas + subsidiary spaces), 14,000 m² gross floor area

Flexible use of the living space

Design concept

DESCRIPTION Refugees arriving from Central Registration (EAE) stay in the new Central Accommodation Facility (ZUE) and wait to be permanently assigned to another municipality. As a rule, the facility functions like a hotel, accommodating new arrivals for a few days (at most a few weeks), after which they are assigned their own living units. This is the ideal scenario. The functional and architectural ideas behind the structure are founded in this hotel/resort approach, in combination with the state of North RhineWestphalia’‘s space allocation plan. A total of 8 interconnected 3-story living modules are planned, each housing around 125 people. The new accommodations have the character of a small village community.

Design concept

(Excerpt from project description)

Design concept

Stellplätze

Reisebusse

Kopfgebäude mit zentralen

Willkommensplatz

Private Höfe

Zenrale Achse

MZR

Brücken

Private Rückzugsbereiche

Öffentliche Aufenthaltsplätze

Bewegungsfläche

Spielflächen

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 06 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / UNDER CONSTRUCTION

PERMANENT HOUSING FOR REFUGEES, WEDEL NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 30-43 people / 14 apartments RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized status. The goal is to achieve a mixed resident base of local homeless and refugees. DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: December 2016 Lifespan: unlimited COMMISSIONED BY N/A ARCHITECT june architects, architect Merle Zadeh, Stephanie Monteiro Kisslinger, Florian Titz, Carolin Brüggebusch and Sebastian Latzn

Overview

CONSTRUCTION FIRM N/A BUILDING METHOD Modular building method: Timber panel construction, facade: part plaster, part wood cladding CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx. 1,550 Euro/m² UFA total costs: approx. 1,4000,000 Euro net LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 16 m²/person / 906 m² UFA Total: approx. 680 m²

Inner courtyard

Corridor

DESCRIPTION The goal for the project, formulated jointly by the city and June Architects, is to create a building that, on the one hand, is cost- and resource-efficient, while also being durable and top-quality from an architectural perspective. The building complex is well-connected to the urban infrastructure thanks to its central location and will contribute positively to the community. (Excerpt from project description) South elevation

Elektro

WaschmaschinenRaum

Heizungs-Raum

Floor plan, ground floor

UV E/H

UV E/H UV E/H

UV E/H

Floor plan, second floor

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 07 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDING / UNDER CONSTRUCTION

PARKING LOT ANNEX, MUNICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Approx. 129 residents / 100 apartments RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized status , people with low incomes DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: December 2016 Lifespan: unlimited COMMISSIONED BY Gewofag Wohnen GmbH, Munich ARCHITECT Florian Nagler Architekten Gmbh, Munich CONSTRUCTION FIRM B+O Wohnungswirtschaft GmbH Bayern, Bad Aibling; Huber+Sohn, Bachmehring

Rendering

BUILDING METHOD Ground floor: reinforced concrete columns and slabs, upper floors: timber frame, solid wood CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1.805 Euro/m² GFA (KGR 300-400) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 23 m² /person (building and engineering costs) GFA: 4.630 m²

DESCRIPTION The parking lot superstructure at Dantebad was built before this backdrop. Some conditions in its favor were the fact that the property belonged to the state capital of Munich, that the parking places located there werenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t tied up, and that everyone involved wanted to implement the project quickly at a decent quality. The building is a total of five stories tall and over a hundred meters long. The surrounding residential buildings (in the area of Borstei) also feature very heavy volumes. For this reason, the building volume doesnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t just fit in very well from an urban planning perspectiveâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;it actually enriches the quarter, leading to an improved use of the available free space. In order to retain most of the existing parking spots, first a reinforced-concrete construction of columns and slabs was built. Over this, the actual residential building was constructed as a timber-frame structure. The building only touches the ground where the two stairwells are located and at the two head-end structures, where the building services, storage, and trash disposal are housed.

Rendering, bed room

The apartments are connected by corridors that begin at the stairwells. In front of every three apartments, the corridor broadens into a small niche that can be furnished and used as a meeting point for residents. Most apartments are one-room apartments, but two-and-a-half room apartments are also available. Further offerings for residents include a common area, a laundry salon, and a nice rooftop terrace with play areas, lounge decks, and space to grow herbs and vegetables. To match the urban context, the facades have been painted colorfully and fit quite naturally into the surroundings. (Excerpt from project description)

Rendering, roof terrace

site plan and floor plan, first floor

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 07 DEC 2016

CONVERSION / UNDER CONSTRUCTION

Floor plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 06 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / UNDER CONSTRUCTION

CONVERSION OF OFFICE BUILDING INTO PERMANENT APARTMENTS, KORBACH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 30–34 residents RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, Refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: December 2016 Lifespan: unlimited COMMISSIONED BY Werner Grebe, Korbach ARCHITECT Christoph Hesse Architekten, Korbach Rendering

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Batan Bau GmbH, Bad Arolsen BUILDING METHOD Conversion of an existing office building in drywall CONSTRUCTION COSTS 800 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 12.5–15 m²/person GFA

Planning meeting

DESCRIPTION A former office building will be converted into a permanent residence to accommodate refugees, and refugee families in particular. A total of five apartments of differing sizes will be built in order to react flexibly to families’ needs. Because of the building’s self-supporting construction method, all the walls built into the conversion will be drywall. The large glass surfaces will be partially removed to ensure more protection of the private sphere. All necessary infrastructure like power, gas, water, and drainage can be installed without major expense in the existing double-bottom floor of the former open-plan office. The site’s two main elements are the shared interior courtyard and the garden terrace. The idea for the project emerged over the course of multiple discussions with asylum seekers from Syria and Afghanistan, as well as local residents with a migration background. The introverted interior courtyard functions as a semipublic community room for social and intercultural exchange. It can also be used as a retreat space for prayer, or as a protected play area for children. The garden terrace, with raised planters for crops, serves as a productive recreation opportunity for residents. Beyond the social dimension of shared gardening, residents can plant crops for their own personal use. The consulting on cultural uses, technical details, planting and vegetables was provided by Mustafa Aziz, an agricultural engineer from Syria, who fled six months ago with his wife. The team of Mehmet Batan, who came to Germany in the early 1990s as an asylum seeker, is responsible for carrying out the construction of the project. (Excerpt from project description) Rendering

Concept

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 07 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / UNDER CONSTRUCTION

HOUSE FOR LGBTI REFUGEES AND LOCALS, BERLIN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 32 residents / 1 building RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, and refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: January 2018 Lifespan: unlimited COMMISSIONED BY Schwulenberatung Berlin gGmbH

View

ARCHITECT Christoph Wagner Architekten. Collaboration with Wenke Schladitz CONSTRUCTION FIRM – BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS 2,100 Euro/m² (including additional building costs and property) Total costs: 2,480,000 Euro LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 13 m² (excl. common kitchen and -sleeping areas) GFA total building: 1.497 m²

Isometry

DESCRIPTION A house that houses LGBTI (lesbian / gay / bisexual / transgender / intersex) refugees and locals, and that integrates different types of housing: 3 shared integration flats for refugees and students, a retirement home for elderly LGBTI people, and 3 maisonettes in the attic. The goal is to have mutual assistance and exchange between the different groups of residents. Flexibility: If necessary, 2 of the shared flats can be combined and turned into a single unit. The shared flats in the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th floor could later be turned into two apartments accessible from the corridors (subsequent use). (Excerpt from project description)

View garden site

View

n ung Altbaute Wohnbebau ofstrass Neue Bahnh

Ba hnd am m

Bird`s-eye view

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 17 DEZ 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / PLANNING STAGE

“A HOME—FOR REFUGEES TOO,” ORANIENBURG NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Approx. 50 residents / 22 apartments RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status The goal is to achieve a socially cared, mixed resident base of locals and refugees DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: November 2017 COMMISSIONED BY Wohnungsbaugesellschaft Oranienburg ARCHITECT BBP (Oliver Langhammer), Berlin Andreas Brümmel, Brummell Landschaftsarchitekten International CONSTRUCTION FIRM N/A

Overall view

BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall construction: Exposed brick masonry CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,858 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 18.5 m²/person 925 m² of rental space (including common areas) for approx. 50 people

Entry side elevation

Garden side elevation

DESCRIPTION The following considerations served to frame the development of this structure: selecting a centrally located construction site; enabling floor plans to be calibrated flexibly to adapt to the needs of singles, families, or groups; creating spaces for group activity, education, and consulting. The effort to create a balanced mix of renters, composed of both refugees and locals, will be overseen by social workers and aims to increase the degree that residents identify with the building and the siteâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and thereby build a lasting community among residents. The building and outdoor space are conceived to offer a range of private and public spheres. A clearly articulated and distinctive stairway, a bright corridor, and clearly defined exterior spaces (featuring solid, low-slung walls and ledges for seating) promote informal communication and group activities outside the apartments.

Floor plan, ground floor

(Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, firstâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;third floor

Lageplan

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 06 DEC 2016

CONVERSION / NOT REALIZED

OFFICE BUILDING CONVERSION INTO APARTMENTS FOR REFUGEES, MUNICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 245 residents (planned) / 77 apartments RESIDENTS Originally planned: Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized refugee status and people in need of accommodation. The project will only be implemented for people in need of housing. DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Lifespan: approx. 15 years COMMISSIONED BY State Capital of Munich, Municipal Department, Buildings and Construction Department (Project Management) ARCHITECT Hess / Talhof / Kusmierz Architekten und Stadtplaner BDA Exterior view / Photo: © Johannes Talhof

CONSTRUCTION FIRM – BUILDING METHOD Conversion of an existing office building CONSTRUCTION COSTS – LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 10–12 m²

Isometriy

DESCRIPTION An 8-story office building in Munich is being converted into a residential building to receive refugees. The building’s ground floor will be used as a common area with lounges, meeting rooms, and an administrative area. The structure of the upper floors enables the floor space to be divided into individual apartments with private kitchens and sanitary areas. This ensures private and individual living and therefore decent accommodations for the residents. The mix of different types of apartments within the building— from mini-apartments to family homes and larger shared apartments—produces a variety of living situations, making the building responsive to the different needs of the residents. A sustainable, flexible, and continuously evolving residential use of the building is possible; it can also serve as an integration home by being mixed with social or student housing.

Floor plan, ground level

(Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, regular level

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 17 SEP 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / PLANNING STAGE

STADTBAUKASTEN, KRONBERG NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 8r residents / 46 modules RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: June 2017 Subsequent use for up to 50 residents COMMISSIONED BY City of Kronberg ARCHITECT florian krieger architektur und städtebau gmbh, Darmstadt CONSTRUCTION FIRM N/A Sketch and schematic diagram, planning stage “StadtBauKasten”

BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx: 1,290 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 13 m²/person (subsequent use: 21 m²/person)

Axonometry site plan qartiers “StadtBauKasten“

Illustration of “StadtBauKasten”

DESCRIPTION The “StadtBauKasten” can reflect the needs of a wide variety of residential types—from 1-room apartments (e.g., for students or refugees) up to 5-room family apartments and shared apartments for refugees or seniors. The structures are pre-planned to be transitioned, at a later date, from compact refugee apartments into apartments that meet social housing standards. The apartments are grouped together in compact structures; multiple buildings are connected via shared corridors and grouped into ring-shaped or linear ensembles. (Excerpt from project description) Illustration of “StadtBauKasten”

Schematic diagram: Conversion and mixed use

Project Grüner Weg Kronberg: Elevations and site plan

Project Grüner Weg Kronberg: Floor plan, ground level

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 07 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / PLANNING STAGE

REFUGEE HOUSING WITH SUBSEQUENT USE, BREMEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 344 residents / 2 Buildings RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: June 2017 Lifespan: 5 Years Subsequent use possible (dauerhafter Wohnungsbau) COMMISSIONED BY Bremen Senator for Social Affairs, Children, Adolescents, and Women ARCHITECT Feldschnieders + Kister Architekten BDA CONSTRUCTION FIRM Ed. Züblin AG

Rendering exterior view

BUILDING METHOD Timber frame CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total costs: 9,000,000 Euro gross (building and engineering costs) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 10 m²

Rendering interior courtyard

DESCRIPTION The measure called for the construction of a permanent housing facility with plain apartments, to be used by refugees for a limited period of five years. As part of our preliminary assessment, we explored the location, the task, and the unique qualities needed from the building, and developed an analysis of the environment and the requirements. The study concluded that the favored building form would be permanent housing, made of two large timber-frame courtyard buildings. The facility is conceived as a structured site, integrated into the environment via a carefully designed outdoor area. To comply with the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s standards, the facility is divided into two main buildings. The two individual buildings are each conceived as courtyard buildings with interior circulation. Apartments are accessed on the upper floors by a continuous corridor connected to the ground level via two double-lane staircases. The residential buildings each open to the square on one side. (Excerpt from project description)

Site plan

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 07 MAR 2016

NEW BUILDING / PLANNING STAGE

PALOTTI HOUSE, STUTTGART NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 42 residents / 3 residential groups RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized refugee status The housing will strive to accommodate a mixed resident base of students and refugees DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Start of construction: Summer 2017 Date of completion: December 2020 COMMISSIONED BY Siedlungswerk GmbH, Stuttgart, Wohnungs- und Städtebau, Stuttgart Rendering

ARCHITECT Schwarz.Jacobi, Stuttgart CONSTRUCTION FIRM – BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS – LIVING SPACE PER PERSON approx. 10 m²/person

Siteplan and floor plan, ground level

DESCRIPTION Post migrant city development In the accommodation of refugees the City of Stuttgart is pursuing a concept it calls the “Stuttgart way”. This involves decentralised placement in the urban districts: never more than 250 people at one location, care by independent organisations, one care person for 68 residents, help by volunteers. At the end of November 6,231 refugees were living in 94 shelters in 21 Stuttgart districts.

The idea of accommodating asylum seekers in individual residential areas is also being pursued by the Siedlungswerk, a housing association with an ecclesiastical background that constructs 400 to 500 dwelling units per year in Baden-Württemberg. By its own account, for many years the Siedlungswerk, whose principal owners are the Diocese of RottenburgStuttgart and the Landesbank Baden-Württemberg, has been developing residential projects in which all segments of society and all age groups find a home. In Stuttgart-Birkach, where the disused church of St Vinzenz Pallotti from the 1960s is located, a mixed residential neighbourhood is planned with living space for asylum seekers and refugees with the right of abode. In all eight buildings are to be erected on a 8,500 m2 site: six with a total of 64 condominiums, a three-storey structure for an extended day-care centre and the so-called Palotti House with accommodation for 60 asylum seekers, refugees and students. Schwarz.Jacobi Architects won the competition in July with the proposal to give the Pallotti House the same architectural treatment as the other buildings, both with respect to the façade design and its urban location – on equal terms on the main thoroughfare through the neighbourhood. The building was designed as a house, not a hostel. A total of 74 people can live in group accommodation (1st to 3rd floor) and subsidized housing (4th and top floor). Should the demand for housing for asylum seekers slacken in a few years, the units can be converted to one unit for fewer residents. The purpose of the Pallotti House is to promote or assume the social function in the neighbourhood. A common room on the ground floor which can also be used for children’s parties and similar is proposed for the purpose. Parallel to this, the Siedlungswerk is developing a further housing area for about 800 residents in Neuhausen auf den Fildern. In addition to plots for private homes and row houses and 155 condominium apartments, “Wohnen an den Akademiegärten” will also include 35 rental apartments, supplemented by residential group models and an integrative residential models for refugees with a meeting room for whole neighbourhood.

Ground level second, third and upper level

Text: Friederike Meyer, aus: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/artikel/PostmigrantischeStadtentwicklung-2480425.html

Elevations

100

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 07 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / PLANNING STAGE

SHARED ACCOMMODATION FOR REFUGEES, ESSLINGEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS approx. 200 people / 10 buildings RESIDENTS Asylum seekers

HAUPTEINGANG

Ausgang Sport + Freizeit

gemeinsamer Innenhof

DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Scheduled completion:April 2017 Lifespan: approx. 5 years COMMISSIONED BY District of Esslingen ARCHITECT Reichel Schlaier Architekten (LPH 1–9), City of Stuttgart in cooperation with District of Esslingen CONSTRUCTION FIRM N/A BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall construction: Timber construction in block form

Schematic view

CONSTRUCTION COSTS N/A LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 7 m²/person Total GFA: 4,053 m² (including GIA: 10,570 m³)

Sie wird farbig hervorgehoben und bildet gleichzeitig identitätsstiftende Adresse und kommunikative Gemeinschaftsfläche. Es entstehen insgesamt 6 Häuser.

MATERIALIEN

Concept and floor plan, smallest unit

101

DESCRIPTION In densely populated areas like the District of Esslingen near Stuttgart, not only is the cost of developable property and empty buildings very highâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;they are practically impossible to find. This makes it very difficult for builders to find adequate housing space for the enormous number of refugees. In general, authorities are hoping to foster immigration through innercity density and the construction of smaller units; this is being carried out on a large scale. But larger new building projects, like this shared accommodation for around 300 people, complement this objective.

Section

The YMCA has made a sports field available to the City of Essligen as a building site. It lies in a popular location within Esslingen, halfway up a hill with a view over the city. It also borders a suburban area and is situated near the Schurwald recreation area with a variety of sports facilities. The smallest unit is a living unit with a kitchen and bathroom that fits a maximum of 12 people. Apartments are each accessed by an egress connecting two units. The egresses are colorfully highlighted, serving simultaneously as an identification site and a shared communicative space. 6 buildings are under construction. (Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, ground floor

Floor plan, second floor

102

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 10 MAY 2016

CONVERSION / PLANNING STAGE

REFUGEE HOUSING, BAD KROZINGEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 80–160 residents / 20 units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, Refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: January 2017 Construction time: 5–7 months Lifespan: 20 Years. Subsequent use possible COMMISSIONED BY Bauherren GU Lamb GbR for Mieter Landratsamt Breisgau Hochschwarzwald

Rendering

ARCHITECT Zimmerei/Holzbau Lamb CONSTRUCTION FIRM Zimmerei/Holzbau Lamb 7HUUDVVH

BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall construction: solid wood panels

+DXVPHLVWHU

6FKXOXQJ

5DXP

6R]LDO

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx. 1,400 Euro/m²

:DUWHQ

.LQGHUZDJHQ

LIVING SPACE PER PERSON

7HFKQLN

:DVFKN FKH

Based on 4-person occupancy: 16.9 m² GFA; for 8-person occupancy: 8.45 m² GFA

6FKXOXQJ

3DXVHQUDXP

7HUUDVVH

Floor plan, ground floor

2* '*

%DONRQ

$EVWHOOUDXP

/LFKWVFKDFKW

%DONRQ

9RUGDFK

%DONRQ

Floor plan, attic

103

DESCRIPTION Refugee accommodation will soon be ready in Bad Krozingen, south of Freiburg. The 3-story building encompasses 20 living units for 4 to 8 people, accessible via two internal staircases. Each living unit has a 19 m² kitchen and a 6.5 m² balcony. The plans call for living units with 2 and 3 bedrooms. The four living units on the ground floor are barrier-free. The ground floor also features two 47 m² rooms usable as classrooms or multipurpose rooms. Additionally, the ground floor also features a janitor room, two rooms for social workers, a first aid/examination room with a waiting room, one break room for employees, a laundry room, as well as two storage areas that can fit approx. 8 strollers. The 16 living units in the upper floors and attic all feature a second toilet in addition to the bathroom. Each floor and the attic also contains four 8.5 m² storage spaces. TV connections are available in each unit and the building has a wireless internet connection. The fire safety plan has been drawn up and calls for the installation of a fireprotection system.

Elevation

(Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, unit

104

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 07 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDING / PLANNING STAGE

REFUGEE ACCOMMODATION, KÖNGEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 114 residents / 16 apartments BEWOHNER Flüchtlinge mit anerkanntem Status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: 2017 Lifespan: unlimited

Concept

COMMISSIONED BY Köngen council, Esslingen district ARCHITECT Schwarz.Jacobi Arch.BDA, Stuttgart CONSTRUCTION FIRM BUILDING METHOD Concrete frame, wooden facade CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1.726 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 9,8 m² DESCRIPTION The municipality of Köngen (approx. 10,000 residents) has bought its own property to provide refugees with accommodation once granted refugee status. Reserve property makes it possible to create more living space if needed. The apartments are also meant to be usable as social housing. An effort has been made to employ a concept that is long-term and flexible.

Rendering

Siteplan

105

106

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 09 MAR 2016

NEW BUILDING / PLANNING STAGE

TRANSFER HOUSING, VORARLBERG (A) NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 25–60 residents RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized refugee status, locals DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: N/A Lifespan: 5 to 10 Years After 5 to 10 years houses can be used by local municipalities as social housing

COMMISSIONED BY Communal housing associations and cooperatives ARCHITECT Andreas Postner, Konrad Duelli, Hermann Kaufmann Partner: Voralberger Holzbaukunst CONSTRUCTION FIRM Local wood construction companies BUILDING METHOD Raummodule aus Holz CONSTRUCTION COSTS N/A LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 8.97 m² (without common spaces) DESCRIPTION Building as an integration exercise. There are 96 communities in the Austrian state of Vorarlberg. About 4,000 people are in search of housing, and the asylum seekers – in Austria the number is increasing daily – only serve to aggravate the situation. The concept developed by three local architects Andreas Postner, Konrad Duelli and Hermann Kaufmann in cooperation with the Vorarlberg timber construction industry, has an alluring role model effect. They propose houses made of wood: equally suitable for refugees and local residents. The initiators see housing construction not only as the fulfilment of demand, but as a basic integration element. According to their reasoning, the contracts could be distributed among about 60 Vorarlberg timber construction companies. That will strengthen the regional economy and acceptance for the new residents in the population. Designs already exist for building typologies in the country and in the city. In rural areas no more than 25 to 30 persons should live in two two-storey houses. Three-storey houses for 50 and more persons are proposed in denser urban agglomerations. Here again, however, the number of refugees to be integrated in one location should not exceed 30 persons. The majority of apartments will go to Vorarlberg apartment seekers.

Elevations

107

The initiators also recommend laying out gardens which can be tended by the refugees together with the local population, permaculture initiatives and local fruit and gardening associations. Furniture (mainly tables and chairs) originating from local recycling initiatives will be repaired and restored by the residents themselves. With the instrument of the building rights contract, an agreement for a specific term between the developer and property owner, the support of dioceses, parishes, state, municipalities and housing cooperatives has already been won. After five to ten years â&#x20AC;&#x201C; depending on requirements â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the right to use these buildings as social housing for first-time or emergency accommodation reverts to the municipality. After fifty years the property is returned to the original owner. The Bishop of Vorarlberg, Benno Elbs, has already offered to provide suitable land. The State of Vorarlberg is likewise supporting the project with an amendment to the conditions of subsidy. The standards applicable to housing subsidies have already been simplified for the construction of the first 150 dwellings. For the architects this means that they can build to the minimum standards applicable in Austria and, for example, dispense with underground parking. They need provide only minimal parking spaces and erect a kind of shell construction, e.g. with varnished OSB panels and visible installations which the residents can finish themselves. The exchange of skills and related interaction promote integration.

Ground floor variant A and B

The project launch involved serious communication work for the architects, who had to demonstrate solutions and overcome prejudices. But that is precisely what the project is about. Although individual aspects of their proposal have already been practised elsewhere, it is the combination of ideas which are tailored to the special needs of the region that make the idea so convincing and transferable to other locations. Text: Friederike Meyer, from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/artikel/Bauen-als-Integrationsuebung-2480256.html

Ground floor variant C

108

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS —06 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / NOT REALIZED

ARRIVAL SITE, MUNICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 240 people / 4 buildings RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Originally December 2016. The project will not be realized. COMMISSIONED BY Wolfgang Nöth; Department for Housing and Migration, Munich ARCHITECT Kollektiv A (Jonas Altmann, Benedict Esche, Lena Kwasow), Berlin Rendering, back side and garden CONSTRUCTION FIRM

N/A BUILDING METHOD Prefabricated wooden room modules CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total cost: approx. 3,800,000 Euro LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 8,5 m²/person GFA: 2,223 m², usable area: 2,050 m²

Rendering, back side and garden

Rendering new event hall

109

DESCRIPTION Experiment in a mixed-use zone Recognised refugees who are allowed to remain in Germany must often spend a considerable time in community lodgings. The Munich housing market is tense; lack of networks and language skills further impede the search for an apartment. Restaurant owner Wolfgang Nöth, initiator of the club area “Kunstpark Ost”, is planning a “place of arrival” for this group of immigrants in Munich that should offer more than just affordable accommodation. In cooperation with the Department of Housing and Migration he wants to develop the former premises of a timber merchant in the Johanneskirchen district into a colourful quarter with studios, concert hall, workshops, social facilities and living accommodation. The young Berlin architects’ office Collective A has been commissioned with the planning of the 13,000 m² site, located in a mixed-use zone. The planned uses are distributed over four existing buildings which form a courtyard: the 7,000 m² former production hall is to be converted to a venue with a stage, exhibition space, studios and open workshops (Fab Lab). An office building is to accommodate the administration, an advice centre of the Department of Housing and Migration, child care and a language school. Instead of the hall on the south side of the site, the architects have planned a residential building that assumes the cubic volume, foundation slab and 6-metre grid of the existing concrete structure: three floors with serially arranged living units and a common room on the ground floor, generously-sized access balconies to the yard and a vegetable garden on the south side. The 68 m² dwelling units are accessed via the kitchen/living room. In the middle is an internal bath, to the south two rooms intended for double occupancy, so that initially a total of 240 residents can be accommodated. The prefabricated wood modules have a floor area of 6 x 12.5 metres and can also be joined together to form larger units.

Rendering Exterior view

The architects have calculated an investment of € 3.8 million; a second phase with studios and small businesses is envisaged. The Department of Housing and Migration is expected to act as lessee and manager of the residential and administration building for ten years – a time horizon with which many local authorities are currently planning. After this time renewal applications can be submitted, so that private investors may count on amortisation of the construction sum within twenty years. The community of immigrants and creative artists is an experiment of the type one would wish to see more of. In architectural terms the “Place of Arrival” promises to be a neighbourhood that endures longer than ten years. Text: Doris Kleilein Site plan and floor plan

from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/artikel/Experiment-im-Mischgebiet-2480444.html

Materials

110

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM â&#x20AC;&#x201D; CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 23 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / NOT REALIZED

GROUP HOUSING FOR REFUGEES, STEPHANSKIRCHEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 24 residents / 1 building with 4 apartments :RKQHQ

RESIDENTS Asylum seekers

:RKQNÂ FKH

DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Originally May 2016. The project will not be realized.

*DUWHQ

1DFKEDUVFKDIW

COMMISSIONED BY Maria and Rudolf Finsterwalder

+Â WWH

ARCHITECT Finsterwalder Architekten, Stephanskirchen

Concept

CONSTRUCTION FIRM RottmĂźller Systemholz BUILDING METHOD Prefabricated room modules: wood CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,074 Euro net/mÂ˛ GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 15.3â&#x20AC;&#x201C;20.2 mÂ˛ GFA/person

Exterior view, rendering

PPHU JHWUHQQWH :FV HLQ %DG XQG HLQH HQ XQG ,QVWDOODWLRQHQ LQ GHU =LPPHUHL RVWHQ XQG HLQH VHKU NXU]H %DX]HLW

(LQ 3URMHNW YRQ

Model

111

),167(5:$/'(5

"' ' !! %

#$$ ' !! % !

! !

"' ' !! %

#$$ ' !! %

#$$ ' !! % !

# " (

"' ' !! %

# " (

"' ' !! %

#$$ ' !! % !

" "

(LQ 3URMHNW YRQ

Floor plan, ground level

DESCRIPTION The 2-story building is connected via a central staircase. Each unit has individual rooms and a spacious living/dining area as a meeting point. The building features an extra room for meetings, doctorsâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC; appointments, etc. Rooms were prefabricated by the carpenters in complete form, including the windows, doors, and fittings. The high degree of prefabrication ensures low costs and rapid construction time. Excellent insulation (meeting the KFW-70 efficiency standard) leads to low maintenance costs and optimal heating facilities. Meets a high standard of heat insulation, sound insulation, and construction. The recreation space surrounding the building is of central importance. The plans call for a 400â&#x20AC;&#x201C;500 mÂ˛ space featuring a playground and garden. (Excerpt from project description)

!%+ #+!$$ (

& %"-

&'' #+!$$ ( ((

!%+ #+!$$ (

& %"-

( '' *)

& %"-

!%+ #+!$$ (

&'' #+!$$ (

& %"-

!%+ #+!$$ (

&'' #+!$$ (

Section

%&& "- ## ' #

$- "- ## ' #

% " )) % " )) # #

"*' #

%&& "- ## ' #

% $!0 #

$- "- ## ' #

$ ! #

"*' #

(," + ' ' #

% " )) % " )) # #

$- "- ## ' # "*' #

% $!0 #

$- "- ## ' #

%&& "- ## ' #

' # %&& "- ## ' #

()

$ $ $ $ & "&" ) #0( ') $ #0( ') $

)-&" ) '!() )) ''/ ' ) ""&"/)-

Garden facility

112

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 06 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / NOT REALIZED

MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, INDEN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Up to 50 residents / 8 living units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized refugee status DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Originally November 2016, subsequent use possible as vacation flats, student apartments or for employees of nearby research center. The start of construction has been postponed. The building will likely be cancelled. COMMISSIONED BY Municipality of Inden, Aachener Stiftung Kathy Beys, indeland Entwicklungsgesellschaft Rendering, exterior view

ARCHITECT Architektur Hammers, Inden CONSTRUCTION FIRM N/A BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,300 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 15.1 m²/person Rendering, exterior view

Site plan: Structural transformation of the municipality of Inden likely to take place 5 years after completion of building

113

DESCRIPTION The municipality of Inden is a small rural district with around 8,000 residents in the brown-coal fields of the Rheineland. The Inden opencast mine covers nearly two-thirds of the municipalityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s land and is the primary economic force in the region. Beginning in 2030, the Inden mine will be subsequently turned into the Inden lake, which will be nearly the size of the Tegernsee, will be put to new use. Architecturally, the building is meant to conform with the built forms typical of the village. With little conversion or renovation effort, the building can be turned into a family apartment or vacation flat. (Excerpt from project description)

Site plan: Structural transformation of the municipality of Inden likely to take place 25 years after completion of building

Floor plan, ground floor

Floor plan, second floor

114

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 06 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / NOT REALIZED

SHARED ACCOMMODATION, LÖRRACH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 200 people / 18 living units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Originally December 2017. The project will not be realized. COMMISSIONED BY District of Lörrach ARCHITECT Arge: K9 Architekten GmbH and Architekturbüro Herzog GmbH, Freiburg Sketch

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Not yet determined BUILDING METHOD Community building: timber Residential buildings: mass-wall construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,239 Euro/m² GFA (not including Caritas management building) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 18,15 m²/person

Site plan and floor plan, ground floor

South elevation

115

DESCRIPTION The new headquarters of the Caritas Association and as well as its social station will continue to figure prominently, standing in the foreground of the existing roundaboutwith itsand courtyard isare prominently located aton the existing roundabout. In the rear, set a little deeper back, a shared accommodation will be constructed facing the kindergarten. The entrance pavilion with the administration and group rooms is planned as a meeting place and neighborhood center.

West elevation

(Excerpt from project description)

Section elevation, west

Floor plan, 4-family apartment

facade section with partial elevation of a residence building

116

NEW BUILDINGS / SPECIAL PROJECT

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS —23 FEB 2016

BICYCLE WORKSHOP FOR ASYLUM SEEKERS, KARLSRUHE NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 1 Modul

Phase 0 + 1 Entwurf und Baugenehmigung Auﬂager

USERS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized status, all citizens of Karlsruhe

Regalsystem + Querträger

kreatives Bausystem Schwerlastregal

Bodeneinlagen 1

2L 3 1L

adaptive Aufhängungen

Lochblechtafeln

DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: May 2015 Lifespan: minimum of 5 years COMMISSIONED BY Freundeskreis Asyl Karlsruhe e.V. ARCHITECT bikeswithoutborders, Karlsruhe

schematische Darstellung Werkstatt aus Schwerlastregalen

Schematic illustration of heavy-duty shelving in workshop

CONSTRUCTION FIRM bikeswithoutborders, Karlsruhe BUILDING METHOD Heavy-duty shelving, multiwall polycarbonate sheets CONSTRUCTION COSTS approx. 5,000 Euro DESCRIPTION “bikeswithoutborders” collects old bikes and repairs them in order to provide them free of charge to immigrants—especially refugees. The project is open to everyone, inviting refugees to come into contact with Karlsruhe residents and fiddle tinker with bikes together

Floor plan

Construction phases

117

118

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 01 MAR 2016

CONVERSION / SPECIAL PROJECT

PLAYHOUSE / LEARNING CENTER AND CONTAINER ESTATE, DÜSSELDORF NUMBER OF RESIDENTS – USERS / MODULAR UNITS Playhouse / learning center: 200 users / 1 Bus Container estate: 120 residents /approx. 55 Modules RESIDENTS – USERS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completation: Playhouse / learning center April 2016, container estate December 2016 Playhouse / Lifespan: learning center 5 years, container estate 6–10 years COMMISSIONED BY Playhouse / learning center: The city of Düsseldorf Container estate: The city of Bottrop ARCHITECT Students at the Peter Behrens School of Arts, University of Düsseldorf „Design.Develop.Build“ Program Prof. Judith Reitz, Franz Klein-Wiele, Container estate: Undergraduate students; Playhouse / Learning Center: Master‘s students

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Students at the Peter Behrens School of Arts, University of Düsseldorf „Design.Develop.Build“ BUILDING METHOD Playhouse / learning center: Conversion Bus Container estate: container CONSTRUCTION COSTS Playhouse / learning center: total costs: 7,000 Euro Container estate: n/a LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Playhouse / learning center: 47.8 m² Container estate: 8 – 10 m² including recreation rooms

Container estate: project 2, axonometry

119

DESCRIPTION Mobile Playhouse / Learning Center 12 students at the Peter Behrens School of Arts (Düsseldorf University of Applied Sciences) retrofitting an 18-meter-long bus into a temporary playhouse and common area for the Benrodestrasse refugee estate in Düsseldorf. What results is a place for kids to learn in a structured environment and for different age groups to play together. In addition to a landscaped play area for kids, the bus features two “flex” areas. There, in the afternoon, kids can receive help with their homework and take German classes. In the evenings, the area hosts events for refugees and adult residents. The events range from adult education to film screenings. Container Estate: PBSA students planning spacious residential, recreational, and community areas, as well as a children‘s workshop, in the greenhouse areas of an empty nursery. Living modules for 120 refugees are planned in the former fields of the nursery, between old plant beds and trees. What will emerge is a new form of “green container estate”—surrounded by strawberry fields, but still integrated into the urban fabric. (Excerpt from project description)

Playhouse / learning center: Floor plan, conversion Bus

120

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 03 MAY 2016

CONVERSION / SPECIAL PROJECT

BUILDING FOR AND WITH REFUGEES, NIEHEIM Eigentümer

1. Bereitstellung der Immobilie

Projektinitiative

Anwerbung und Begleitung

Planung

Immobilie

NUMBER OF USERS / MODULAR UNITS 1 building

Beauftragung/ Koordination

Gemeinnützige oder ehrenamtliche Helfer

Betreuung

Sanierung

Betreuung/ Qualifizierung

Nutzung

Baugewerbliches Unternehmen

Heimatwerker Bauleitung

USERS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized status, migrants, all Augsburg citizens DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: end of 2018 Lifespan: 10 Years COMMISSIONED BY Client and beneficiary: City of Nieheim; Cooperation partners: StadtBauKultur NRW, Hochschule Westfalen-Lippe

Organigramm

ARCHITECT “Die Heimatwerker”: Refugees and volunteers in Nieheim, students at the Ostwestfalen-Lippe University of Applied Sciences CONSTRUCTION FIRM Local businesses, with contributions from refugees, volunteers, and students BUILDING METHOD Conversion of a half-timbered house CONSTRUCTION COSTS 938 Euro/m², plus donations, volunteered time, additional costs for project coordination and supervision of participants LIVING SPACE PER PERSON –

121

BESCHREIBUNG The goal of the project “Die Heimatwerker” (the home-makers) it is not only to build for, but also with refugees. In Nieheim (district of Höxter, North RhineWestphalia), asylum seekers in conjunction with volunteers and students are planning the restoration and future use of a vacant building in the historic city center. In 2017, under expert guidance, they will implement their plans to use the ground floor of the building for community purposes, extending to the outdoor grounds in 2018. A subsequent phase of the project also calls for expanding the upper floors to be used for apartments. It is hoped that jointly developing a use concept and implementing it together will support social integration. Additionally, the project also offers migrants the opportunity to acquire language and vocational qualifications, and could possibly lead to traineeships or jobs in the construction industry, thus creating long-term career prospects. The planning and building process will be accompanied by the research and teaching staff at the Ostwestfalen-Lippe University of Applied Sciences, as well as by activities aimed at neighborhood integration. The pilot project has a total lifespan of 10 years, and, if successful, will be repeated in other municipalities. It is sponsored by the State Ministry of Building, Housing, Urban Development, and Transport of the Federal State of North Rhine-Westphalia.

(Excerpt from project description)

Elevations

122

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS —05 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDING / COMPLETED

LIGHT-FRAME CONSTRUCTION HALL FOR REFUGEES IN TEMPELHOBühne Boxen Kraftsport

Sport & Bewegung

Multifunktionsraum

Spielen-outdoor z.B. Sandkasten

Werkstätten Mädchen/Frauen

Foyer

Marktplatz Werkstätten

USERS Asylum seekers

Garten Oase

Eingangshof Aufenthalt Ausstellung

NUMBER OF USERS / MODULAR UNITS 600–800 Residents / 1 hall

Tanz Gymnastik Mädchenboxen Softball

Marktplatz

Spielen

TherapieGruppe

+ Spielen

DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: July 2016 The hall was built as planned on Tempelhofer Feld but only partly used for a few months.

klettern

Werkstätten-outdoor

Intensität Nutzungen Zeitliche Flexibilität Legende Eingangsbereich

Zugänge

Bewegungsfläche

Bewegliche Trennung

Attraktivität / Treffpunk

Concept and Sketch

COMMISSIONED BY Grün Berlin GmbH ARCHITECT Gorenflos Architekten GvAmbH, Berlin; Interior design in collaboration with planung.freiraum, Berlin CONSTRUCTION FIRM Thies Holzbau GmbH, Schneidewind Planen BUILDING METHOD Light-Frame Construction Hall: Timber-frame structure with curved trusses, tensile membrane for facade and roof

CONSTRUCTION COSTS 517 Euro/m² Total: 2.225.000 Euro net LIVING SPACE PER PERSON –

123

DESCRIPTION The hall is an open house in which various stakeholders provide education opportunities and social interaction to the refugees housed in the airport terminal. The central space is a garden in the building, conceived as a meeting point for everyone using the structure. Additionally there are rooms for children and adolescents to work, as well as rooms for workshops, sports, and gymnastics. The hall can also be converted into a large event space with a stage. There are no structural boundaries within the hall. Instead, individual usage areas can be separated using flexible curtains and adapted to the current need. This approach facilitates a temporal and spatial overlay of uses—allowing the house to be occupied intensively throughout the day, from morning until late at night. (Excerpt from project description)

O Offene Jugendarbeit d 1 180m2

Bühne, Sport & Bewegung

Garten / Oase

W Werkstatt

Spielen

Werkstätten

Floor plan

124

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 22 FEB 2016

CONVERSION / SPECIAL PROJECT

KITCHEN-HUB, BERLIN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 1 shop USERS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized status, all citizens of Berlin DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: October 2015 Unlimited lifespan

Sketch Modular construction kit system

COMMISSIONED BY Über den Tellerrand e.V. ARCHITECT TU-Berlin, Habitat Unit department / CoCoon – contextual construction CONSTRUCTION FIRM Students, refugees, teachers, and volunteers BUILDING METHOD Modular construction kit system: Wood-based material, rebar, I-beams CONSTRUCTION COSTS N/A

125

DESCRIPTION New people’s kitchens The organisation “Über den Tellerrand” (Outside the Box) has had its new headquarters in the Berlin district of Schöneberg since summer 2015. The purpose of the organisation is to facilitate integration on equal terms by way of jointly organised events with a cultural focus, wherefrom comes the idea of supplementing the office rooms in a former corner shop unit in Roßbachstraße by a large kitchen space (“Kitchen Hub”). The Kitchen Hub was initiated and implemented in close cooperation between the Habitat Unit of the Institute for Architecture at the Technical University of Berlin, the CoCoon Studio that plans and builds with students, and the operators. Students, refugees, teachers and volunteers jointly conceived, planned and finished the rooms. It was based on a blueprint of students (Theodora Constantin, Judith Schiebel, Vanessa Vogel) of the Design Studios “Refugee City: Cooking with Refugees in Berlin” at the Habitat Unit in the summer term 2015, in which communal cooking was the starting point. Itemisation and implementation ensued within the scope of a DesignBuild Summer School (sponsored by the STO Foundation) in August last year.

The result was a central cooking island that can be extended to a large table. Due to a modular system, the tables can be used either at standing or sitting height. Unneeded elements are simply stored in a shelf. Diverse activities in addition to cooking will be possible in the 55 m² kitchen space. The modular design system enables multifunctional uses of the space, for example for workshops, discussion sessions or neighbourhood gatherings. Refugees and the indigenous population can learn from one another and experience new cultures at a neutral place, free from prejudice and media images. The Kitchen Hub is aimed at promoting a common local identity and social participation. It was opened on 27 November 2015. Text: Kirsten Klingbeil from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/themen/bauten/Neue-Volkskuechen-Kitchen-Hub-Berlin-2480183.html

Floor plan / Refugees in the City: Community Kitchens in Berlin; Design Studio 2015, Habitat Unit, TUB, Students: Theodora Constantin, Judith Schiebel, Vanessa Vogel

1 4 3

Veranstaltung

Kochkurs

Workshop

Lesung

Flexible Usage / Refugees in the City: Community Kitchens in Berlin; Design Studio 2015, Habitat Unit, TUB, Students: Theodora Constantin, Judith Schiebel, Vanessa Vogel

126

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23 FEB 2016

CONVERSION / SPECIAL PROJECT

“LIVING ROOM” FOR REFUGEES, AUGSBURG NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Approx. 50 seats in normal circumstances, around 100 seats for events USERS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized status, migrants, all Augsburg citizens DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: September 2015 Construction time: 1.5 years COMMISSIONED BY Tür-an-Tür e.V. Augsburg ARCHITECT Dr.-Ing. Günther Prechter, architect and social scientist, Bregenz Thomas Körner-Wilsdorf, artist and educator, Augsburg

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Students, neighbors and asylum seekers, craftsmen with volunteers BUILDING METHOD Conversion of a bus garage CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total: 55,000 Euro USABLE FLOOR SPACE 100 m² primary usable space including washroom and storage rooms

127

DESCRIPTION Since April 2012 the “Tür-an-Tür” (Door-to-Door) Society (founded 1992) has been operating the Centre for Intercultural Counselling (zib) in the former Augsburg tram depot, today protected as an industrial monument. Here refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants will find help, language courses and advice in their search for a job and accommodation. The recently opened café now provides a “living room” for informal meetings. For almost a decade Günther Prechter, architect in Bregenz, and Thomas Körner-Wilsdorf, art teacher and builder-in-charge at Augsburg’s HolbeinGymnasium, have been jointly practising “building as self-help”. With Café Tür-an-Tür a participative understanding of architecture and daily demand for robust integration models come together. An old bus garage in the workshop wing of the zib site was converted to the new café. The threatening conflict with neighbours prior to the opening of collective accommodation for asylum seekers in the neighbourhood provided an incentive to use the conversion as an opportunity for participation, integration and identification. The competence pool of Tür-an-Tür activists was closely integrated into the planning and the needs and wishes of neighbours were identified in neighbourhood workshops. Every available hand was used in the building process: schoolchildren, students, neighbours and asylum seekers rubbed shoulders with tradesmen. The roof beams and walls were freed from decades of workshop dust; the underside of the roof was thermally insulated and acoustically optimised with wood wool panels; rough-sawn pine planks were laid; larch panels were screwed together to form benches; the surfaces of custom-made maple wood tops were sanded; the paint on the counter front was polished to a shine and patchworks sewn – much of this by amateurs with expert guidance.

The longer time frame, low-tech solutions in the detailed planning, presence of the architects, specialists and honorary helpers at the building site all contributed to success. The participatory process promoted social added value: cross-milieu friendships arose. These used the jointly created space – hosted by Tür-an-Tür – as a demand-oriented creative workshop and open meeting platform.

Text: Kirsten Klingbeil from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/themen/bauten/Cafe-Tueran-Tuer-Augsburg-2480175.html

Drawing / Günther Prechter – Photo: Matthias Weissengruber

128

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 03 MAR 2016

NEW BUILDING / SPECIAL PROJECT

PROTOTYPE MODULAR HOUSE FOR REFUGEES, SAARLAND NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 2 people / module RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Construction time: 3 days COMMISSIONED BY Semester project, Summer 2015, Saarland University of Applied Sciences, SAS School of Architecture Saar, HBKsaar, S_A_R Project Office ARCHITECT Saarland University of Applied Sciences, SAS School of Applied Architecture Saar (Prof. Stefanie Eberding, Prof. Dr. Ulrich Pantle), HBKsaar (Prof. Georg Winter), S_A_R Projektbüro, Designer of the modular building: Esther Recktenwald

CONSTRUCTION FIRM Prototype that can be self-built without any special expertise. The Völklingen team is made up of students at the Saarland University of Applied Sciences and the HBKsaar: Anna-Maria Gard, Stefanie Eberding, Caroline Heinzel, Christian Hussong, Naomi Liesenfeld, Carla Mörgen, Jonas Niewöhner, Esther Recktenwald, Katarzyna Rogala, Lila Rose, Markus Towae, Turkten Turkmen, Miriam Werle, Georg Winter, Lucas Wirbel BUILDING METHOD Used EUR-pallets and simple materials from the construction store: OSB panels, tar paper, and standard assembly parts CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total costs: 2,500 Euro LIVING SPACE PER PERSON

14 m²/person

129

DESCRIPTION The prototype helps advance the development of improvised housing, and the cultivation of transitional states and liminal spaces. The EUR-pallets can carry loads and are very stable and cheap to acquire. The modular house for two people includes: a kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and living area, as well as a covered outdoor area in front of the door. In a single day, residents can build the modular house with the predetermined materials and a few helpers. This leads to exchange and communication with others. Interior / Photo: © Christian Hussong

(Excerpt from project description)

130

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 18 MAR 2016

CONVERSION/ SPECIAL PROJECT

MAGDAS HOTEL, VIENNA (A) NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 25 residents RESIDENTS Unaccompanied refugees under 18 DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: December 2015 COMMISSIONED BY Caritas Erzdiözese Wien ARCHITECT AllesWirdGut, Vienna Landscaping: 3:0 Landschaftsarchitektur, Vienna CONSTRUCTION FIRM Buchegger 7 Baumanagement GmbH; Berlinger Bau GmbH Photomontage: exterior view

BUILDING METHOD Conversion of a retirement home to hotel and housing CONSTRUCTION COSTS Total costs: 1.550.000 Euro LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 12 m² (without common spaces) DESCRIPTION Social entrepreneurship Bringing hotel guests together with refugees under one roof: since the “Grand Hotel Cosmopolis” in Augsburg this has almost become a proven concept. In a further example in Vienna, Caritas has converted a run-down retirement home to a hotel, albeit with another focus: the declared goal was to introduce refugees to paid work. For an interim period of five years Caritas offered asylum seekers the opportunity to work legally at the reception, in the kitchen or in

service. Of the 30 employees 20 are immigrants from 16 nations. However, they do not live in the hotel, only in the west wing of the building, which has its own entrance and is used as shared accommodation for about 25 under-age, unaccompanied refugees. The former pensioners’ home “Haus Josef Macho” occupies a central location not far from the Vienna Prater. Up until 2014 twelve senior citizens still occupied the building in Konzept. Social entrepreneurship Bringing hotel guests together with refugees under one roof: since the “Grand Hotel Cosmopolis” in Augsburg this has almost become a proven concept.

131

In a further example in Vienna, Caritas has converted a run-down retirement home to a hotel, albeit with another focus: the declared goal was to introduce refugees to paid work. For an interim period of five years Caritas offered asylum seekers the opportunity to work legally at the reception, in the kitchen or in service. Of the 30 employees 20 are immigrants from 16 nations. However, they do not live in the hotel, only in the west wing of the building, which has its own entrance and is used as shared accommodation for about 25 under-age, unaccompanied refugees. The former pensioners’ home “Haus Josef Macho” occupies a central location not far from the Vienna Prater. Up until 2014 twelve senior citizens still occupied the building in Laufbergergasse. They were able to relocate to a new building close by. Architects’ office AllesWirdGut was commissioned with the conversion of the dilapidated property from the 1960s. The limited budget of € 1.55 million was used predominantly for renewal of the technical installations and rising mains. Fire prevention measures were a further major cost. The façades remained untouched; the garden was designed as a café with a wooden terrace. In the former dining room on the ground floor the architects installed a restaurant, lobby, bar and library.

Floor plan

There are 78 rooms in the hotel, two thirds of which have a loggia. For the furniture and equipment the architects launched a crowdfunding campaign which raised € 57,000 for the purchase of beds, blankets, mattresses and dishes. Furniture was selected from the Caritas warehouses and renovated; armchairs and cupboards from the old people’s home were refurbished by designer Daniel Büchel. For reasons of expense the existing plastic windows and the baths had to be retained; only broken tiles were replaced. This hotel distinguishes itself from other shabby-chic hotels by the “social dimension of vintage”, as the architects call it. There can be no doubt that the recruitment of an internationally renowned architectural office by a non-profit organisation such as Caritas was instrumental in helping a locally celebrated hotel to become a “social business” in only a matter of months. Text: Doris Kleilein from: Stadtbauwelt 48.2015 http://www.bauwelt.de/themen/bauten/SozialesUnternehmertum-2484509.html Site plan

132

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS —07 DEC 2016

NEW BUILDING/ SPECIAL PROJECT

UMBRELLA, VIENNA (A) NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 2 residents / modul RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN COMMISSIONED BY Caritas ARCHITECT Caramel architekten, Wien, Vienna CONSTRUCTION FIRM Caramel architekten in cooperation with refugees

BUILDING METHOD Ready-made products: umbrellas, construction-site fencing, electric ducts, assemblable synthetic water pipe, curtain fabric, cable ties, clamp luminaires, and extension cords CONSTRUCTION COSTS 50 Euro/person LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Approx. 9m²

133

DESCRIPTION Part of the Austrian contribution to the Venice Architecture Biennale 2016 Private space to be appropriated individually—enough for 280 refugees—was created in a temporarily unoccupied open-plan office building, at a cost of €50 per person with a construction time of 5 minutes per person. Caramel Architekten developed a prototypical spatial structure, whose construction was explained to refugees on site, using the following affordable ready-made products: umbrellas, construction-site fencing, electric ducts, assemblable synthetic water pipe, curtain fabric, cable ties, clamp luminaires, and extension cords. Immediately after receiving the explanation, the men, women, and children took the test-living spatial structure into their possession and began using the available sewing machines to hem the first fabric strips into curtains. Working communally, one large space after another was converted from an open-plan camp of cots, with nowhere to withdraw, into living spaces with spatial constructions adapted individually to the constellations of residents (small families, large families, shared accommodations).

pfe iffe rg

as se

LageplanUmbrellas in the first admittance facility in the Pfeiffergasse / Photo: © Paul Kranzler, Matthias Cremer und Caramel

living room 22 persons

10 7a

10 8

living room 3 persons

10 7

living room 11 persons

101 102

100

105

104

103a

103b

living room 5 persons

living room 5 persons living room 11 persons

living room 10 persons

N 0

linke wienzeile

Example floor plane

134

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / STUDY

PARKING LOT ANNEX, KOBLENZ NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 80 to 108 / 4 buildings RESIDENTS Refugees with recognized refugee status The goal is a mixed residence base of refugees and students DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: December 2016 Lifespan: minimum of 10 years For subsequent use, can be quickly adapted to other needs for subsequent use or taken down COMMISSIONED BY Feasibility study: Bauherr Koblenzer Wohnbau GmbH Rendering

ARCHITECT Herrmanns Architekten, Vallendar (Prof. Henner Herrmanns + Hung Nguyen) CONSTRUCTION FIRM Holz-Bau Schäfer GmbH & Co KG, Nüdlingen, Niederlassung Schäfer Fertighaus, Mülheim-Kärlich BUILDING METHOD Timber frame construction CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx. 1,100 Euro/m² GFA (rent 230–270 Euro/ month/person) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 16.5 m²/1–2 people

Rendering

135

DESCRIPTION For our feasibility study, we propose to build a timberframe prototype on the Rhein-Mosel campus of the Koblenz University of Applied Sciences. The prototype takes the form of an annex superstructure built over a university parking lot. The top three floors of the basement-free building feature apartments conceived for two people. A large common room is planned for each floor. The â&#x20AC;&#x153;floatingâ&#x20AC;? buildings have very little impact on the university campus parking lot. (Excerpt from project description) Floor plan, ground floor

Floor plan, second floor

136

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS —22 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / STUDY

BUILDINGS FOR REFUGEES AND MIGRANTS NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 28 residents/unit RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized refugee statusDATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Subsequent use possible as student dormitories, social housing, or retirement homes

Concept

COMMISSIONED BY Immobilis GmbH + Urban Progress GmbH ARCHITECT Yes Architecture, Munich CONSTRUCTION FIRM N/A BUILDING METHOD Shipping containers: Clad individually with wood, plaster, metal panels Employs recycled material CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,100 Euro/m² GFA (including interior fittings) Example estate (basic and custom modules)

LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 2- and 4-Residents Container: 14,5 m²/Person, 10-Residents Container: 8,7 m²/Person

View of basic module

Interior features: Prefabricated standard-size interior module

137

Interior features: Example of how the ground floor of a two-story apartment can be combined for four people (made of 2 containers)

DESCRIPTION This housing estate project is based around shipping containers that are clad with an energy-efficient insulation layer (in correspondence to the German Energy Saving Ordinance) and various facade elements (wood, plaster, metal panels). The prefabricated interior modules are assembled individually, which enables them to address the spatial needs and desires of individual residents. The facility is sustainably designed and can be used later by residents as student dormitories, retirement homes, or social housing. The containers are accessed by separate, elevated containers reachable via walkways, footpaths, and bridges. The basic modules are assembled together into an estate structure. Together, they form gardens, terraces, mixed-use common areas, central courtyards, playgrounds, and storage spaces. Sites for urban gardening and common rooms for parents and children facilitate a higher quality of stay, and help avoid the formation of â&#x20AC;&#x153;ghettosâ&#x20AC;? and resentment due to lack of activity. (Excerpt from project description)

Module bunks including storage space and wall with door

Interior features: Module table (140 x 80 cm) for 4 people, folded out from wall

Site plan: Example estate (basic and custom modules)

138

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 04 MAR 2016

CONVERSION / STUDY

FIRST ADMITTANCE FACILITY NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Variable RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN – COMMISSIONED BY First admittance facility Eisenhüttenstadt ARCHITECT FAR frohn&rojas, Berlin / Santiago de Chile / Los Angeles FAR frohn&rojas mail@f-a-r.net

CONSTRUCTION FIRM DIY

Design concept

BUILDING METHOD Interior design of hall: using the available material resources CONSTRUCTION COSTS No costs LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 10.3 m²/person

Design concept

FAR f h & j

139

il@f

DESCRIPTION A structural approach to improving emergency-shelter refugee housing in first admittance facilities. The camp logistics are complemented by the facility‘s urban character. (Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan with urban model

47,5 m

27,0 m

Floor plan

Bett Bett

Raum Raum

Hof Hof

FlurFlur

Platz Platz

Hierarchien des „internen Städtebaus“ der Erstaufnahmeeinrichtung

Beleuchtung

Stockbetten

Bierganitur

Möbel

Floorplan flexibility: Alternatives based on same principles

140

NEW BUILDINGS / STUDY

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 26 APR 2016

TWO GROUP ACCOMMODATIONS, KÖNIGSTEIN NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS Project 1: 115 residents / 56 Modular units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN – COMMISSIONED BY – ARCHITECT Franken Architekten, Frankfurt am Main CONSTRUCTION FIRM –

Courtyard side

BUILDING METHOD mass-wall construction: Precast concrete elements, 3 facade variations: wood – brick / Trespa – plaster / paint – glass CONSTRUCTION COSTS 1,400 Euro/m² GFA LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 9–11 m²/person GFA: 1,600 m²

Front

Subsequent use

Material

141

DESCRIPTION Modular mass-wall construction makes it possible to build the accommodations quickly and cheaply, and deploy them flexibly, while retaining high structural and aesthetic integrity.

GEMEINSCHAFTSRÄUME WOHNUNG FÜR 2 PERSONEN FAMILIENWOHNUNGEN

The building, designed as a case study for the City of Königstein, will serve as a shared residential form that strives, as far as possible within the spatial program, and in spite of the various issues associated with the refugee crisis, to achieve a balance between individual privacy and shared communal areas. (Excerpt from project description)

3.26 3.26

9.41 3.00

2.99

0.21

1.50

3.26 3.26

Modules can be combined

2.37 1.32

1.10

3.26 26.50

Flur 7,36m²

7.58

3.26

0.95

Schlafzimmer 12,51m²

Schlafzimmer 13,29m²

Wohnküche 20,32m²

2.75

3.26

3.26 3.26

0.21

3.26 3.26

4.55

4.85

3.26

2.75

7.34

3.26 26.50

1.20

WC 1,74m²

3.36

8.00

3.26

1.45

1.24

3.26

0.21 2.75

Bad 3,79m²

3.00 1.50

Balkon 4,5m²

1.50

10.25 8.75

1.50

13.00

10.25 8.75

1.50

Homie Family und 4Share Wohnfläche 59,01m² Balkon 4,5m²

BGF (A) 75,28m² BGF (B/C) 4,5m²

Project 1: Floor plan, second and third floors / Apartment model for families

1 44.5

Spielplatz

5 10.2

8 47.9

one otsz b r e v Bau 3.00 1

5 10.2 0 26.5

III

4 46.6

IV 0 26.5

sse

stra

tz kpla Par

Plan

Fahrradplatz

Müll.

8 44.4

Site plan

142

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 23 FEB 2016

NEW BUILDINGS / STUDY

“REFUGIUM,” REFUGEE HOUSING, ANSBACH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 24 to 36 residential units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers, refugees with recognized refugee status The housing will strive to accommodate a mixed resident base of students, unemployed, “techniciansconstruction workers,” and commuters.

Concept

DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: December 2016 Subsequent use possible COMMISSIONED BY N/A ARCHITECT hirsch-architekten, Nikolai Warth and Maria Tyroller as intercultural advisors, and clean energy engineer Lisa Schottmann. Supported by graphic design team #Büro25 CONSTRUCTION FIRM Regional craftsmen

Design idea

Raum 1 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 2 15,00 m²

AR 4m²

Bad 4m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 3 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

AR 4m²

Bad 4m²

Essen 26m²

AR 4m²

Raum 1 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

AR 4m²

Wohnen 26m²

Essen 26m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 5 15,00 m²

Raum 4 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 2 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

AR 4m²

Raum 3 15,00 m²

Bad 4m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 4 15,00 m²

Bad 4m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 7 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 8 15,00 m²

AR 4m²

Essen 26m²

Flur 3m²

AR 4m²

Raum 5 15,00 m²

Bad 4m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 9 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 10 15,00 m²

AR 4m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 6 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

AR 4m²

Raum 7 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 12 15,00 m²

AR 4m²

Bad 4m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 8 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

CONSTRUCTION COSTS Approx: 1,650 Euro/m² GFA (depending on quality of assembly) LIVING SPACE PER PERSON Minimum 7 m²/person (not including community area). When need for housing is less dire, a smaller occupancy level could result in living space of 20 to 25 m²/person

Essen 26m²

Bad 4m²

Flur 3m²

Wohnen 26m²

Essen 26m²

Bad 4m²

Raum 11 15,00 m²

Essen 26m²

Wohnen 26m²

Bad 4m²

Raum 6 15,00 m²

BUILDING METHOD Mass-wall construction: Precast concrete elements, wood for interior

AR 4m²

Raum 9 15,00 m²

Gemeinschaftsraum

Flur 3m²

Bad 4m²

Raum 10 15,00 m²

Flur 3m²

AR 4m²

Raum 11 Büro 15,00m²

Bad 4m²

Flur 3m²

Raum 12 Medienraum 15,00m2

Floor plan, ground level

Treppenhaus Stairwel

143

144

DEUTSCHES ARCHITEKTURMUSEUM — CALL FOR PROJECTS: REFUGEE HOUSING PROJECTS — 09 MAR 2016

CONVERSION / COMPLETED

OFFICE BUILDING CONVERSION TO A FIRST ADMITTANCE FACILITY, MUNICH NUMBER OF RESIDENTS / MODULAR UNITS 492 people / 164 modular units RESIDENTS Asylum seekers DATE OF COMPLETION / LIFESPAN Date of completion: December 2015 Lifespan: 2 Years COMMISSIONED BY State Capital of Munich, Social Department ARCHITECT Friedrich Poerschke Zwink Architekten BDA CONSTRUCTION FIRM Diverse group (separate elements commissioned individually)

BUILDING METHOD Conversion CONSTRUCTION COSTS N/A LIVING SPACE PER PERSON 6–9 m²/person

145

DESCRIPTION Refugee accommodation in a heritage-protected building (former OSRAM Headquarters, Research & Development Division). To convert the former openplan office rooms, 1.60-meter-high partitions and shared showers and sleeping areas were installed. Reinstallation of a large kitchen on the ground floor. The adjacent buildings feature office rooms, social rooms, and a small bicycle-repair workshop. (Excerpt from project description)

Floor plan, ground level

Floor plan, second level

Floor plan, third level

146

7. INTERVIEWS

INTERVIEW WITH MAKING HEIMAT CURATORS: OLIVER ELSER & PETER CACHOLA SCHMAL The Deutsches Architekturmuseum (DAM) curated the German Pavilion exhibition at the 15th International Architecture Exhibition 2016 – La Biennale di Venezia, under the title Making Heimat. Germany, Arrival Country. Four large openings in the walls of the German Pavilion, necessitating the removal of over 48 tons of brick from the landmarkprotected walls, transformed the building into an open house. The idea for Germany’s contribution to the Architecture Biennale originated during the turbulent weeks of autumn 2015 when, every day, thousands of refugees were arriving at stations and while the German Chancellor was sticking with an iron will to a policy of no upper limit for the number of refugees coming into the country. “Wir schaffen das” (We can do it).

Six months later, after the close of the Biennale, the openings were bricked over again. The pavilion now stands closed up and replastered for the 2017 Art Biennale. The exhibition Making Heimat. Germany, Arrival Country was presented (04.03.2017 - 22.10.2017) on two floors at the DAM, and featured updated and expanded subject matters, as well as documentation and a review of the German Pavilion in Venice. We had an interview with the curators of Making Heimat and asked some questions for the refugee crisis in Germany, the exhibition design and the architectural database.

OLIVER ELSER

Oliver Elser serves as curator at the Deutsche Architekturmuseum (DAM) in Frankfurt/Main. In 2016 he curated “Making Heimat“, the German Pavilion at the Architecture Biennale Venice. In his role at the DAM he has curated exhibits on the topics of Brutalism, Postmodernity, 20th Century Architecture Models, and about Simon Ungers. 2012/13 Mr. Elser served as Substitute Professor for Scenographics at the Fachhochschule Mainz. As free-lance curator, in team with Michael Rieper, he designed the exhibit “Housing Models: Experimentation and Everyday Life“ (Wien, Sofia and Belgrad). Since 1999, together with the artist Oliver Croy, he has been working on the project „Sondermodelle“ (“special editions”), which was most recently presented at the “Palazzo Enciclopedico“ within the Art Biennale Venice 2013.

PETER CACHOLA SCHMAL

Peter Cachola Schmal (1960, Altötting) was appointed as director of the Deutsches Architekturmuseum (DAM) in Frankfurt am Main in April 2006. He spent his childhood in Multan/ Pakistan and Jakarta/Indonesia, as well as in Mülheim an der Ruhr, Holzminden and Baden-Baden in Germany. After studying architecture at the TU Darmstadt, he joined Behnisch+Partner in Stuttgart and then, from 1990 to 1993, Eisenbach+Partner in Zeppelinheim. From 1992 to 1997, he was an assistant professor at the TU Darmstadt, and from 1997 to 2000 taught architectural design at the University of Applied Sciences in Frankfurt am Main. Peter Cachola Schmal became a curator at the DAM in 2000, and director in 2006. The following year, he was German commissary general for the 7th International Architecture Biennale (BIA) in Sao Paulo.

INTERVIEW SUMMARY 1.

GERMANY AND REFUGEES HOW WE CHOOSE OUR PROJECTS IN THE DATABASE

THE TOPIC OF “DOES GERMANY HAVE AN ARRIVAL CITY?” “ARE WE IN AN ARRIVAL COUNTRY?” THIS HAS BEEN WIDELY ACCEPTED.

WE DO MAKE A FEW POLITICAL INFLUENCES AND WE NOTICED THAT DURING THE SHOW YOU CAN TALK ABOUT AN ISSUE THAT IS POLITICAL AND THE PUBLIC WILL THEN TALK ABOUT IT. THAT IS HOW WE NOTICED THAT AN EXHIBITION CAN BE USED AS A POLITICAL INSTRUMENT. AND THAT IS QUITE INTERESTING. THAT IS WHAT YOU CAN DO AS AN ARCHITECTURAL EXHIBITION MAKER.

THE CRITIC FROM THE LEFT SIDE WAS EXACTLY THAT: “SO WHERE ARE THE REFUGEES THEMSELVES? YOU DID NOT DEVELOP IT TOGETHER WITH REFUGEES.”

THE CITY OF OFFENBACH

GERMANY AND REFUGEES Guadalupe Babio Fernandez: What’s the relationship in Germany with refugees over time? How is this conceived as a national plan? Oliver Elser: In Germany, the housing that the refugee is done is all based on the local level, the city level, basically. We have a lot of different solutions. There is an emergency housing program in the 1950s-60s when a lot of people came. The place where I go for walking and doing sports, there is a housing project by the City of Frankfurt that was built, I would say, no longer ago than two years. They are still refugee housing, new projects. But some of those are gone already. GB: My next question is, who were the main players in these initiatives (government, cities, communities, NGOs, etc)? Peter Cachola Schmal: It was something emergency. It was something that has to be treated at the state level. For countries like the United States, it means that each state and even each city need to solve the problem and pay to the communities. This was direct to the communities. And they got a certain number of refugees that were out of the certain mathematical analysis because there were too many refugees, like, tomorrow there would be hundreds of them coming to your city. So every city and every state has thought of their own policies to take care of them. Oliver Elser: Like the Red Cross, or a few institutions that could be compared with the Red Cross. They run their own hospitals and social services. Those institutions are also responsible for those refugee housing complex, that sort of thing. But that’s not really…Their housing is more like a shelter until you get the final approval as a refugee. So you have the first step, a situation when you enter Germany and you wait for some time, up to one year. Until finally, you would be free to choose the apartment on your own. GB: That’s also something I have in mind for the situation of Germany. So, once refugees enter Germany, how do they assign to different cities? And then, because in your archive, there are different housing styles from temporal to more informal ones. So how do people get into this camp of the refugee? What’s the process? Peter Cachola Schmal: First, refugees would be driven to the Central shelter of the state. The people working there would try to relocate you immediately to some communities. They could come by foot, by car, from any of those areas, any of the boarders. They would be transferred to one of the states’ shelters, one of the German states. And from there they would continue to be distributed, all of them. As Oliver said, some of these projects are very temporal, and they would have a permit to operate temporary housing. But the refugees are getting more and more. Until then, the communities would start to build real housing. Some of them, we have shown in our exhibition and others would turn into normal housing which we also showed in our yearbook.

GERMANY AND REFUGEES Peter Cachola Schmal: These refugees could move above in Germany or even left Germany because they have relatives in Belgium, Holland, France, Sweden, somewhere. But when they left Germany, others have come. People move around. And of course, not so many had come since summer 2016, which of course, some country seems to have a huge number. In 2019 would probably have 150-200 thousand refugees come to Germany through illegal ways, by helpers, for example. But that would not be a problem anymore, the problem of a huge massive group that needs housing for. The countries that have these problems not is Greece and Turkey. Turkey is trying to force Europe, once in a while, let the refugees pass, or they would come soon under terrible circumstances. Where coronavirus would be hit very soon, the situation would be really terrible. For Greece, 50 thousand people are sitting on one island, which is not such a huge problem. But for Turkey, it’s a tremendous problem. Turkey has hundreds of thousands of people.

EXHIBITION GB: Now moving a little bit to the exhibition, how did you select that eight cities and districts that were shown in the exhibition? Oliver Elser: I think there are some parallel processes. We decided at the very beginning of the exhibition for Venice to have a broad type of housing, so we did not consider where the project was located. It could be in Frankfurt, it could be anywhere. So on one side, we have the selection of the housing project, and on the other side, the idea to establish together with the author Doug Saunders, we wanted to establish the thesis about ways we should deal with migration. And therefore, we have chosen certain sample cities. We looked at Berlin, we looked at Stuttgart and into other places. So it was really a connection between this case and ups for migration methods. I mean, it’s like the big catalog of our book (Making Heimat, Germany – Arrival City), a lot of you have read this, I guess. The debate to have this panel of eight points, you will also find it on the website. These eight points, they stand on one side of the housing projects, and the other is our of the exhibition, dealing with migration which is broader than just the refugees. Basically, the whole project we did was divided between two fields: migrants – by mentioning migrants I mean a much longer process. We looked at Turkish communities in the 70s, for instance. Those migrant cultures that we can see in some parts of Germany are really successful that they have a long history and have more or less nothing to do with the current refugee situation that we were in 2016.

EXHIBITION PCS: So actually when we talked to Doug Saunders, it was a bigger picture of how you can deal with the Arrival Cities, and then the political upheaval of the refugee crisis came at the same moment as well. But as Doug Saunders said, refugees are not the only way of immigration. When in 2016, we had a show in Venice, we did talk about both, but the biggest part is immigration. And then in a museum of Frankfurt, we produced another book – the yellow one of Making Heimat, and we covered in this Atlas about 70-80 projects that were not chosen previously because those were the projects that people had handed in to us at the beginning of 2016, and we double-checked on this project. Like, what happened to them, did you really build it, etc. And that the whole situation had changed at the end of 2016 and the beginning of 2017, even the whole view of the public has totally changed. So some communities would tell us “Yes, we don’t want to publish any news about this, any figures, any plans.” Therefore, we had to take it out of the map. We do not want to talk about it anymore because our voters could get annoyed that we spend so much money on foreigners. And when this book came out and the times were changed that it was prohibitive already, when the show opened in March 2017. That’s why these projects that you find in this book are having less and thus much was disclosed already. Today, if we would go back into these projects, we will probably find only half of them exist. Adriana: I think that is what we are trying to do, to revisit this project in 2020. GB: So, I have a question here, even if some people asked you not to publish, would you still publish them? PCS: No. And when they told us, for example, in the last years there have been some refugee housing asked us, please, no addresses, no none of this, especially not the numbers. For the refugees, this cost for the whole thing. We don’t want to publish that we spend all this tax money on 200 people because our voters, so we have to be careful. OE: We have information on some projects, but I would say we lost contact with many of them. So this is really huge importance for us as well to get to know what you will find out. Please keep us informed. PCS: We could check the list. In the list behind the book, you can see all the contact information of the architectural firms and lead you to their websites. OE: And the architectural firms know well about their projects and their current status. PCS: Do you have a German-speaking researcher? Adriana: We need to figure out that.

PCS: What we did for the second book – the yellow one, is that we asked a very talented photographer who was encountered in one of the interviews of the first Biennale show. We commissioned her to visit certain projects by herself. We gave her the address, and she went sometimes. She went and showed how life is in this specific project, who is living there and how their life is, and so on. She did five of these projects all over Germany, getting in touch with the people and their situation. That was quite interesting. When you have the photo shooting, you have another story with the exact name and so on, about what is happening. And you have the projects on detailing. Those people might not live there today because the situation would be quite different. But maybe she still has the contact. It would be interesting to ask them about the experiences in different housing projects.

REFUGEE INVOLVE GB: Is the refugee engaging in this exhibition? OE: No. It’s a good question. We don’t have refugees directly into the project for the Venice show. It was the timeframe was too tight, we only have seven months from the design, fabrication to the openings. But we have the critics from the show, that we included in the third book – the white book of Making Heimat. We included some reactions to the pavilion. Generally, people like the way we deal with the pavilion and how we deal with the topics. But there were two harsh critiques. One from the right side and one from the right side. The critic from the left side was exactly that: “So where are the refugees themselves? You did not develop it together with refugees.” And I think it is really a point. We just miss that opportunity but it’s hard to organize everything for the Venice at least. But afterward, we opened a show in Frankfurt symposium that also brought into some refugee organizations.

TARGET AUDIENCE PCS: A Boston based German American helped us a lot since she is the head of programming and she was twice the partner of us. And professor Mark Simmons, the principal of Front incorporated, also teaching at MIT helped a lot. His student group had done on this question. And another group not in Boston, they really did something regarding this situation and develop an own show in their country, answering if their country is an arrival country and how so, and thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s quite interesting. The result of this that we are working at this moment is a publication. We will publish all the films which we did interviews with every one of these partners of the good institute. Santiago de Chile, for example, Caracas was a partner. And Mumbai. In Europe, it was Liverpool, Prague, etc. I sent you the list. And these people came in last December and we interviewed them and made films of them. This will be very soon published. GB: Who was the target audience? OE: When we start the project, the first step is to launch the database with the information. So basically, all the information on refugee housing projects was connected first in a database that was online available through our website. And the very first idea was to even have the local decision-makers as an audience. Because we have the feeling that there is not enough shared knowledge between the different actors in Germany. So we wanted to establish the kind of platform to share information and also about the costs of the projects, the ways they were built, with a prefabrication system or not, and also in those technical terms. When it comes to the exhibition, then you have all the audience with an architectural background. Thatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the happy view of architecture, so to say, because of those thousands of people who go the Venice and to the show. But through the wide media coverage of our projects, we have the idea to reach a much larger audience than only the people in Venice. Then when we back in Frankfurt, we mixed with another specific audience because the most well describe research city in our exhibition was the city of Offenbach, which is close to Frankfurt. We had a lot of local attention too because when an exhibition opened in Frankfurt, it had one of the main topics. The city of Offenbach is about 20 kilometers away. Then you got a lot of interest from those people in Offenbach. The people there loved to see a portrait of their city in terms of migration and the migration history in a Frankfurt Museum. I think that is also a way to reach another audience besides the academic or professional or culturally interested fields. PCS: You could also see a lot of universities or other institutions organized conferences and invited us. I think in the year 2016, I got to 10 conferences. So people invited us on a larger scale stage talk about the whole topic. Adriana: Can you talk more about the interviews? OE: We have a portrait with the people from Offenbach. Most of the immigrants had an oversea background but there also have some young families telling us why they move to Offenbach. They may have nothing to do with the migration situation.

People from over 150 nations live in Offenbach. They include many guestworkers from southern Europe and their children, who have recently been joined by increasing numbers of immigrants from Africa and the Arab world. Many of them are attracted to Offenbach because they have points of contact there: relatives, friends or a larger community of people from their country of origin. This makes Offenbach precisely what Canadian journalist Doug Saunders describes as an “arrival city”: a quarter on the edge of a metropolis – in this case, Frankfurt am Main – that enables immigrants to make a good start because they can live there cheaply and perhaps find work through contacts. The arrival city, writes Saunders in his widely acclaimed book of the same name, therefore often serves as a social springboard. “In Offenbach, for example, there are migrant districts around the market square that I would describe as successful,” says the author, who has visited Offenbach several times. “Immigrants can make a start there, establish themselves and open a small shop.” Offenbach is also playing a major role in the German pavilion at the Venice Biennale of Architecture as an example of an arrival city.

HOUSING PROJECTS GB: What is the negative and positive output coming out of the housing project database? OE: There is one super output, one of the best architects in Germany have built one of the best projects that we collected. It is a project in Munich and the architect is Florian Nagler. He built a superb housing on a wooden prefab on a parking lot. It was public parking near a swimming pool, a big one in Munich downtown. And this parking lot housing had a bit of reluctance by the neighbors because they thought they would lose their parking space. In the end, the city of Munich commissioned it and built it. It was finished by the end of 2016 in one year. 50 refugees had moved in, and 50 students along with social housing people in one or two-bedroom apartments. So, they have a community of refugees and students living together since 2016, 2017. It is three years now, and this project has got many, many awards so far. Since then I think I have never heard anything negative about this project anymore. It is quite amazing. It is still there and people living there. It is just a normal community now, with a mix of refugees and students with a roof terrace which not every housing has, and it is right beside a subway station, and besides a public swimming pool. It is a fantastic project where the architectural superb quality comes out of it.

EXHIBITION IMPACT OE: I would add another project from the same town of Munich. They were not finished when we opened the show in Venice but finished afterward. It was quite unusual because it was right at the center of Munich, at the high price area. Since 2015 the place was transformed into a mid-refugee housing. It was also a project that built against the trends to separate these settlements to the edge of the town. To us, every exhibition can be a platform to promote other ideas and to give them wider recognition in the public. GB: So did you think that somehow your database helped these projects to move forward? OE: Yes, I would say the database itself is more like the expert mode. The whole exhibition and the catalog, the relationship that goes around such projects. That is the central core. Also for the decision-makers, they get positive feedback from other institutions, then they can say some critics in their own towns that the money is worth spending it, of course. GB: How did this project, Making Heimat and the refugee crisis and the idea of the arrival city inform or modify the way urban planning and housing? So you are showing the images of housing, maybe more applied to housing. PCS: At the end of our show in 2017, we said that we do have a problem in housing. After concentrating on refugee housing, we want to concentrate on housing housing, and Housing for all. And we said that we have housing shortages. Because we have housing shortages, there will be an acceptive problem that refugees finding the housing because normal people with no income will feel that they are played out with sort of the refugees. We need to solve the housing problem and we concentrate on a serious of exhibitions and shows on the project called Housing for all. I think it have quite some impacts. On one end we think that it’s a major thing that we do have housing shortages and we are going to do something about it. But the topic of “do German have an arrival city?” “Are we in an arrival country?” This has been widely accepted. Some cities like Offenbach next door is quite proud that they are now the arrival city. Their neighbors are now saying that “Well, we do the same. Why only the Offenbach get all the names?” All the people are talking about Offenbach now. So, we do make a few political influences and we noticed that during the show you can talk about an issue that is political and the public will then talk about it. That is how we noticed that an exhibition can be used as a political instrument. And that is quite interesting. That is what you can do as an architectural exhibition maker.

INTERVIEW WITH THE AUTHOR OF THE ARRIVAL CITY: DOUG SAUNDERS ABOUT ARRIVAL CITY A powerfully argued work that combines reporting, sociology, economics, and urban studies to show how the migration of workers from villages to urban centers has become one of the most significant forces in the world today. For the first time in history, there are now more people in the world living in cities than in rural areas, and many of them are clustering on the urban outskirts. Arrival City argues that this incredible movement of peoples, unfolding before our eyes, will be one of the most important trends in the twenty-first century. From Istanbul to Los Angeles, from Warsaw to Shenzhen, China, Doug Saunders shows how the success or failure of the immense communities forming on the fringes of traditional cities is having a profound effect on local, national, and international development.

ABOUT DOUG SAUNDERS Doug Saunders is the former European Bureau Chief of the Globe and Mail and the author of Arrival City: The Final Migration and Our Next World, which won the Donner Prize, and which the Guardian said “may be the best popular book on cities since Jane Jacobs’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities half a century ago.” He has won four National Newspaper Awards. Saunders lives in Toronto.

INTERVIEW SUMMARY

THREE STAGES OF NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING: I WOULD DEFINE THE BORDER AS BEING THE BORDER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

The initial refugee shelters which are often just airport buildings, sports stadium, things like that. Then the second stage is so-called the temporary refugee housing which are sometimes build in a shifting container, etc. And then the third stage is longer term housing solution for refugees.

THE BORDER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD Doug Saunders: I know sometimes that my work would be classified as architectural theory, but with me it’s more of urbanism. A lot of my work now is focusing on neighborhoods that have developed low social mobility, like the inability to escape income level and so on. And I’m looking particularly at small effects on architectural and urban design as barriers to social economic mobility. And some of the places that I am studying now are places with high refugee and populations after 2015, 2016 refugee crisis. GB: What we understood from Making Heimat is that they focus on your book and separate their exhibition into two parts. They atlas housing and all the cause of housing. And a thing that is totally separated – the concept of the Arrival City. Your book, in my view, finding examples from all over the world. My first question would be what is the main border that the migrations are facing? DS: You mean aside from the international borders? Immigrants settle, not as being fixed places that a separate location from where they came from. I think the old understanding is still way too dominate by the policy that immigration as a matter of units of labor, leaving one country and entering another country. Viewing the border as being a simple matter of the international border, the way people cross and can transition from being resident from one country to another. But if you study the inner functioning, the network its formed within the destination, the neighborhood, if you take it down to the neighborhood level, you will recognize that it doesn’t work that way. Rather than people moving from one country to another, what you have are specific villages and neighborhoods in a sending country, in a more or less permanent way, link to the urban neighborhood in the receiving country. Those links are not one way. They move in both directions and they are continuous. They send information, money, and migration sources back and forth. Very few people make the migration one way straight but usually back and forth all the time. So, I would define the border as being the border of the neighborhood. In part of my work, I map the Arrival City as neighborhood itself in Los Angeles. We found some very specific blocks at streets were directly connected to the specific villages in Sao Paulo. And those streets not only would populated with people who came from specific villages but they are the main source of the economic support for those villages. They remain purchasing housing in those villages and so on. Those links last for multiple generations. So, you could say the border of the neighborhood block is a more important border to understand, the more international one, in lots of these cases.

GB: When people get to Los Angeles, San Paul, the neighborhood in Berlin, or Mumbai, they face several difficulties. What is the main issue when people get to the Arrival City? DS: There should be several normal model, but I would describe mine in the book Arrival City which is in the case of immigration, my choice. What we are looking at in Making Heimat was something new, which is emergency migration, or say, crisis migration. Not all the millions of people who enter Europe in 2015, 2016 were refugees in the war. All of them are recognized as legitimate arrivals in Germany under the 1951 United Nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s charger on refugee. And that follows in different patterns. A lot of the housing policy issue is refugee emergency but secondary the refugee family themselves were responding and used urban space around them and used internal migration as a survival strategy after they arrived. Let me explain this. When Germany recognized that it needs to settle millions of refugees, of course the initial response is the emergency shelter. They just need to create the places for everybody to stay. If you look at our catalog of housing, it emerged many stages of housing, for one thing. For me, most of the housing in the catalog was not good. Some are architecturally interesting, but a lot of it are with poor urbanism. Germany is doing something that no country has done for a long time since the 1950s that most European were refugees. It was trying to settle hundreds of thousands of people very quickly.

THREE STAGES OF HOUSING So, you have three stages of housing. You have the initial refugee shelters which are often just airport buildings, sports stadium, things like that. Then the second stage is so-called the temporary refugee housing which are sometimes build in a shifting container, etc. And you need to live in this housing for a few months until other housing solutions could be found out. I have participated in many discussions about how to design and build that stuff in various cities. Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s notable of that stage of refugee housing is that there are a lot of them are still in use. We are now half a decade away from the beginning of the refugee emergency. But just a few weeks ago, I was in Kreuzberg, which is a neighborhood of Berlin and the temporary refugee housing looks like they are 100% full. Partly because there is a housing crisis in Berlin, so there is a shortage supply of housing. These places are permanent building, which is not good because they are not well architecturally designed for long term residents. Although in terms of the urban location they are better than many other housings, they could otherwise be found. And then the third stage is longer term housing solution for refugees. There are some of the longer term housing that are still being called the refugee housing. And I think it is an important principle for us to recognize that you should not call them as refugee housing because you do not want to create a housing district or neighborhood or a single building that only contains refugees or people from one place, or so. In normal immigration process, people always cluster together by different origin or by different village they came from, by different cities or languages. But that is a process of mutual assistance. In the integration process or the inclusion process, however you want to describe it. But creating housing from the beginning is intended to be a place of relegation.

REFUGEE WAS DISTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO THEIR AVAILABILITY OF HOUSING DS: Now, how did Germany handle the housing of refugees? What beneficial things resulting from this? The federal policy dump to distribute refugee and funding was that refugee was distributed according to their availability of housing. It sounds simple and straight forward but actually it is a really big problem. Putting the refugees in crisis where they are already a lot of immigrants, so it is more than 25% of population. And we will not put refugees in places where housing is not widely available. And this create a situation that they put a lot of refugees in the place which has a lot of vacant housing. So cities in Easter Germany were half empty public housing, apartment buildings. The cities in Eastern Germany have seen their population fall by 50% during the last 30 years because people left for the west. So a lot of abandon housing there. In Western Germany because the American army abandoned West Germany in 2015, 2016, like that. A lot of military bases with nice apartments with good quality. But both of the instances, you have these places that are isolated. They are not connected to the accommodation. So that the places are relegation. There are lots of cities in Germany that really wanted to receive refugees because Germany is suffered from terrible labor shortages. They need ten million new workers during the next ten years to fill labor shortages. So, every government ministry, every mayor was saying to receive people. The urban authority in Frankfurt told me that last year they were disappointed because they didn’t get half as many refugees as they wanted. City of Lebusa, for example, the mayor in 2015 said that he wanted a couple of thousands of refugees. Now two things happened. First of all, a lot of refugees are dumped into unwanted housing because of this policy and some of that have create problems. Second of all, as soon as the mobile refugee family got though the period when they had to stay in the same place – by law you have to stay in the same place for a year or two year sometimes – a lot of families, once they finished this period, they moved to places with high population density and more people from their speaking background. Neighborhoods in Berlin like Kreuzberg received a lot of secondary migration. But you still have the problem that the refugee housing areas that are basically claim as relegation, where people are being dumped. So one of the cities that I am studying, the city of Lebusa, one of the largest cities in Hohenbucko. Coming to East Germany in less than two hours of train south of Berlin. It was a city suffer from terrible population shrinkage during the 1990s and early 2000s but has become a real booming city since then. It has a lot of cooperation and headquarters, etc. And Lebusa has a huge mass housing development way on its outskirt. They were debating for years whether to demolishing it. It was 36 large apartment tower, which made of prefabricated concrete slabs. One of the urban planner from the 1990s told me that he recommend to the mayor that the entire district be demolished because Lebusa tried to deal with urban shrinkage is concentrate itself to be a more high-dense city, focuses on population in the center of the city.

DS: One of the consequences of urban population shrinkage is that it creates urban sprout, where the property markets work. But the mayor then said no, we just leave these building empty. When 2015 the refugee crisis came along, they said, let’s put the refugees there. So that there are three or four apartment towers are settlement for refugees. And that creates a lot of problems. First of all, refugees are not homogenous resident, they have different culture and languages from many countries. And they didn’t have much in common unless they are refugees and poor, mostly from middle class background from the countries they came from. But they are very poor and have no opportunities in Germany. If you want to look at housing as a border, a lot of interesting points are within post-mass housing district because in these district you are going to have factory workers, with automobius, using these to drive to factories. So the whole principles of these mass planning district – not only in Germany but also in Sweden, Russia, Spain and a lot of places – those principles make them look like good bedroom communities are really poorly design for social mobility, which makes refugee become the biggest population in these districts. So you have border line within these housing district created by migration policy that limit certain buildings and areas as internal borders.

SURVIVAL STRETAGIES Another factor to look at is the question of strategies for survival and sustainability of livelihoods within these districts. The housing district should contain the means that you could do better than just survive. The assumption is that people who live in these housing and receive social benefits a lot than their payment. There is a little consideration for the fact that if the refugee get a job, it is another one and a half hour bus to get there from this automobius designed neighborhoods. There are nearly no entrepreneurship or starting a shop or restaurant, etc. because they don’t class people as walking pass the road. An important idea to understand the neighborhood as border is to understand that the survival strategies often involved the decision of whether trying to stay in a neighborhood and make the best of it with its economic opportunities available, or secondly to move out of the neighborhood or to slip in a better neighborhood, a middle-class neighborhood elsewhere. Or thirdly, to engage in a process of circular migration within the country. You have one person in your family stay in the old neighborhood and the other one with kid move to the “white neighborhood” or large cities like Berlin. These are the strategies that I am looking at. I am guessing at your concept that housing as a border, in a refugee housing settled there, that is how they see it. They see a such of barrier that exist between where they are now. Every family starts with the neighborhood they came from, live through the place they are living now, and leads to an imagine destination of sustainability, some utopian thing. And I think it helps to understand thinking of these people living in these relegation, in terms of the survival strategies that involved, living or staying, or staying and living, that’s all.

INTERVIEW WITH THE DESIGNER OF MAKING HAIMAT: ELENA SCHÜTZ ABOUT SOMETHING FANTASTIC Something Fantastic is an undisciplinary architectural practice committed to smart, touching, simple architecture. The firm’s agenda is based on the idea that architecture is affected by everything and vice versa –does affect everything– and therefore working as architects implies a broad interest and involvement in the world. Something Fantastic’s practice includes designing books, exhibitions, furniture, buildings, and urban development schemes. Next to designing, the partners write (e.g. Something Fantastic, Ruby Press), teach (since 2012 at ETH Zurich), lecture, and art direct (since 2015 for Finnish furniture brand Artek). In 2016 the studio was responsible for the design of the German Pavilion at the 15th La Biennale di Venezia entitled Making Heimat. Germany Arrival Country.

ABOUT ELENA SCHÜTZ Elena Schütz studied architecture at ETH Zurich and the University of the Arts Berlin where she started the architecture magazine Protocol. She worked in New York and Zurich and is a cofounder of the architectural firm Something Fantastic and the creative agency Belgrad.

INTERVIEW SUMMARY

DOUG SAUNDERS THE ARRIVAL CITY A VIETNAMESE WHOLESALE MARKET

SOMETIMES THE ARRIVAL CITY IS ILLEGAL AND THAT IS OKAY

THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS THE PEOPLE FROM DOING IS THE BORDERS OF ANY KIND. There is a big border, the same border that I see in the exhibition between the examples and the Arrival City. That is exactly the border that is being put by policy and law between the people that are arriving and the great opportunities that people could have. And that for me, the Arrival City stands for. Because they are the opportunity to take your life into your own hands and start developing something â&#x20AC;&#x201C; not necessarily include yourself but to become a part of a society temporarily or forever.

BE CAREFUL NOT TO ROMANTICIZE THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF PEOPLE

GERMAN AS THE ARRIVAL CITY Guadalupe Babio Fernandez: What’s the relationship in Germany with refugees over time? And how this is conceived as a national plan? Elena Schutz: The title of the exhibition was Making Heimat, right? But the core topic of the exhibition was the Arrival Cities. I don’t know if you looked into the topic of arrival cities, or even looked into the book of Doug Saunders, but that was the starting point of the exhibition. My head curator approached us early, like a year before the exhibition, and asked us if we would like to apply it together with him to do the German pavilion exhibition. So that was the in summer 2015, when we first met and he talked about that book and he basically said, “I read the book by Doug Saunders and I’m really excited about this topic of the Arrival Cites and it would be nice for me to make a research about it.” Because Germany is obviously not a topic in the book, and it would be really interesting to look into the thesis of the book and see how does that apply to Germany at all, or how can we learn from the book. I give you a short summary of what Doug Saunders does and what also excited us a lot about the idea: An Arrival City, the main topic of his research – he’s not a designer, or architect or an urban designer. I think he’s a sociologist and economist that has been writing about various topics. His latest publication on Arrival Cites focused on parts of cities, like neighborhoods of big cities worldwide that he then named Arrival Cites. He has a very specific character about them. They are the parts of the cities where people who have just arrived, from another county or another part of the country, and also very often from the countryside, people who have just arrived in the city, first settling down to start their new life in the city. Interestingly, these neighborhoods are usually seen as the “problem” neighborhoods of cities. They usually have a very poor population. They have low-income, households, bad housing stocks, bad jobs meaning like badly paid jobs, high crime rates. All these kinds of things that typically a neighborhood that you would not like to move to on first side. And typically, a neighborhood where city governments are looking into the numbers and seeing all these problems and looking for ways to solve them. The interesting thing that Doug Saunders was looking at them from a different angle. He didn’t just look at those numbers that are actually bad numbers, and that actually not changing on the paper. But he looked into the individual life of people and he realized that people are using these neighborhoods very consciously and very actively. And the lives that the people who are using these neighborhoods are actually changing greatly. They are using these neighborhoods as a catalyst, so it’s like a stop on a way to somewhere. Although the situation may stagnate, it is still, the lives of the people don’t stagnate. They are really using them as a fruitful ground to start their new lives. In that way, it also becomes clear that these neighborhoods are doing a very important job on an economic or social level for certain groups of people. And I think that is the initial thing that is important to understand. And it is also important that why the Arrival Cities are something interesting to look into. Peter and I, we thought this is really a good point because obviously when you start to understand what they really do and how also economically and how crucially they are in the lives of people. Then you also understand that it can’t be, or it’s maybe not a top priority anymore to just change them or to improve them. Because you are also taking something away that it’s not so easy to replace. Some governmental efforts of that is an inclusion and support for newcomers, for immigrants might not be as powerful and efficient and also effective as these Arrival Cities are. That is basically the book of texts.

GERMAN AS THE ARRIVAL CITY Elena Schutz: What we starting asking ourselves then was, do we have these kinds of places in Germany? Typically we don’t have them in such an active and efficient way as other places. They do exist within Europe. Doug Saunders has an example from an outskirt of London, he has examples from China and South America, but there’s no German example really. Still, his research team started to investigate what does this mean for Germany. There are some part of German cities that you could call them Arrival Cities in this smaller German context. From that point of view the investigation and the research started. And from that, they then extracted these set of rules that basically Doug Saunders has already stated and tried to translate them into more kinds of hands-on claims for Germany and the city planning in the German context. That was the main focus of the exhibition.

EXHIBITION GB: What’s your role exactly in the exhibition? You worked as a designer of the exhibition, are you correcting the curator’s idea or to design it and make it into something tangible? ES: Yes, we were the designers of the exhibition. Although being involved from the very beginning, our focus was on the design and we didn’t do the research. But we translated it into an exhibition design. It was our approach to try to really make this like what we found really interesting and important about Arrival Cities which is the openness, the accessibility for everyone, the very low boundaries like you can really, if you don’t know the language and you don’t have an education at least not one that is “a ballot” in that country or in the place that you were arriving into. If you don’t have any financial means, you can still enter and arrive the cities and start something there. That was the main point that we found interesting and worth like making tangible for the visitors. And that is houw we got the idea of opening the pavilion walls because we said like we want to make this openness and the permeability tangible experience before the people.

GB: Why did they close after the openings? Because I went though the book of the exhibition and it takes a lot about the meanings that the building had and why did you open it just like to break with the history and to show desirable. So I was curious why did they decide to close? ES: That is not only a decision but a circumstance. That is how the biennial works. You are curating the space for a year and then you have to basically give it back the way that you took it. So you have to paint the wall again afterwards and in brush once through the whole space and it has to look like it looked before. But the other reason was also in that case that it was actually, in a way, it was a big surprise for us that we were allowed to do what we wanted to do. When we first proposed the idea, we thought that is going to be tough to convince people that we want to break open the walls of a historic building. But interestingly the German government that is officially the owner of the building was very open. Everybody that we have talked to in the German government was immediately like “yes, do it, go ahead!” And the only problematic instance was the Venice building conservation authority, that is a very strong force in Venice. I think it good to be a strong force because there is a lot of pressure in Venice for development and they have a lot of cultural heritage to protect. But they were very hard to convince. From our original idea of having many more openings, they cut away quite a few and only allowed it under the very clear permission. They only gave the permission saying that you don’t only have to close it again but also have to prove that you are putting money aside so that you can close it again. It was, for them, absolutely clear that this is only a temporary being. For us, we didn’t expect that. Adriana: You mention that based on Doug Saunders’s book that you are looking into existing neighborhoods. However, the cases that are shown in the pavilion that many of them are new buildings, and many of them are temporal. In this way, did you find out the existing neighborhoods have already working as arriving or welcoming neighborhoods? ES: The exhibition has two parts. There is one room when you enter to the right that presented all these new examples of temporary refugee housing, and the rest of the pavilion was focusing on the Arrival City and the claims for an urbanism that allows for other cities. I see these two as separate parts. For me, it’s also important to make a clear cut between the two because back then the situation was like, there was a lot of development and I got a lot of questions from people, like how can we deal with the refugee crisis. Those were no place that you could consult and ask what the solutions for this temporary housing are, that are being proposed in Germany. So the curators started a call for proposals and asked architects to get people involved into the discussion. They asked architects to hand in projects that they had been realizing in the last months for this temporary housing. But I think it is important to be clear that they are actually two separate things. The housing that were realized were mostly for short-term arrival, and in a majority of the cases, they are almost an antithesis to the Arrival Cities. You can’t make an Arrival City from today to tomorrow, it is something that grew over years and decades. These communities of people are quite homogeneous in the way like who is living there, no matter what background they are from. It is part of their strength. They offer a network, how people speak your language and know your background and where you can even faster start becoming an active member. I think the claim for cities that are more inclusive and featuring more of the qualities of the Arrival City do is an independent topic from those examples that were presented in the exhibition. I personally would even say that, it is a way to involve the people but quite disconnected from the Arrival City topic.

HOUSING AS A BORDER GB: What I understand is in Germany the concept of refugee is always associated with housing, without an income. Don’t you think that somehow also separating housing with the Arrival City cause the theory weaker? ES: Of course, that is a gigantic problem. We have to be aware that it is not even the biggest part in architectural and urbanistic one. What the problem that we have, that we are still having is that people are arriving and being “put” into places and they are being provided with food. I think things are slowly changing, but in the beginning, people couldn’t even make their own food. So they basically had nothing to do all day. They are not allowed to take a job, and some are still in the process of application. You’re condemned to do nothing. There is a big border, the same border that I see in the exhibition between the examples and the Arrival City. That is exactly the border that is being put by policy and law between the people that are arriving and the great opportunities that people could have. And that for me, the Arrival City stands for. Because they are the opportunity to take your life into your own hands and start developing something – not necessarily include yourself but to become a part of a society temporarily or forever. This big problem exists in many places around the world. I met Doug Saunders last year at a conference. I also found really interesting in what he is working on right now - he is investigating borders. His physics is that people know very well what they need to include themselves, to move forward and establish themselves in a new place. The only thing that keeps the people from doing is the borders of any kind. Those are policy borders like, if you have an education that is not being approved in that country, or if you don’t have the permission to work, to start a bank account, you don’t have insurance, you don’t have permissions to do your own things, or your land and property. There are also spatial examples. We talked about typical refugee housing but also generally, there is a housing situation where you have spatial borders – just distances you have in a modernist city planning. You have a housing block and then there is a wasteland, and then the shops or the connection to the public transport. Definitely, there are huge borders of various qualities.

ES: This border you could also feel it in the exhibition. It is not necessarily meant as a statement. I think it is obligated to present these efforts. Although we know it’s the right things to do, but it’s also not easy to put into reality, especially not from one day to the other. I think they are also ambiguous. One example that we found very inspiring in Berlin, there is a Vietnamese wholesale market at the edge of the city and that is a very important economic and social center for the Vietnamese community in Berlin, which is really big. We also have it as an example and it was at the statement that we connected to that space, saying that sometimes being a bit at the edge of what’s legal is okay. Sometimes the Arrival City is illegal and that is okay. Sometimes you have to make exceptions. But part of the market burned down only a few months later. It was a short period and clearly how problematic it is. The safety at work and the safety measures and also the safety of buildings is very often not on the same level as our standards would usually ask for. So fire regulations might have not been taken as seriously as it should. In a way, that is okay because that is not the main focus. If we are following all the German buildings law, it is going to take five years to get a permission and cost a fortune. But on the other hand, it might happen that there is a fire and you find yourself with too many people in a space. We were aware of that how problematic and these claims are.

ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES OF REFUGEE HOUSING IN BRAZIL GB: How your architectural studies like Rio and Sao Paulo, etc, how do these relate to the refugee house crisis? ES: Maybe the most fitting work would be the one that we did in Brazil, where we worked both in Amazon forest and also in Rio and Sao Paulo, where we were first looking into favela – the informal neighborhoods. You can hardly compare them to the Arrival Cities because not all of them are Arrival Cities, since people spending their lifetime in those places. But when we started our research in progress, we always tried to concentrate on two things. On the one hand, look at what the problems, what can be improved, what kind of strategies are robust enough to work in these kinds of environments that have no top-down planning. On the other hand, we were always looking into what can we learn from these neighborhoods for the formal sector. It was a constant comparison between the informal and the formal. We then started looking into the social housing project that exists in Brazil. They are quite parallel to the refugee housing in Germany and the idea of the Arrival City.

ES: The social housing that is offered to people is a combination of a financial system by a big Brazilian bank in combination with regulations for how these houses are supposed to be built. But they are very badly connected to the city. If you look into this topic you would know it. From a lot of places around the world that the state produced housing is – you get a house and then you realize it is in a homogenous residential neighborhood where commercial activities are completely forbidden, which is a big economic problem for many people. It is a neighborhood far from the city center. It is expensive and it is complicated to get to the city center by a public transport, etc. If you then compare to the informal housing in some cities in Brazil, they are quite centrally located. The best example, of course, is Rio, where on the hills in the city center you have favelas and informal housing. It is a mix community. People have all kinds of activities, even going to the favela from former neighborhoods to go shopping. You have a similar contrast between the formal and the informal, as you have in Germany between the Arrival Cities and what is like “put up” by the states. Besides that, what we did as the designers of the exhibition was that we also tried to include a lot the experience that we have made on our trips, because we have been to all these neighborhoods. And we found something that maybe you could call a design intelligence that we found it very interesting, worth documenting, and worth including into our work. It is based on a strong understanding of efficiency. Let’s say “Minimum means and maximum output.” We also used that in the exhibition design. We used the thesis and everything you could see on the walls in the pavilion. I put up them with one of our interns. It was only a three prints. It was not big expensive prints so that we could do at our office printer. It was mostly black and white prints on colored paper because we have seen that trick in those places that color prints are really more expensive than just an white print. So people are printing black and white on colored paper. We copied some of these ideas and used them in the exhibition and put together bigger posters from small friezes which leads to a print price at 16 cent per square meter, while if you print plot color per square meter is usually more like 30 euros or more.

ES: In this efficiency in the design, we tried to translate that we only put what is necessary into the space, the ones that we felt like is needed to use the space to be able to understand the topic, and to read the thesis of the exhibition. And we also convinced the curators that we are really writing the thesis on the wall as they are, and we are not like making complicated icons or diagrams but really just say what we found out. For example, we know these little shops from favelas in Brazil that they don’t really have much of a corporate identity, but they just write outside what they are selling. So they usually have a big display saying “Ice cream, Croissant,” etc., and they write one thing after another. They don’t have names, just write what they are selling. This kind of intelligent and efficient design we found quite inspiring. What we tried for ourselves was not to copy the aesthetics but we want to try and think like the people who did these. What we have heard quite often after researching these contexts for more than five years was that be careful not to romanticize the living conditions of people. I think the moment that you are really taking a closer look and trying to understand why people do what they do and what are their reasons instead of just looking, how does it look, how does it feel, etc. Then the problem of romanticizing is not happening. I know there are always something that you might find aesthetically attractive, the self-made illusion design, that is the one thing. But more important or fruitful is just understand where it comes from and start from there.

REFLECTION Adriana: I was wondering later on, like five years later, how you feel about the exhibition, and what was the issue there when you look back? ES: I personally didn’t follow as closely as the curators what came up afterwards. I think they were really involved in discussions and look into how things went on. I have more of an outsider perspective on this. Because for me, the project was pretty much done with the exhibition in Venice and then the exhibition in Frankfurt. Generally, what we felt quite strongly during the work was that there was a shift in the mood. The moment that we were planning the exhibition, that was the moment when everyone has confidence and always saying “relaxed, we are going to handle this.” Most of the circles of the society there was a big, almost euphoria that thinking we can get this done. Let’s be a welcoming country. And then the mood, the atmosphere did change within less than a year. By the end of the exhibition, I think there was already a different vibe. In the meantime, problems have come up, there have been incidents that made people change their mind and there are people had come up to use the topic for their agenda. I think the whole country has moved into a different direction since then. We are facing a general political move to the right. We have had manifestations especially in eastern Germany. A new party has come up. Certain people and certain politicians are involved in.

INTERVIEW WITH THE PHOTOGRAPHER OF MAKING HEIMAT: ANJA WEBER ABOUT MAKING HEIMAT - THE PHOTO DOCUMENTARY Anja Weber helps making the book Making Heimat: Germany, Arrival Country: Atlas of Refugee Housing. As a photograher, she shot every project in the book and encountered with various kinds of people arriving in Germany. She looked closely to their daily life. Germany’s refugee situation in the autumn of 2015 was the starting point for the controversial exhibition Making Heimat: Germany, Arrival Country, curated for the German Pavilion at the 15th Venice Biennale of Architecture. This Atlas of Refugee Housing expands upon the observations made about the German arrival cities in the first volume. What roles are played by architects and urban planners when it comes to executing sustainable solutions for housing new arrivals in Germany? Which construction projects could serve as prototypes for affordable housing? Through about 55 exemplary construction projects, this book takes a look at the future of German cities. Photographs by Anja Weber and extensive descriptions of the projects written after site visits provide insight into everyday life in German refugee accommodations.

ABOUT ANJA WEBER Anja Weber is a photographer and video artist. She studied photography in Dortmund (D) with Arno Fischer, in Exeter (UK) with Jem Southam and in New York with Ann Chwatsky and David Armstrong. She was a Fulbright scholar at NYU and the International Center of Photography. Subsequently she assisted artist Lyle Ashton Harris in New York. Today, Anja divides her time between her art practice and editorial photography assignments. She received grants from the European Union, Fulbright commission, i.a. Anja’s work has been included in numerous exhibitions, mostly in Europe. She lives in Berlin. Anja produces her works in series and in un_disciplinary and collaborative ways. Questions on re_presentation_identities_localizations and space as well as their interconnections are important aspects of Anja Weber’s artistic production. Reflecting upon both, forms of performance and assertions of realism in photographic depictions is another aspect of her practice.

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

Artikel aus der National Geographic

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

The 1951 Refugee Convention Photo: UN Archive

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

GERMANY A HEAVEN IN EUROPE

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

THE JOURNEY Syria-Germany

APPLY FOR ASYLUM Border authority Police station

AUFNAHMEEINRICH

Initial accommodation centre for refugees (“Erstaufnahmeeinrichtung”)

TAKEN TO AN INITIAL RECEPTION CENT

Erstverteilung der Asylbegehrenden (First Distribution of Asylum

seeker” (BüMA) - photo - name - date of birth - country of origin

0-6 months maximun stay 24 months

DUBLIN EXAMINATION

HEARING AND DECISION

RESIDENCE PERMIT + BLUE Allows refugees to travel abroad for up to six ensuing months. More than this time could make them lose their residence permit.

REISEAUSWEIS FÜR

ASYLUM / REFUGEE - Refugees are allowed to bring their spouse and minor children to Germany. As an unmarried minor, they can have their parents join them.

- Refugees are entitled to child and parental allowance. - Refugees can attend to an integration course. - Refugees can study or participate in a vocational training programme. 14

HTUNG

TRES

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

m Seekers).

GEMEINSCHAFTSUNTERKÃ&#x153;NFTE HOUSING RELOCATION - COLLECTIVE ACCOMMODATION which they have been allocated for the whole duration of their procedure Section 53(1) Asylum Act.

3 years

are not or no longer required to live in a reception centre, should, as a rule, be housed in collective accommodation. In this context, both the public interest

APPLY FOR PERMANENT RESIDENCE

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

shall also end for family members within the meaning of Section 26 (1) to (3). (3) Section 44 (3) shall apply accordingly.

CROSSING THE HOUSING BORDER

Statistisches Bundesamt, Tabelle Asylbewerberleistungen 2012, Empfängerinnen und Empfänger nach Bundesländern/nach Art der UnterbringungEmpfängerinnen und Empfänger nach Bundesländern

4. MAKING HEIMAT

MAKING HEIMAT

The open Pavilion Photo: Felix TorKar

MAKING HEIMAT

The open Pavilion Photo: Felix TorKar

The Pavilion Photo: Felix TorKar