DIE BAUPILOTENMETHODSAND PROJECTS

ARCHITECTURE IS

PARTICIPATION PARTICIPATION AND ARCHITECTURE

THE POTENTIAL OF A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS

PARTICIPATION IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS— A REVIEW

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AS A SHARED COGNITIVE PROCESS— USERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND ARCHITECTS’ KNOWLEDGE

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ARCHITECTS AND USERS

PERCEPTION OF SPACE AND ATMOSPHERE AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION

ATMOSPHERE AS A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN STRATEGY— DIE BAUPILOTEN—METHODS AND PROJECTS

ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION— CONCLUSION

METHODS

METHODS AND INSTRUCTIONS

A ATMOSPHERES

U USERS’ EVERYDAY LIFE

W WUNSCHFORSCHUNG

F FEEDBACK

P PRODUCTION OF GAME SETS

PROJECTS

DEVELOPING PROJECTS WITH USERS

RENOVATING / BUILDING NEW / CONVERTING

ACHIEVING MAXIMUM EFFECT WITH MINIMAL INTERVENTION

DATA & INFO

LIST OF WORKS

THE ARCHITECTURE OFFICE DIE BAUPILOTEN BDA

THE STUDY REFORM PROJECT DIE BAUPILOTEN 2003—2014

LITERATURE & PUBLICITY

IMAGE CREDITS

NOTES

IMPRINT

PART 1

P. 8

P. 11

P. 17

P. 20

P. 22

P. 26

P. 40

PART 2

P. 44

P. 46

P. 58

P. 70

P. 90

P. 108

PART 3

P. 118

P. 138

P. 208

PART 4

P. 242

P. 246

P. 248

P. 250

P. 253

P. 254

P. 256

SUSANNE HOFMANN ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION DIE BAUPILOTEN—METHODS AND PROJECTS

54

The spectacular demonstrations held against the renovation project for the Stuttgart Central Station “Stuttgart 21” weren’t the first time in Germany it became clear that people not only want to have a say in the design of their built environment, but that they want to participate in it as well. Our democracy is experiencing change. Established political decision-making structures are being questioned, new participation processes in the design of public buildings are being tested, and a new design planning culture is being demanded. What does this mean for city planning, urban development, and architecture?

How should planners and architects respond to these challenges? What do they mean for the architect’s understanding of their professional role? Architects can no longer ignore these questions without being accused of arrogance. Whether or not they open up to a participatory process has become an existential question, because users’ knowledge about the use and experience of spaces offers fundamental insight for architects throughout the design process.

But what does participation mean precisely? Does it waste or save time? Does it cost or save money? How does participation work? Where and when is the user involved? How do the desires of users become built spaces? What e!ect does participation have? Does it create user identi"cation with the architecture? Does it create social cohesion? Who is afraid of participation?

ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION gives possible answers to these questions. The book is divided into three parts: the introduction gives an overview of historical and current participative design strategies. Next, the design methods of Die Baupiloten architectural office are explained in the form of method modules presented as a kind of game manual. These modules cover a wide range of participation possibilities, which above all consist of communication about and through atmospheres. Finally, the international projects designed and built by Die Baupiloten office using these methods are presented. They show how sophisticated architecture, which is highly regarded by its users, can emerge through participation.

ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION addresses everyone who is situated in a democratic design and build culture and wants to know exactly what participation in architectural design and planning is all about.

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

ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION

98

people who are in touch with their world, and thus able to mediate between them and the architect. User participation should be understood as part of the foundation of a design proposal, not as an irritation or “dilution” of the “pure” idea. It provides a robust foundation leading to a design that is highly relevant in terms of use, and to an increased sense of belonging. Significant conflicts that otherwise wouldn’t arise until construction or after completion of the building can be identified during the design stage. A key element is the established trust between user, client, and architect—whose relationships with each other should be evenly balanced, as in an equilateral triangle. A basic requirement here is the willingness of the client, the responsible body, or simply the investor to engage in participatory methods and consider user participation worthwhile. At the same time, users also need to believe in their own self-efficacy. Only when these conditions are met can the collaboration between the architect, user, and client be productive.

The precise exploration of users’ needs and ideas regarding the use of buildings, as well as effectual communication between laypeople and architects are important foundations for the design quality and sustainable use of buildings, which is expressed by the satisfaction of their users. The increased identification with the building contributes to a sense of well-being, which in the example of schools and kindergartens, results in an added pedagogical value. Identifying with the building can also improve social relations—for example, in housing. Through the increased user satisfaction with a building that responds to their demands, it can potentially lead to a more careful use of the space and thereby reduce repair and renovation costs. Hence, participation also has an economically relevant added value. While participation may be a challenge for society in general, in the manageable group of people involved in a building project, agreement that minimizes the potential for conflict and the associated costs and time can be reached.

The extent to which users are involved in the design and building process, how and which processes they participate in, and who is actually defined as a user determines the intensity and quality of the participation process. Several groups may use a public building in different ways, but they should all have a say when it comes to the future of their built environment. People’s often implicit knowledge about spatial qualities and their demands on the use and the experience of space is a social potential that must be taken into account in architecture. Participation is also a challenge for architects and their designs, because potential conflicts between stakeholders and their differing needs entail risk and uncertainty. Therefore, consensus—and the question of whether it is achievable or desirable—is a key issue in participation theories. The role the architect plays in a participatory design process is at issue, like that of the future user, because participation is still perceived by many architects and clients to be disruptive as well as too time-consuming and costly.

Consequently, participation is not least a challenge to the self-image of architects, because a participatory design and building process may demand new production methods and new building aesthetics. In return, we can expect an architecture corresponding more to usage requirements than conventional approaches based frequently on assumptions of usage. Even if the intention of the latter may seem considerate, the problem with this approach—apart from the danger of not considering the actual users’ interests—is that to the users it is always somewhat overbearing and confining, sometimes even aggressive. Essential here is a transparent and well-mediated design approach that makes the importance of the “people” (in the sense of the Austrian sociologist Helga Nowotny) visible in the design process.[2]

PARTICIPATION AND ARCHITECTURETHE POTENTIAL OF A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS

Democratic societies, which consist more and more of emancipated people, strongly demand participation in the design of their built environment. Participation is becoming increasingly relevant for the architectural design process, while at the same time, the role of the architect as an expert is being called into question. Architects frequently have to contend with allegations that their work is too detached from client and user expectations, and only follows their own principles. Whether architects isolate and thus expose themselves to accusations of arrogance and self-indulgence, or whether they open up to users in a participatory design process has become an existential question. For if it is assumed that the quality of architecture is evaluated based on its sustainable usability and the degree of the user’s identification with the building, then high priority must be given to users’ participation in the design of their environment. Laypeople’s understanding of the use and experience of space presents the architect with a foundation of knowledge for the architectural design process. Therefore, the process should be built upon a viable communication between architect and users.

In the general practice of an architectural firm, working with users should be considered an essential part of the design investigations, and thus an extension of the architect’s sphere of activity. Because this is not stipulated in the German Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers (HOAI), it is not accordingly remunerated, and must therefore be negotiated separately with the client. The German Federal Building Code only requires that people be informed about the project (Building Code § 3.1), but does not stipulate or plan for their participation. As a result, participation as a potential for better and more appropriate architecture is seldom used, or is performed in a casual and poorly planned manner, which only confirms prejudices regarding its ineffectiveness. Token participation, participation as an end in itself, participation not being economically viable—these are just some of the concerns surrounding participation processes. Not only do increasing protests against construction projects call for early user involvement, but well-planned participation can also contribute significantly to a high-quality built environment and an increased sense of belonging. As a result, the issue of participation plays a central role in wide-ranging discussions among experts about the use of “Stage Zero,” which serves as a pre-HOAI work stage. For the building of schools, the Montag Stiftungen (Montag Foundations) define Stage Zero as the “preparation and development stage … for the educational, spatial, economic and urban requirements in each school building project ... [it] includes a thorough assessment of all relevant data, the development of robust usage scenarios and organizational models for the pending construction project.”[1] Yet, Stage Zero is usually considered in isolation from the rest of the design process, with other architectural firms or project developers assigned this task, rather than the architect responsible for the project. For instance, the Montag Stiftungen recommend external, separately commissioned school design consultants.

Our particular approach to participation provides close collaboration between user, client, and architect through several stages of the design process. For the architect, openness to the users’ wishes is a prerequisite for targeted communication and observation of their everyday life. Strategic processes have to be designed to overcome communication barriers, and put into place user-specific, low-threshold levels of interaction that could potentially be developed by a “translator.” This can be a specially trained staff, or—when working with adolescents—young

1110

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

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

DESIGN TRANSPARENCY

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

In the current German debate, the participation of architectural laypeople in shaping their built environment is still limited to citizen participation in urban regeneration and development processes, such as public hearings.[3] Participation in the architectural design of their immediate environment often remains ignored. Architects barely participate in these debates, frequently retreating with their design expertise and limiting themselves to the moderation or organization of architectural processes and related decisions. Hence, design is often considered a field of subordinate aesthetic choices. But how can we design and build architecture that fulfills the Vitruvian principles of durability, utility, and beauty? A utility that is not only measured in terms of functionality, but also in terms of enhancing atmospheric qualities that support the use and give users the opportunity to identify with the architecture?

All of these issues raise specific questions for the design process:

1. How can the insights gained from user participation be integrated profitably in the architectural design process?

2. What form should the communication take between users, clients, and architects, so that this process is a productive one and architecture laypeople feel they can participate on equal terms?

3. And how can the design be realized so that the users’ wishes are really fulfilled—without substantial curtailments and despite other parameters, such as low construction budgets, building regulations, and mandatory standards?

YONA FRIEDMAN, 1974 MY GUIDE: HOW CITY DWELLERS CAN PLAN THEIR BUILDINGS AND CITIES THEMSELVESA. ANOTHER STORY OF THE RESIDENTS OF ANOTHER NEW DISTRICT. B. EACH OF US HAD AN IDEA OF OUR OWN HOME. C. BUT OUR ARCHITECT DIDN’T EVEN LISTEN TO US. HE HAD STUDIED HOW THE “AVERAGE MAN” BEHAVES

A.

B.

C.

3130

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

USERS’ EVERYDAY LIFE METHOD MODULES

The observation, or rather, monitoring and documenting of the users’ daily routines, forms the second important category of method modules for the participatory design process. One option, for instance, is to accompany the users in their everyday life, and to record different events in order to draw conclusions with reference to the architecture. This might entail moving into a residential complex that is to be renovated, or long-term monitoring of a group to gain more specific, reliable insight into their personal preferences.U1 Another method is to not only accompany or interview the users, but also invite them to reflect on their everyday life, by presenting and documenting their favorite locations and meeting places themselves.U4 Accompanying and observing the user in an environment unfamiliar to them can bypass behavior typical of the everyday and reveal new preferences.U5

The aim of the Users’ Everyday Life workshops is to learn about their everyday environments and discuss them collectively. The findings from the workshops are integrated into the design work, and at the same time, form a further basis of communication between the architect and the users. It may serve as confirmation of the findings from the Wunschforschung or atmospheres workshops, or help to correct them. The collective exploration of users’ everyday lives helps to eliminate stereotypes on both sides. In any case, it presents an expansion of the designer’s knowledge. In particular, the modules Move In U1 and Explore Everyday Locations U2 lead to more intense contact with the user, and strengthens their trust in the architect. However, it remains a challenge for the designer to combine the individual findings in order to form a broad basis for the design.

WUNSCHFORSCHUNG METHOD MODULES

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

ATMOSPHERES METHOD MODULES

The workshops that take place at the beginning of the participatory design process use atmosphere to create a common language between the users and architect, and hence build trust and openness between them. Working with atmospheric representations (collages, models) and the verbal exchange regarding them, circumvents the established architectural codes of communication through technical drawings, plans, and models. Thus, it is possible to communicate more directly about architecture and its real and desired qualities. Using images and imagination, ideas about such qualities can be developed further, and eventually form the basis for a viable design concept that the user can identify with.

Different tools may be used to attune users to the participatory design process. For example, with the aid of presented visual material, a common language can be developed.A1 The images and their relationship with each other help the user to find atmospheric descriptions that provide a basis for communication with the architect on equal terms. The method of strolling, leisurely walking through space without a previously defined goal, is also a useful tool to get started. By combining detailed photographs of a place, its atmospheric qualities can be abstracted, visualized, and communicated.A2 Capturing a place or situation in detailed images, and assembling them into an integrated representation can provide a narrative for communication. These “mood boards” arising from the atmospheres workshops are documented by the architect (or moderator of the process), combined into a more coherent, precise concept, and explored even further using various media. The location and perception of the atmospheric effects are mapped.

Documenting the atmospheres is essential to their perception, because it reflects and reinforces them in a permanent process, and it also establishes the foundation for their communication. An interview can also be a useful method for their exploration.A5 The so-called activating survey should not be designed as a means of data retrieval, but as social interaction. It is

TIMELINE PLANNING PROCESS LICHTENBERWEG KINDERGARTEN, LEIPZIGAS RESULT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND FEEDBACK PROCESSES, THE AIM IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A JOINT STORY ARISING FROM AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRAGMATIC REQUIREMENTS AND FUNCTIONALITY, WHICH AT THE SAME TIME BECOMES A BASIS FOR THE ARCHITECTURE. IT IS CONTINUALLY MIRRORED IN THE FACTUAL REQUIREMENTS AND FURTHER DEVELOPED. IN THIS PROCESS, THE DESIGNS GAIN THEIR CONCRETE FORM. THE DIAGRAM SHOWS, FOR EACH PROJECT, THE SPECIFIC PROCESS IN THE COMPARISON OF METHOD MODULES, THE MOMENT OF THE STORY FORMULATION, AND THE INDIVIDUAL WORK STAGES (LPH#) ACCORDING TO THE GERMAN FEE STRUCTURE FOR ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS (HOAI).

2009

10 0611 02

2011

12 03 0401

2010

0802 07 09

2012

U3 A3F7 W1 F4

LPH

2Co

ncep

t Des

ign

FICT

ION

LPH

3D

evel

oped

Des

ign

LPH

6/7

Tend

er D

ocum

enta

tion

LPH

8Co

nstru

ctio

n St

art

LPH

5Te

chni

cal D

esig

n

PARTICIPATION

WORK STAGE

PR

OC

ESS

CO

MP

LETI

ON

4140

Users are experts in this sense. Even if they haven’t studied architecture and aren’t immediately aware of it, they understand which kind of environments they need in life in its various facets; during work, school, kindergarten, and in other circumstances. They are well-equipped to formulate ideas about a desirable world, determine its atmosphere, and exchange ideas, in particular with an architect. The architect can use this to their advantage, by developing a system of communication built on the comparison of different atmospheres.

The age of users, their social status and cultural background only play a role in how the method modules are set and differentiated. The methods must be adapted to the specific situation; any attempt to develop a panacea will fail. Important elements of this communication are, on the one hand, the abstraction of imagined atmospheric worlds, and, on the other hand, specific desires related to atmospheres. A narrative is compiled, leading to the development of an architectural concept: form follows fiction. From this, the architects are able to arrive at complex and detailed resolutions from which programmatic requirements can be integrated into the project. The fiction developed with the users—with the narratives based on their desires condensed within—as well as the resulting concept, form the backbone of the design which, in consequence, is able to adapt to new requirements without disappointing the users. Feedback and evaluations of various projects have confirmed the success of this method: the users’ degree of identification with the finished building is high.

In the context of my professional practice and recently concluded study reform project Die Baupiloten, I have developed a participatory design process that gives the user and the client the opportunity to develop and communicate their own ideas about the future architecture and, in particular, about its atmospheres. Imaginary worlds are invented in a deliberately playful manner; they transcend everyday life and the actual situation, and they are recorded in various collages, models, narratives, or three-dimensional installations. It is a sensitive dialogue between the users and the architect; the latter’s response based on their expertise and competence in spatial design on an atmospheric level. A prerequisite for a constructive dialogue of this kind is a foundation of trust between the two, where each respects the others particular knowledge, expertise, and respective roles. Atmosphere as a participatory design strategy is not a nightmare, it has incredible potential for the productive and meaningful participation of everyone involved.

ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION — CONCLUSION

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

NEIGHBORHOOD BATTLE, DESIGN SEMINAR SOCIAL CLUB WEDDING, BERLIN, 2011 POSterS wIth CONCePt deSIgNS fOr dIffereNt LOCatIONS IN BrUNNeNkIez were PUt UP fOr dISCUSSION dUrINg a waLkINg tOUr Of the NeIghBOrhOOd. thIS eNaBLed the StUdeNtS tO See hOw eaCh CONCePt waS reCeIeved By the reSIdeNtS.

4544

MET

HO

DS

AN

D

INST

RUC

TIO

NS

The method modules presented here—each of which is coupled with an example workshop carried out by Die Baupiloten—are divided into four areas that build on or complement each other:

A1 – A5 ATMOSPHERES U1 – U5 USERS’ EVERYDAY LIFE W1 – W9 WUNSCHFORSCHUNGF1 – F8 FEEDBACK

Their overriding importance for the design process is described LQ�GHWDLO� LQ�WKH�ÀUVW�SDUW�RI�WKH�ERRN��7KH\�FDQ�EH�FRPELQHG��DQG�VRPH� FDQ� DOVR� EH� HDVLO\� PRGLÀHG� IRU� XVH� LQ� RWKHU� VWDJHV�� 7KH�ZRUNVKRSV�FDQ�EH�FDUULHG�RXW� LQ�VHYHUDO�VPDOO�JURXSV�RU� URXQGV��,Q�PRVW�FDVHV��WKH�DUFKLWHFW�DFWV�DV�WKH�PRGHUDWRU�������ZKR�DFWLYHO\�JDWKHUV�WKH�HPHUJLQJ�VXJJHVWLRQV�DQG�LGHDV��DQG�IHHGV�WKHP�EDFN�LQWR�WKH�SURFHVV��,W�LV�DOVR�LPSRUWDQW�WKDW�WKH\�FDUHIXOO\�UHFRUG�WKH�UHVXOWLQJ�LGHDV��H[SUHVVHG�ZLVKHV��DQG�GHYHORSLQJ�VWRULHV�LQ�RUGHU�WR�PDNH�DV�WKRURXJK�DQ�HYDOXDWLRQ�DV�SRVVLEOH��7KLV�FDQ�EH�GRQH�TXDOLWDWLYHO\� DQG�RU� TXDQWLWDWLYHO\�� $Q� LQWHUSUHWDWLYH�H[SOLFDWLYH�HYDOXDWLRQ�E\�PHDQV�RI�DQ�H[KLELWLRQ�FDQ�DOVR�EH�XVHIXO�

7KH� ´$WPRVSKHUH� DV� D� 3DUWLFLSDWRU\� 'HVLJQ� 6WUDWHJ\µ� PHWKRG�PRGXOHV� DUH� YDULHG� DQG� GLYHUVH�� EHFDXVH� GLIIHUHQW� NLQGV� RI�SDUWLFLSDWLRQ� DUH� VXLWDEOH� IRU� GLIIHUHQW� XVHUV�� GLIIHUHQW� ORFDWLRQV��DQG� GLIIHUHQW� SURMHFWV�� 7KH� W\SH� RI� PDWHULDOV� DQG� PHDQV� XVHG�DQG�SURGXFHG��FROODJHV��PRYLHV��SLFWXUHV��JDPHV��HWF���PXVW�DOVR�EH�DGDSWHG�WR�VXLW�WKH�SDUWLFLSDQWV�DQG�WKH�SURMHFW��7KH�FKRLFH�RI�PHWKRG�PRGXOHV�DOVR�GHSHQGV�RQ�WKH�SUH�GHWHUPLQHG�WLPH�IUDPH�DQG�WKH�DYDLODEOH�EXGJHW��

The pictograms to the right clearly illustrate for which participants DQG� WDUJHW� JURXS� WKH� ZRUNVKRSV� DUH� UHFRPPHQGHG�� DQG� ZKLFK�PDWHULDO�VKRXOG�EH�XVHG�RU�SUHSDUHG��)RU�VRPH�ZRUNVKRSV��´:�Q�VFKHSRVWNDUWHQµ�A5��TXHVWLRQQDLUHV�F6��RU�SODQQLQJ�JDPHV�W7–W9� F7�ZHUH�GHYHORSHG��DQG�WKHLU�SURGXFWLRQ� LV�H[SODLQHG� LQ� WKH�FRQFOXVLRQ�RI�WKLV�PHWKRGV�FKDSWHU��7KH�SLFWRJUDPV�SURYLGH�LQIRU�PDWLRQ�RQ� WKH�RFFXSDWLRQDO� VWUXFWXUH�RI� WKH�ZRUNVKRSV�� VXFK�DV�WKHLU�UHFRPPHQGHG�VL]H��WKHLU�SRVVLEOH�OLQNDJH�ZLWK�D�GHVLJQ�VWDJH�DFFRUGLQJ� WR� WKH�*HUPDQ� IHH� VWUXFWXUH� IRU� DUFKLWHFWV� �+2$,��� DQG�WKHLU�DYHUDJH�GXUDWLRQ��

7KH�PHWKRG�PRGXOHV�DUH�WR�EH�XQGHUVWRRG�DV�VXJJHVWLRQV��ZKLFK�can be adapted and further developed as you wish for your own SURMHFWV��

Have fun and gain lots of insight!

$'8/76

<281*�3(23/(

&+,/'5(1�)520��<���<���<

127(3$3(5��3(1

&$0(5$

9,68$/�0$7(5,$/

0$7(5,$/6

63(&,$/�0$7(5,$/6

*$0(�6(7

',(�%$83,/27(1�678'<�5()250�352-(&7��78�%(5/,1

*5283�6,=(

02'(5$725�$5&+,7(&7

0$;,080�180%(5� 2)�3$57,&,3$176

'(6,*1�67$*(�$&&25',1*�72�+2$,

7,0(�)5$0(

0DQ\�RI�WKH�ZRUNVKRSV�GHYHORSHG�IRU�\RXQJ�SHRSOH�DUH�VXLWDEOH�IRU�DGXOWV��,W�VKRXOG�be established beforehand if the participants are interested in craft/creative ZRUNVKRSV��RU�ZKHWKHU�D�PRUH�UHVHUYHG��FKDOOHQJLQJ�DOWHUQDWLYH�LV�SUHIHUUHG��

,Q�SURMHFWV�ZLWK�\RXWK��LPSOHPHQWDWLRQ�DV�SDUW�RI�D�OLYH�SURMHFW�DW�D�XQLYHUVLW\�LV�YHU\�YDOXDEOH��6WXGHQWV�DUH�DW�D�VLPLODU�DJH��DQG�WKXV�VKDUH�VLPLODU�H[SHULHQFHV�

7KH� ZRUNVKRSV� DUH� GLIIHUHQWLDWHG� DFFRUGLQJ� WR� DJH� JURXSV�� IURP� IRXU�� VL[�� DQG�HLJKW�\HDUV�ROG��,Q�RUGHU�WR�H[SUHVV�WKHPVHOYHV��VRPH�\RXQJ�FKLOGUHQ�SUHIHU�KDYLQJ�VRPHERG\�WKH\�NQRZ�SUHVHQW��DV�WKLV�JLYHV�WKHP�D�IHHOLQJ�RI�VHFXULW\��

7DNLQJ� QRWHV� GXULQJ� WKH� ZRUNVKRSV� LV� UHFRPPHQGHG�� -XVW� DV� LQWHUHVWLQJ� DV� WKH�individual work results are the many comments and stories that are provided or WROG�GXULQJ�WKH�SURFHVV�

/LNH� WKH� ZULWWHQ� UHFRUG�� WKH� SKRWRJUDSKLF� GRFXPHQWDWLRQ� LV� YHU\� LQVLJKWIXO� DQG�LPSRUWDQW�IRU�WKH�HYDOXDWLRQ��7KH�UHVXOWV�IURP�WKH�SODQQLQJ�JDPHV�VKRXOG�DOZD\V�EH�SKRWRJUDSKHG�IURP�DERYH��IURP�WKH�ELUG·V�H\H�YLHZ��VR�WR�VSHDN�

Images with strong spatial effects thematically appropriate to the workshops and IURP� WKH� QRQ�DUFKLWHFWXUDO�ZRUOG�� SUHIHUDEO\� LQ� $�� VL]H�� *RRG� VRXUFHV� DUH� QDWXUH�PDJD]LQHV�RU�WKH�,QWHUQHW�

2UGLQDU\�PDWHULDOV�VXFK�DV�JOXH��VFLVVRUV�DQG�FDUGERDUG��6LPSOH�PRGHOLQJ�PDWHULDOV�VXFK�DV�FRORUHG�RU� UHÁHFWLYH�DFU\OLF�� VSRQJHV��ZRRGHQ�VWLFNV��FRWWRQ�EDOOV��VWULQJ��DQG�EHDGV��)RXQG�PDWHULDOV��VXFK�DV�ERWWOH�FDSV��FRUNV��IDEULF��VFUDSV��HW�FHWHUD��

0DWHULDOV�WKDW�KDYH�WR�EH�SUHSDUHG�RU�PD\�QHHG�WR�EH�FXVWRPL]HG³VXFK�DV�VFDOH�ÀJXUHV��DUFKLWHFWXUDO�PRGHOV�DQG�PRGXOHV��VSHFLÀF� �PRGHO��EXLOGLQJ�PDWHULDOV³RU�WKLQJV�WKDW�KDYH�WR�EH�VSHFLDOO\�REWDLQHG��H�J���SRVWFDUGV��

7KH�SURGXFWLRQ�RI� WKH� JDPH�VHWV� LV� GHVFULEHG�RQ�S������� 7KH� JDPH�VHWV� FDQ�EH�VSHFLÀHG�DFFRUGLQJ�WR�WKH�SURMHFW�DQG�WKH�ORFDWLRQ��&XVWRP�GHYHORSHG�DQG�SURGXFHG�JDPHV�FDQ�EH�RUGHUHG�IURP�'LH�%DXSLORWHQ�

7KH�QXPEHU�RI�VWXGHQWV�LQYROYHG�LQ�D�VWXG\�SURMHFW�� LQ�ZKLFK�PRUH�DVSHFWV�RI�WKH�GHVLJQ� FDQ� EH� H[SORUHG� LQ� D� ODUJH�VFDOH� QHHGV� DQG� GHVLUHV� UHVHDUFK� SURMHFW� DQG�WKHUHIRUH�PRUH� LPSUHVVLRQV� FDQ� EH� FROOHFWHG� DQG�PRUH� LQVLJKW� JDLQHG�� %UDFNHWV�LQGLFDWH�FRRSHUDWLRQ�ZLWK�D�XQLYHUVLW\�RWKHU�WKDQ�WKH�78�%HUOLQ�

$� ORW� RI� LQGLYLGXDO� ZRUN� FDQ� DOVR� EH� FDUULHG� RXW� GLVFXUVLYHO\� LQ� SDLUV�� )RU� WKH�SODQQLQJ�JDPHV�DQG�VRPH�RI�WKH�ZRUNVKRSV��VSHFLÀF�JURXS�VL]HV�SHU�PRGHUDWRU�DUH�UHFRPPHQGHG�� ,Q� ODUJHU�JURXSV��PRUH�URXQGV�DQG³LI�QHFHVVDU\³PRUH�JDPH�VHWV�VKRXOG�EH�PDGH�DYDLODEOH�

7KH�PRGHUDWRU�LV�XVXDOO\�WKH�SURMHFW�DUFKLWHFW��7KURXJK�WKH�SDUWLFLSDWLRQ��WKH\�JHW�D�YHU\�JRRG�IHHOLQJ�IRU�WKH�SURMHFW�XVHU�JURXS��DQG�WKXV�LPSRUWDQW�LQVLJKW�IRU�D�KROLVWLF�GHVLJQ�SURFHVV�

:RUNVKRSV� UDQJLQJ� LQ� VL]H� IURP� WZHOYH� WR� WZHQW\� SHRSOH� KDYH� SURYHG� WR� EH�YHU\� IHDVLEOH�� :LWK� PRUH� WKDQ� WZHQW\� SHRSOH�� D� VHFRQG� PRGHUDWRU� LV� XVXDOO\�UHFRPPHQGHG��3ODQQLQJ�JDPHV�DUH�PRVW�SURGXFWLYH�ZLWK�RQH�PRGHUDWRU�SHU�WHDP�RI�DERXW�VL[�SDUWLFLSDQWV�

7KH� ZRUNVKRS� PRGXOHV� DUH� DVVLJQHG� D� VSHFLÀF� GHVLJQ� VWDJH�� DQG� ZLWKLQ� WKHVH�VWDJHV� WKH� GLIIHUHQW�PRGXOHV� FDQ� EH� FRPELQHG�� ,Q� DGGLWLRQ�� VRPH� FDQ� EH� OLJKWO\�PRGLÀHG�IRU�XVH�LQ�RWKHU�VWDJHV�

$OO�WLPH�GHVLJQDWLRQV�UHFRPPHQG�DQ�DYHUDJH�WLPH�IUDPH�LQ�D�JURXS�RI�D�PD[LPXP�RI�WZHQW\�SDUWLFLSDQWV�ZLWK�QR�SUHSDUDWLRQ�WLPH��7KLV�LQFOXGHV�WKH�HQWLUH�FRXUVH�RI�WKH�ZRUNVKRS��ZKLFK�FDQ�EH�VSUHDG�RYHU�VHYHUDO�GD\V�DV�LQGLYLGXDO�VWHSV�LI�UHTXLUHG�

��0,1

����

U1

678'(17�5(6,'(1&(�6,(*081'6�+2)�$V�SDUW�RI� WKH�GHVLJQ�VHPLQDU� ´0RYH� LQ�7RJHWKHU������µ� WKH�'LH�Baupiloten students lived for a weekend in different student residences around Berlin and recorded their H[SHULHQFHV�LQ�WKH�IRUP�RI�QRWHFDUGV�ZLWK�SKRWRV�RI�VSHFLDO�PRPHQWV��7KH�VR�FDOOHG�UHVLGHQFH�GLDU\�FOHDUO\�YLVXDOL]HG�WKH�FKDUDFWHU��VWUHQJWKV��DQG�ZHDNQHVVHV�RI�WKH�UHVLGHQFH�DQG�VKDUSHQHG�WKH�GHVLJQ�GHFLVLRQV��-��/HKUHU��

029(� ,1� LV� WKH� DUFKLWHFW·V� H[SHULHQFH� RI� WKH� XVHUV·� HYHU\GD\� OLYHV�� ZKLFK� LV�PRUH� LQ�GHSWK� WKDQ� D�PHUH�REVHUYDWLRQ��7KH�DLP� LV� WR�GHYHORS�SHUVRQDO�SHUFHSWLRQV�RI� WKH�XVHUV·�HYHU\GD\� OLIH�DQG�DFWLYLWLHV��DQG� WR�LGHQWLI\��VHW�DVLGH��RU�SUHYHQW�VWHUHRW\SHV�IURP�HPHUJLQJ�LQ�WKH�ÀUVW�SODFH�

35(3$5(��6HOHFW�DQ�DSSURSULDWH�UHVLGHQFH�

6/,3�,172�7+(�52/(�2)�7+(�86(5��)RU�RQH�GD\�DQG�RQH�QLJKW��PRYH�LQWR�WKH�UHVLGHQFH�WR�EH�H[DPLQHG��and live according to the everyday rituals of the user: use all areas and test desired activities such as FRRNLQJ��UHOD[LQJ��ZRUNLQJ��HW�FHWHUD��,I�URRPPDWHV�VKDUH�WKH�OLYLQJ�VSDFH��WKHQ�LQ�WKH�LGHDO�VLWXDWLRQ�WKH\�ZLOO EH�SUHVHQW�

5(&25'�(;3(5,(1&(�� 7KH�HQWLUH�GDLO\� URXWLQH� VKRXOG�EH� ORJJHG�ZLWK�D�ZULWWHQ�DQG�SKRWRJUDSKLF� UHFRUG��ZKHUH�GRHV�RQH�OLQJHU�ZLWK�RWKHUV�DQG�ZKHUH�DUH�WKH�SULYDWH�DUHDV"�:KLFK�DFWLYLWLHV�GRHV�RQH�FKRRVH�IRU�ZKLFK� ORFDWLRQ"�+RZ�GRHV�RQH�PRYH�WKURXJK�WKH�EXLOGLQJ"�5HFRUG�RWKHU�VSDWLDO�DQG�EXLOGLQJ�UHOHYDQW�XVH�FULWHULD��VWUHQJWKV�DQG�ZHDNQHVVHV�

&5($7(�5(6,'(1&(�',$5<��&RPSLOH� WKH�H[SHULHQFHV�RQ�VHYHUDO�QRWHFDUGV�A5�� <RX�VKRXOG�FDWHJRUL]H� WKH�LQIRUPDWLRQ��)RU�H[DPSOH�����REMHFWLYH�GDWD�VXFK�DV�VL]H��URRPV��DQG�QXPEHU�RI�UHVLGHQWV�����GDLO\�URXWLQH�DQG�QRWHZRUWK\�HYHQWV�����GHVFULSWLRQ�RI�VWUHQJWKV�DQG�ZHDNQHVVHV��VNHWFKHV��DQG�SKRWRJUDSKV�

7KH�DUFKLWHFW�FDQ�EHWWHU�FRPSUHKHQG�WKH�XVHU·V�ZD\�RI�OLIH�DQG�VSHFLÀF�DSSURSULDWLRQ�RI�VSDFH�WKDQ�ZLWK�D�PHUH�REVHUYDWLRQ�RU�WKURXJK�K\SRWKHWLFDO�FRQVLGHUDWLRQV�DERXW�IXQFWLRQDO�SURFHVVHV��'LIIHUHQW�DFWLYLWLHV�DV�\HW�XQNQRZQ�WR�WKH�DUFKLWHFW�DUH�UHYHDOHG�DQG�FDQ�EH�FRQVLGHUHG�LQ�WKH�SODQQLQJ�� MXVW�DV� LQFRUUHFW�XVDJH�DVVXPSWLRQV�FDQ�EH�UHYLVHG�LQ�D�WLPHO\�PDQQHU�

6/,3�,172�7+(�52/(�2)�7+(�86(5�$1'�(;3(5,(1&(�7+(,5�(9(5<'$<�/,)(

,1752

'(6,*1

MOVE IN

5(&216758&7,215(129$7,21�

%(5/,1���������

3�����

352&

(66

02'8/(

352-(&7

� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��'$<

� �� �� �� � �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� ��'$<6

1 '$<

����0,1

1 1,*+7

0

����

� �� ��<� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� ����0,1

�� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� ����0,1

W9

/,9,1*�$1'�5(6,',1*�$6�6(1,256�,1�585$/�$5($6�,Q�WKH�ERDUG�JDPH��HDFK�RI� WKH�WKUHH�VWDNHKROGHUV�QHJRWLDWHG�D�IXWXUH�OLIH�LQ�WKH�FRXQWU\��,QLWLDOO\��HDFK�SOD\HU�GHYHORSHG�D�YLVLRQ�IRU�WKHLU�SHUVRQDO�DUHD��DQG�WKHQ�WKH\�QHJRWLDWHG�WKH�FRPPXQDO�IDFLOLWLHV��)RU�DOO�RI�WKHP��WKHUH�ZDV�ERWK�D�JUHDW�QHHG�IRU�SULYDF\��DV�ZHOO�as a willingness for neighborly interaction—such as through the connection of two units by a common area IRU�FRPPXQDO�FRRNLQJ�DQG�HDWLQJ�

1(*27,$7(�'5($0�63$&(�LV�D�ERDUG�JDPH�ZLWK�DFWLYLW\�DQG�DWPRVSKHUH�FDUGV��7KH�DLP�LV�WR�GHWHUPLQH�WKH�XVHU�JURXSV·�GHVLUHV��QHHGV��DQG�IXQFWLRQDO�UHTXLUHPHQWV�IRU�WKH�GHVLJQ�SURFHVV��

35(3$5(��&UHDWH�RU�RUGHU�WKH�1HJRWLDWH�'UHDP�6SDFH�*DPH�6HW��3��������3URGXFH�DQG�GLVWULEXWH�SURPRWLRQDO�PDWHULDO��LQYLWDWLRQ��Á\HUV�RU�SRVWHUV��DQG�RUJDQL]H�JDPH�HYHQLQJV���

,1752'8&(��,QWURGXFH�WKH�FRQWH[W�RI�WKH�SURMHFW�DQG�\RXUVHOI��([SODLQ�WKH�UXOHV�RI�WKH�JDPH�

'(7(50,1(�$&7,9,7,(6�$1'�$70263+(5(6��6HOHFW�D�PD[LPXP�RI�ÀIWHHQ�DFWLYLW\�FDUGV�DQG�SODFH�WKHP�RQ�WKH�JDPH�ERDUG��7KH�PRUH�WKH�DFWLYLWLHV�KDYH�WR�GR�ZLWK�HDFK�RWKHU��WKH�FORVHU�WKH\�DUH�SODFHG�WR�HDFK�RWKHU��RU�FRQQHFW�WR�IRUP�DFWLYLW\�LVODQGV��&KRRVH�GHVLUDEOH�DWPRVSKHUH�FDUGV�IRU�WKH�DFWLYLW\�LVODQGV�DQG�DUUDQJH�WKHP�RQ�WKH�JDPH�ERDUG��,I�QHFHVVDU\��ODEHO�DQG�DGG�D�EODQN�FDUG�ZLWK�DQ�DGGLWLRQDO�GHVLUHG�DFWLYLW\�DQG�RU�DWPRVSKHUH�

6(7�63$7,$/�5(/$7,216+,36��7HVW�DQG�GLVFXVV�GLIIHUHQW�FRPELQDWLRQV�DQG�DUUDQJHPHQWV�RI�DFWLYLW\�LVODQGV��$FWLYLW\�LVODQGV�WKDW�DUH�SODFHG�GLUHFWO\�QH[W�WR�HDFK�RWKHU�KDYH�D�GLUHFW�VSDWLDO�UHODWLRQVKLS��%ULGJHV�H[SUHVV�DQ�LQGLUHFW�VSDWLDO�UHODWLRQVKLS�

352*5$0� 86(5� 5(48,5(0(176�� $GG� VSHFLÀF� UHTXLUHPHQWV� WR� WKH� DFWLYLW\� LVODQG� LI� QHFHVVDU\³H�J���DFFHVVLELOLW\� RU�� IRU� D� VFKRRO�� ´FKDON� DQG� WDONµ� DV� RSSRVHG� WR� ´LQGLYLGXDOL]HG� OHDUQLQJ�µ�'HWHUPLQH� VSDWLDO�KLHUDUFKLHV�ZLWK�WKH�SULRULW\�GLVFV��,I�QHHGHG��LW�FDQ�EH�KHOSIXO�WR�VSHFLI\�FHUWDLQ�WLPHV�RI�WKH�GD\�RU�\HDU�IRU�WKH�VFHQDULRV�

5(9,(:�'5($0�63$&(�0$3��$UH�VSDWLDO�SURJUDPPDWLF�UHODWLRQVKLSV�DQG�WKH�DWPRVSKHULF�TXDOLWLHV�DV�GHVLUHG"�:DV�WKH�QHJRWLDWLRQ�VXFFHVVIXO�DQG�GR�WKH�SOD\HUV�LGHQWLI\�ZLWK�WKH�UHVXOWV"�'R�QRW�DFFHSW�FRPSURPLVHV�

1$0(�'5($0�63$&(�0$3��)LQG�D�GHVFULSWLYH��VWLPXODWLQJ�WLWOH�IRU�WKH�QHJRWLDWHG�VSDFH�

3+272*5$3+�'5($0�63$&(�0$3��3KRWRJUDSK�WKH�FRPSOHWHG�ERDUG�JDPH�IURP�DQ�DHULDO�SHUVSHFWLYH�

',6&866�� &RPSDUDWLYHO\� GLVFXVV� WKH� GLIIHUHQW� UHVXOWLQJ� JDPH� ERDUGV� DQG� GHEDWH� WKHLU� VWUHQJWKV� DQG�ZHDNQHVVHV��

7,3��'HSHQGLQJ�RQ� WKH�EXLOGLQJ� W\SRORJ\³H�J��� UHVLGHQWLDO�EXLOGLQJV³LW�PD\�EH�XVHIXO� WR� OHW� WKH�XVHUV�SOD\�DORQH�LQ�WKH�ÀUVW�URXQG��LQ�RUGHU�WR�JDLQ�D�PRUH�QXDQFHG�GHVLUH�DQG�QHHGV�VSHFWUXP����

The resulting dream space maps represent the spatial relationship between activities (at certain times of WKH�GD\�RU�\HDU��VXSHULPSRVHG�ZLWK�DWPRVSKHULF�VSDWLDO�TXDOLWLHV��7KXV��WKH\�RIIHU�DQ�LQ�GHSWK�VSDWLDO�QHHGV�DQDO\VLV��ZKLFK�FRPELQHV�WKH�DWPRVSKHULF�GHVLUHV�RI�WKH�XVHU�ZLWK�IXQFWLRQV�DQG�FDQ�EH�XVHG�IRU�GHFLVLRQ�PDNLQJ�LQ�WKH�GHVLJQ�SURFHVV�

',6&866��1(*27,$7(�$1'�'(9(/23�'5($0�63$&(6�$1'� 7+(�$70263+(5(6��63$7,$/�5(/$7,216+,36�$1'�6+$5,1*�2)� $&7,9,7,(6��86,1*�7+(�1(*27,$7(�'5($0�63$&(�%2$5'�*$0(

,1752

352&

(66

'(6,*1

02'8/(

352-(&7

NEGOTIATE DREAM SPACE

352-(&7�'(9(/230(17��1(:�%8,/'� 'g7/,1*(1� ������

3�����

0

0

0

���0,1

���0,1

���0,1

���0,1

25 0,1

97��

� �� ��<� �� �� �� �� �� �� ��� �� �� �� �� ���0,1

� �� �� ��<� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� �� ���0,1

F3

/(�%8))(7�.,'6�5(67$85$17�)URP�WKH�VSDFH�PRGXOHV�ZLWK�UHÁHFWLYH�HOHPHQWV��FRORUHG�DFHWDWH��DQG�PDWHULDO�samples derived from their world of desires W2��WKH�FKLOGUHQ�DVVHPEOHG�WKHLU�RZQ�SOD\�DUHD�IRU�WKH�UHVWDXUDQW��They examined the potential of the modules and their physical and visual relationships with each other and then EHJDQ�WR�SXW�LW�DOO�WRJHWKHU�EDVHG�RQ�WKHLU�RZQ�GHVLUHV�DQG�LPDJLQDWLRQ��H[SHULPHQWLQJ�ZLWK�OLJKW�DQG�PDWHULDO��´:H�ZRXOG�OLNH�WR�ORRN�RXW�IURP�KLJK�DERYH�µ��-RVHÀQH���<�DQG�/DXUD���<�

7(67�6&(1$5,26�LV�DQ�H[SORUDWLRQ��EXLOGLQJ��JDPH�WKDW�XVHV�VSDWLDO�JDPH�PRGXOHV�LQ�D�VSHFLÀF�DUFKLWHFWXUDO�VFDOH��7KH�DLP�LV�WR�HQDEOH�XVHUV�WR�DGMXVW�WKHLU�QHHGV�DQG�GHVLUHV�ZLWKLQ�WKH�IXWXUH�EXLOW�HQYLURQPHQW��XVLQJ�WKHVH�EXLOGLQJ�EORFNV��ZKLFK�WUDQVIHU�HDVLO\�LQWR�WKH�GHVLJQ�SURFHVV�EHFDXVH�RI�WKHLU�VFDOH�� � �

35(3$5(��$UFKLWHFWXUDO�PRGHO�������JDPH�PRGXOHV�������PRGHO�ÀJXUHV�������SUHIHUDEO\�� WKH�SDUWLFLSDQWV�WKHPVHOYHV���)RU�ODUJHU�SURMHFWV��KRZHYHU��D�VPDOOHU�VFDOH�PD\�EH�XVHG�� � �

35(6(17�02'(/��3UHVHQW�WKH�DUFKLWHFWXUDO�PRGHO�DQG�LQGLYLGXDO�JDPH�PRGXOHV�LQ�WHUPV�RI�WKHLU�IXQFWLRQDO�DQG�DWPRVSKHULF�TXDOLWLHV��6SUHDG�RXW�WKH�VFDOH�ÀJXUHV�DQG�RWKHU�PRGHO�EXLOGLQJ�PDWHULDO� �H�J��� UHÁHFWLYH�PDWHULDOV��FRORUHG�DFHWDWH��FRORUHG�VSRQJHV��

(;3(5,0(17�:,7+�02'8/(6��6SLQ��WXUQ�XSVLGH�GRZQ��H[FKDQJH��VXSSOHPHQW��RU�FRPELQH�JDPH�PRGXOHV�LQ�QHZ�ZD\V�� LOOXPLQDWH�ZLWK�GLIIHUHQW� OLJKW�VRXUFHV�DQG�H[SHULPHQW�ZLWK�VKDGRZV��HW�FHWHUD��7KH\�FDQ�EH�VHSDUDWHG�IURP�WKH�DUFKLWHFWXUDO�PRGHO�DQG�DUUDQJHG�GLIIHUHQWO\��DGGLWLRQDO�JDPH�PRGXOHV�FDQ�EH�DGGHG�

$&7�287�6&(1$5,26��7HVW�DQG�UHFRUG�TXLFN�YDULDWLRQV�IRU�HYDOXDWLRQ�ODWHU��ZKHUH�LV�WKH�DWPRVSKHULF�IRFXV�RI�WKH�VFHQDULRV"�,V�WKHUH�DQ�LQYLWLQJ��FR]\��DQG�IDPLOLDU�PRRG�FUHDWHG��RU�LV�WKH�FKDUDFWHU�RI�WKH�VFHQDULR�IRU�H[DPSOH�FRRO��PLQLPDO��RU�LQGXVWULDO"�

,1+$%,7�6&(1$5,26��3ODFH�VFDOH�PRGHO�ÀJXUHV� LQ� WKH�FRPSRVLWH�PRGHO��+RZ�PDQ\�ÀW"�$QG�GXULQJ�ZKLFK�DFWLYLW\"�$FW�RXW�XVDJH�SURFHVVHV�

5(9,(:�6&(1$5,26��'R� WKH�PDLQ� IXQFWLRQV��DFWLYLWLHV��DQG�DWPRVSKHULF�TXDOLWLHV�ZRUN� WRJHWKHU"�$UH� WKH�SURSRUWLRQV��VHTXHQFLQJ��DQG�]RQLQJ�RI�WKH�UHVXOWLQJ�VSDFHV�FRUUHFW"�,V�WKH�HIIHFW�D�GHVLUDEOH�RQH"�:KDW�LV�PLVVLQJ"�

'(6&5,%(�$1'�1$0(�6&(1$5,26��3XW�WKH�DOWHUQDWLYH�VFHQDULRV� LQWR�ZRUGV�DQG�LGHQWLI\�WKHLU�GLIIHUHQFHV��VLPLODULWLHV��DQG�HPSKDVHV��FRQVLGHU�WKH�H[WHQW�WR�ZKLFK�WKH�GLIIHUHQW�PRGHO�VFHQDULRV�FRXOG�EH�FRPELQHG��,V�WKHUH�D�KLHUDUFK\�DPRQJ�WKH�IDYRULWHV"�6KRXOG�VRPH�EH�H[FOXGHG"�$IWHU�WKDW��ÀQG�D�VWLPXODWLQJ�WLWOH��

/,1.�6725,(6��7KLQN�RI�VRPH�FRQFHSWXDO�VWRULHV�WR�OLQN�WKH�IDYRULWH�VFHQDULRV�

7KH�GHVLUHV�RI�WKH�XVHU�DQG�WKH�FRQFUHWH�GHVLJQ�PRGHO�DUH�V\QFKURQL]HG�� LQ�RUGHU�IRU�WKH�XVHU·V�QHHGV�WR�LQWHJUDWH�EHWWHU�LQWR�WKH�RQJRLQJ�GHVLJQ�SURFHVV��,Q�DGGLWLRQ��WKH�HPSKDVL]HG�KDSWLF�TXDOLWLHV�RI�WKH�SURGXFHG�VFHQDULRV�HQJDJH�WKH�XVHU�ZLWK�WKH�PRUH�SK\VLFDO�DQG�LQWXLWLYH�DVSHFWV�RI�WKH�GHVLJQ��*RRG�JXLGLQJ�SULQFLSOHV�DQG�FKDUDFWHU�FDQ�EH�GHYHORSHG�KHUH�IRU�WKH�GHVLJQ�SURSRVDO�

86(�$5&+,7(&785$/�02'(/6��*$0(�02'8/(6��$1'�6&$/(�),*85(6�72�&5($7(�$1'�5(9,(:�',))(5(17�6&(1$5,26�)25�7+(�'(6,*1�352326$/

,1752

'(6,*1

02'8/(

352-(&7

TEST SCENARIOS

&219(56,21 &2/2*1( ������

352&

(66

0

0

���0,1

���0,1

117116

174

97230

51 | 81 | 101 85 130 126 168

156

87 |

110 69234 79 105 166 170

210 140194 222 77 13493

6 214 75 83 170 16463 | 65

67 190 57 198 120204 208 226 |

55

99 |

2010-12 2013 20142008-092006-082005 2008 2012

PROJECTSGET INVOLVED, BIENNALELICHTENBERGWEG KG

LE BUFFET KIDS RESTAURANTALBERT SCHWEITZER HS

EVANGELICAL SCHOOL HS KOTTI 3000 BORNBROOK HS TEAM PLAYERS’ HIGH-RISE S12

URBAN GARDEN LOVERS S13

AGING IN NEIGHBORHOODNEIGHBORHOOD DONAUKIEZ

CO | CH

CHILDREN’S DISCOVERY CENTER LIFE AT A SMALL FOREST S10 PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S4/7 MITMOABITWOHNENKARLSRUHE CIVIC CENTERCARLO SCHMID HSAEDES EXTRA FANTASIES TAKA TUKA LAND KG CARL BOLLE ESJFK INSTITUTE

LIVING IN RURAL AREAS

SOCIAL CLUB GALLERY

NEW LYNN SCHOOL ES ADOLF REICHWEIN ES, KG RISING EDUCATION NEW SCHOOL FAMILY SERVICEPETTENKOFER ES ECO-POP SIEGMUNDS HOF S#SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIAERIKA MANN ES I

6 214

HEINRICH-SCHÜTZ-STRASSE ECSCHADOW HSNIGHT SENSATIONS STAGE TREES ERIKA MANN ES II PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S5/6 MUSIC AND FITNESS S11NIKOLAUS AUGUST OTTO HS CULTURAL CENTER AT AEGBUILD THE SCHOOL

LEARN-MOVE-PLAY-GROUND HELLWINKEL SCHOOL ESUMEÅ, COMMUNITASNIDO PICCOLO KG HEINRICH NORDHOFF HSPAPENTEICH HSVACATION HOUSE MUDGE ISLAND TRAUMBAUM KG H100 LECTURE HALL GALILEI ES

CO | CH

from 2015until 2004

EC: EDUCATIONAL CENTRE / ES: ELEMENTARY SCHOOL / HS: HIGH SCHOOL / KG: KINDERGARTEN / S·#: STUDENT HOUSING / ##: PAGE NUMBER / CO: COOPERATION / CH: CHAIR OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION (VISITING PROFESSOR DR. SUSANNE HOFMANN)

CH

CH

HERMANN VON HELMHOLTZ HS

CH

135134

2014

0706 08 09 10 11

LIVING AND RESIDING AS SENIORS IN RURAL AREAS

DÖTLINGEN

DEVELOPING PROJECTS | LIVING AND RESIDING AS SENIORS IN RURAL AREAS

The development of ten hectares of woodland close to the school, kindergarten, and sports facilities of the municipality Dötlingen will take local demographic changes into consideration: for neighborly coexistence with seniors, housing groups with different multigenerational residential typologies are being developed. The individual housing types will cover different housing needs—for example, “Family Combo,” “Mini Family,” “Senior Shared Apartment,” “Sole Compact,” and a “Couple Compact.” There will also be a neighborhood building with a nursing facility, a community kitchen, and cultural offers for the entire community, as well as common rooms, which are assigned to particular groups of houses (small workshop/studio, guest room, etc.).

CEO Jascha Rohr, Institute for Participatory Design: “After our development of an innovative concept for living as seniors, it was an important step for the group to develop and discuss—with the help of Die Baupiloten workshops—the atmosphere and actual life in the future buildings. That really inspired them and brought the planning process forward.”

W9W6W2

F7F3

LPH

2Co

ncep

t Des

ign

FICT

ION

PARTICIPATION

WORK STAGE

PR

OC

ESS

CO

MP

LETI

ON

157156

http://www.dezeen.com/2012/06/19/inbolla-by-odoardo-!oravanti/

CONVERSION/RENOVATION | STUDENT RESIDENCE SIEGMUNDS HOF| S13

The town square in front of the “House for Urban Garden Lovers“ serves as a focal point for the complex, and opens up the residence to the rest of the city. “Scholle” seats invite visitors to linger and offer the potential to hold events in the central location. The outdoor living room and the sports court are located at the quiet rear of the building. Large, elongated “boulder” seating and wooden terraces are used by both sun worshippers and sports lovers. Oversized “living room” lamps give the exterior space the perfect ambience for a summer SLFQLF�DW�GXVN��7KH�JURXQG�Á�RRU�LV�FRQQHFWHG�WKURXJK�WKH�ODUJH�FRPPXQDO�WHUUDFHV�DQG�KHUE�JDUGHQV�DW�WKH�rear to the newly designed outdoor spaces, the town square, and the backyard. Here, students can plant and grow vegetables, and provide for themselves.

STUDENT RESIDENCE SIEGMUNDS HOFHOUSE FOR URBAN GARDEN LOVERS S13

BOULDER SEATSMeet each other and hang out

BOULDERING WALL Climb together

MIDNIGHT LIGHT Enjoy the evening

TOWN SQUARE WITH STAGE Gather, mingle, and perfom

HERB GARDEN Garden together

COMMUNAL KITCHENCook and eat together

SPORTS COURTPlay sports

OUTDOOR LIVING ROOM Gather and relax

175174

2009

10 0611 02

2011

12 03 0401

2010

0802 07 09

2012

LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN

LEIPZIG

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

NEW BUILD |LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN

Councilor for Urban Development and Construction a.D., Prof. Dipl. Ing. Martin zur Nedden, City of Leipzig: ´$V�D�UHVXOW�RI�WKH�H[HPSODU\�FKDUDFWHU�RI�WKLV�XVHU�SDUWLFLSDWLRQ�PRGHO��DQG�WKHLU�LQFUHDVHG�LGHQWLÀ�FDWLRQ�with the kindergarten, the participants gained important educational value beyond the improvements in the quality of their environment.”

U3 A3F7 W1 F4

LPH

2Co

ncep

t Des

ign

FICT

ION

LPH

3D

evel

oped

Des

ign

LPH

6/7

Tend

er D

ocum

enta

tion

LPH

8Co

nstru

ctio

n St

art

LPH

5Te

chni

cal D

esig

n

PARTICIPATION

WORK STAGE

PR

OC

ESS

CO

MP

LETI

ON

199198

05

2011

0706 0408 09 0110

2012 2013 2014

0403 05 06

HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL

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

The conversion and expansion of the cafeteria, as well as the two-story atrium that serves as the central ORXQJH�DQG�VWXG\�DUHD� IRU� WKH�VHQLRU�FODVV��ZDV� WKH� UHVXOW�RI�À�QGLQJV� IURP�SDUWLFLSDWLRQ�ZRUNVKRSV��7KH�atrium was zoned into desired areas: the “marketplace” with its raised platform is a gathering place, and class results are presented on the leaf-like partitions in the group work area. Pupils can work together at a large table, while in the “Quiet Study Zone,” they can work alone on large cushions or relax. The “Homework Zone” is on the bridge. Part of the furniture, a meandering wooden ribbon, marks the classroom area. In the cafeteria, trapezoidal tables with 200 seats are freely arranged around orange amphitheater-like seating.

CONVERSION | HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL

F7W6W2 F3

LPH

2Co

ncep

t Des

ign

FICT

ION

LPH

3D

evel

oped

Des

ign

LPH

6/7

Tend

er D

ocum

enta

tion

LPH

8Co

nstru

ctio

n St

art

LPH

5Te

chni

cal D

esig

n

PARTICIPATION

WORK STAGE

PR

OC

ESS

CO

MP

LETI

ON

201200

A

A

4

2

7

15 5

5

5 5

5

6

10

6

693

4

8Airspace

Airspace

The requirements for different activities and spatial qualities were developed with a project family of pupils, teachers, parents, and City of Wolfsburg representatives.W6 The collage W2 “The Calm Giant’s Meadow” by the pupil Rebecca Schrader represented the shared notion of the group very well: “On this meadow, one should feel comfortable and able to exchange ideas and communicate. One should be able to relax there (between classes). Furthermore, it should be a lounging meadow…There Is a feeling of security given by the tall grass.” The desired spatial zones were determined in the negotiating game F7, and during the feedback rounds, the design ideas could be given a definite form with collages and models. The work on the cafeteria and classrooms was done in the same way.

1 QUIET STUDY ZONE, 2 GROUP WORK ZONE, 3 RELAXATION CORNER UNDERNEATH THE STAIRS, 4 MARKETPLACE, 5 CLASSROOM, 6 SPECIAL SUBJECT SPACES, 7 HOMEWORK ZONE ON THE BRIDGE , 8 OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENTATION ZONE, 9 RELAXATION ZONE, 10 GALLERY WALL

CONVERSION | HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL

1ST FLOOR PLAN, ATRIUM AND CLASSROOMS 1:320

SECTION CAFETERIA AND ATRIUM A-A 1:320

GROUND FLOOR ATRIUM - SKETCH FIRST FLOOR ATRIUM - SKETCHGROUND FLOOR ATRIUM- GAME BOARD

243242

LEARN-MOVE-PLAY-GROUND, CAIRO, EGYPT, 2012 PT Design build studio (workshop and realization) P Learning landscape C Architecture & Urban Design Program, German University in Cairo (Vittoria Capresi, Barbara Pampe) ST LPH 1–8, participation COOP Vittoria Capresi*, Barbara Pampe* (German University in Cairo), Moritz Bellers (University Stuttgart), Omar Nagati (CLUSTER Cairo), Susanne Hofmann with Nils Ruf (Die Baupiloten), Urs Walter (CH), Charalampos Lazos (Studio Matthias Görlich), Magda Mostafa (American University Cairo) FUN Fully funded by the German Academic Exchange Program (DAAD), Egyptian Ministry of Education, Goethe Institute Cairo PP Montag Stiftungen (Karl-Heinz Irmhäuser, Brigitta Fröhlich), Roweida Sabra (Authority of Educational Buildings (GAEB)), Renet Korthals-Altes (Playground Designer)

LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN, LEIPzIG, 2009–12 PT New build P Kindergarten C City of Leipzig Building Department R DRK Akademischer Kreisverband Leipzig e.V. CO 1.673.000 EUR gross GFA 975 m² ST LPH 1–5, participation and site supervision Architecture Prize Leipzig 2013, Special Mention T Susanne Hofmann, Stefan Haas, Daniel Hülseweg, Martin Janekovic, Marlen Kärcher*, Susanne Vitt*, Jannes Wurps and Marco Grimm, Oliver Henschel, Thomas Pohl CON ICL Ingenieur Consult (Structural Engineer), Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), Ingenieurgruppe B.A.C. (Building Services), Einenkel Landschaftsarchitektur (Landscape Design)

NIKOLAUS AUGUST OTTO HIGH SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2012 PT New build P Wooden pavilion C Senate Department for Education, Youth and Science CO 124.000 EUR gross and 60.000 EUR gross ST LPH 2–6, participation COOP Susanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic* Prof. Dr. Volker Schmid, Jens Tandler (Structural Engineer), Prof. Dr. Frank U. Vogdt, Jan Bredemeyer (Building Physics) S Marta Allona, Friederike Bauer, Annika Becker, Maria Boeneker, Maren Böttcher, Dania Brächter, Sonia N.Medina Cardona, Julia Friesen, Armin Golshani, Cornelia Halbach, Camille Lemeunier, Christopher von Mallinckrodt, Daniel Ölschläger, Sarah Tusk, Laure Schaller, Susanne Schwarzer, Jakob Skorlinski, Efe Üner, Erwin Weil, Liang Qiao CON Andreas Kuelich (Structural Engineer) FUN Funded by German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU)

HOUSE FOR URBAN GARDEN LOVERS S13, BERLIN, 2009–12 PT� &RQYHUVLRQ�DQG�HQHUJ\�HIÀFLHQW�UHQRYDWLRQ P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 46 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 2.860.000 EUR gross GFA 1.870 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation, landscape design LPH 1–4 DAM Prize for Architecture in Germany 2013 (The 22 best buildings in/from Germany) T Susanne Hofmann, Daniel Hülseweg, Jens Kärcher, Marlen Kärcher*, Martin Mohelnicky*, Nils Ruf, Jannes Wurps and Falko Dutschmann, Laura Holzberg | Stephan Biller (SI) CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), Wangelow (Electrical Planning), Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), Planungsteam Energie + Bauen (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), Ingenieurbüro Fritsch (Building Physics), Teichmann LandschaftsArchitekten (Landscape Design)

BUILD THE SCHOOL, WOLFSBURG, 2010 PT Concept design P Build the School C City of Wolfsburg, architectural promotion/ mediation of architecture ST Nicole Froberg with Monika Piehl TE 10 participation workshops S Susanne Hofmann, Urs Walter, Fee Kyriakopolous

AGING IN NEIGHBORHOOD, BERLIN, 2013 PT Invited competition “Urban Living” P Multigenerational housing C Senate Department for Urban Development and the Environment Berlin CO 2.100.000 EUR gross GFA 1.650 m² T Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher, Kirstie Smeaton* and � � � 7LQD�6WUDFN��0DUHLNH�6FKODWRZ��-DQD�6RPPHU��=X]DQD�7DEDÿNRYi CON Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), ST raum a. (Landscape Design)

ADOLF REICHWEIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FREIBURG, 2013 PT Invited competition, 3rd prize P All-day area and kindergarten C City of Freiburg in Breisgau CO 5.500.000 EUR gross GFA 3.160 m² T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Marlen Kärcher, Judith Possliner, Mathias Schneider, Kirstie Smeaton* and Omorinsola Otubusin CON Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), ST raum a. (Landscape Design)

MIT MOABIT WOHNEN, BERLIN, 2013 PT New build P Communal housing CO Affordable housing ST Design, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton S Sophia Bauer, Xenia Esau, Joan Gärtner, Julia Gahlow, Ioulios Georgiou, Simon Gerschewski, Alma Großen, Sara Haegermann, Gesa Hallmann, Arzu Hasanova, Tahereh Heidary, Marietta Loukissa, Christine Olesch, Omorinsola Otubusin, Lea Schillmann, Jana Sommer, Isabelle Wolpert, Oliver Wolter

CULTURAL CENTER AT AEG, NÜRNBERG, 2013 PT Conversion and renovation P Cultural building C City of Nürnberg ST Participation T Susanne Hofmann AR Anderhalten Architekten

I KISS UMEÅ, UMEå, SWEDEN, 2013 PT Exhibition P Installation C Bildmuseet, Umeå, Sweden CO 1.500 EUR net ST Participatory exhibition and workshop T Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton* and Laura Englhardt, Larisa Mos

GET INVOLVED, BIENNALE, VENICE, ITALY, 2012 PT International symposium P Architectural promotion/mediation of architecture C Bink Initiative Baukulturvermittlung, Austria, aut. architektur and tirol (Monika Abendstein) ST Participation COOP Susanne Hofmann, Angela Uttke

ALBERT SCHWEITZER HIGH SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2012 PT New build, exhibition P Temporary pavilion “The View Catcher” C Nordic Embassies CO 2,000 EUR (material), sponsorship funds ST LPH 1–8, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Nils Ruf* S Marius Busch, Max Graap FUN IKEA Foundation

CIVIC CENTER, KARLSRUHE, 2012 PT Invited competition P Civic center C City of Karlsruhe CO 1.300.000 EUR gross T Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton*, and Corina Angheliou CON Anne Boissel (Lighting Design), Florencia Young (Graphic Design)

LIST OF WORKS LE BUFFET KIDS’ RESTAURANT, COLOGNE, 2014 PT Conversion P Kids restaurant C Le Buffet restaurant & cafe CO 48.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–9, participation T Susanne Hofmann, Martin Mohelnicky*, and Tina Strack, � � � =X]DQD�7DEDÿNRYi

BORNBROOK HIGH SCHOOL, HAMBURG, 2014 PT School design consultancy P High school C Schulbau Hamburg CO 9.800.000 EUR gross GFA 6.910 m² ST School design consultancy up to post completion T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Kirstie Smeaton*, and Noam Rosenthal, Mareike Schlatow, Jana Sommer, � � � =X]DQD�7DEDÿNRYi��0HOWHP�<DYX]

RISING EDUCATION, BERTOUA, CAMEROON, 2013–14 PT New build, school design consultancy P Elementary school C Hope Foundation CO� �������(85�JURVV��ÀUVW�SKDVH�RI�FRQVWUXFWLRQ� ST LPH 1–8 self build, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton* S Matthias Bednasch, Samantha Bock, Prokop Chadima, Hugh Crothers, Till Dörscher, Anna-Katharina Dür, Carolin Gaube, Rick Gebben, Melanie Missfeldt, Bartosz Peterek, Noam Rosenthal, Philipp Rust, Philipp Schwemberger, Chung Vu, Bao Wang, Björn Wittik, Simon Wübbels, Robert Wunder

QUIET LIFE AT THE EDGE OF A SMALL FOREST S10, BERLIN, 2012–14 PT &RQYHUVLRQ�DQG�HQHUJ\�HIÀFLHQW�UHQRYDWLRQ P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 53 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 2.900.000 EUR gross GFA 2051 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation, landscape design LPH 1–4 T Susanne Hofmann, Daniel Hülseweg, Martin Mohelnicky, Irmtraut Schulze, Susanne Vitt* and Corina Angheloiu, Laura Engelhardt, Larisa Mos, Theresa Kaiser, � � � 'DQLHOD�.QDSSH��=X]DQD�7DEDÿNRYi�_�+HOPXWK�+DQOH��6,�� CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), Ingenieurbüro Fritsch (Building Physics), Teichmann LandschaftsArchitekten (Landscape Design), Florencia Young (Graphic Design)

PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S5/6, BERLIN, 2012–14 PT� &RQYHUVLRQ�DQG�HQHUJ\�HIÀFLHQW�UHQRYDWLRQ P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 2 pavilions, each 16 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 1.090.000 EUR gross GFA 1.112 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation T Susanne Hofmann, Martin Mohelnicky, Irmtraut Schulze, Susanne Vitt* and Judith Prossliner, Laura Engelhardt, � � � =X]DQD�7DEDÿNRYi� CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), Florencia Young (Graphic Design)

HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL, WOLFSBURG, 2011–14 PT Conversion P Learning landscape, cafeteria, classrooms C City of Wolfsburg CO 284.000 EUR gross GFA 1.470 m² ST LPH 2–9, participation T Susanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic, Kirstie Smeaton*, Susanne Vitt and Corina Angheloiu, Theresa Kaiser, Daniela Knappe, Noam Rosenthal CON Andreas Kuelich (Structural Engineer)

LIVING AND RESIDING AS SENIORS IN RURAL AREAS, DÖTLINGEN, 2014–16 PT New build P Multigenerational housing, 56 residents C Community of Dötlingen GFA 10.000 m² ST LPH 1–2, Participation T Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher*, Kirstie Smeaton*, Susanne Vitt, and Omorinsola Otubusin PP Institute for Participatory Design (IPG), Jascha Rohr (Concept “Living and Residing as Seniors”)

HELLWINKEL SCHOOL, WOLFSBURG, 2011–16 PT Conversion, school design consultancy P Elementary school C City of Wolfsburg CO 3.200.000 EUR gross GFA 5.278 m² ST LPH 1–3, participation T Susanne Hofmann, Nils Ruf, Kirstie Smeaton*, and Theresa Kaiser TE Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton* S Yasemin Can, Leonard Chmielewski, Dimitra Chrysoula, Tesela Coraj, Viktoria Darenberg, Evelyn Gröger, Sophia Gurschler, Lena Helten, Solveig Hoffmann, Sarah Klohn, Mattila Mastaglio, Mareike Schlatow, Antonina Schmidt, Ludovica Tomarchio, Casper van der zanden

TEAM PLAYERS’ HIGH-RISE S12, BERLIN, 2014–16 PT &RQYHUVLRQ�DQG�HQHUJ\�HIÀFLHQW�UHQRYDWLRQ P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 136 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 6.300.000 EUR gross GFA 4.500 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation, lead consultant T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Marlen Kärcher*, Martin Mohelnicky, Mathias Schneider and Omorinsola Otubusin | Stephan Biller (BL) CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer)

PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S4/7, BERLIN, 2014–15 PT� &RQYHUVLRQ�DQG�HQHUJ\�HIÀFLHQW�UHQRYDWLRQ P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 2 pavilions, each 16 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 1.140.000 EUR gross GFA 1.112 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap*, Martin Mohelnicky, � � � 6XVDQQH�9LWW ��DQG�=X]DQD�7DEDÿNRYi CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), Florencia Young (Graphic Design)

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

: AWARDS AND HONORS / * PROJECT ARCHITECT / AR: ARCHITECTURE / C: CLIENT / CH: CHAIR OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (PROF. DR. S. HOFMANN) / CO: COSTS / COOP: COOPERATION / CON: CONSULTANCY / FUN: FUNDED BY / GFA: GROSS FLOOR AREA / I: INITIATOR / SI: SITE SUPERVISION / ST: WORK STAGE / P: PROGRAM / PP: PROJECT PARTICIPANTS / PT: PROJECT TYPE / R: RESPONSIBLE / S: STUDENTS / T: PROJECT TEAM / TE: TEACHING

245244

SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIA, BERLIN, 2005–08 PT Conversion P Cafeteria C Technical University of Berlin CO 900.000 EUR gross GFA 224 m² ST LPH 2-8, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic, Marlen Kärcher, Monica Wurfbaum S Mario Bär, Christian Baalß, Tobias Bernecker, Anne Doose, Julian Fissler, Patrick Hoffmann, Denitsa Ilieva, Christoph Jantos, Jens Kärcher, Eva Kanagasabai, Martin Mohelnicky, Mari Pape, Elena Pavlidou-Reisig, Simone Sexauer, Helen Ströh, Benedikt Tulinius, Katya Vangelova, Ines Wegner, Ivonne Weichold CON Pichler Ingenieure GmbH (Structural Engineer), pin planende ingenieure GmbH (Building Services)

TAKA TUKA LAND KINDERGARTEN, BERLIN, 2005–07 PT Conversion and façade renovation P Kindergarten C ASB Kinder- and Jugendhilfe (Since 2007, Orte für Kinder GmbH) CO 115.000 EUR gross GFA 545 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation Architecture Prize — Color, Structure, Surface 2008 (Caparol Farbe Lacke Bautenschutz GmbH), Nominated for Invest in Future Award 2008 (State of Baden-Württemberg) TE Susanne Hofmann*, Christos Stremmenos S Ilja Gendelmann, Niklaus Haller, Ole Hallier, Daniel Hülseweg, Susan Jutrowski, Annika Köster, Anna Meditsch, Christian Necker, Anne Pind, Mirko Wanders, Katrin zietz, Katja zimmerling

STAGE TREES, CHEMNITz, 2003–06 PT New build P Stage for cabaret CO Park Railway Chemnitz GFA 70.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–5, site supervision TE Susanne Hofmann S Hendrik Bohle, Kai Grüne, Stefan Haas CON Dipl.-Ing. Eckhard Bartel (SI), Ingenieurbüro Uhlmann (Structural Engineer), Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics) FUN Chemnitz Municipal Utilities, Chemnitz Transport Services, Individual donors

H100 MULTIPURPOSE LECTURE HALL, BERLIN, 2003–06 PT Conversion P Event hall C Technical University of Berlin CO 640.000 EUR gross ST LPH 2–6 TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe* S Christian Behrendt, Manuela Döbelin, Marc Dufour-Feronce, Philippe Dufour-Feronce, Oliver Gassner, Marie Harms, Frank Henze, Jens Kärcher, Thomas Marx, Martin Murrenhoff, Robert Niemann, Anne-Marie Octave, Nori Rhee, Norman Westphal CON Ingenieurbüro Lutz C. Knitter (Building Services), Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics), Ingenieurbüro Reimund Draheim (Electrical Planning)

PETTENKOFER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2005 PT Conversion P Learning landscape C Friends of Pettenkofer Elementary School e.V. ST LPH 1–2, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Anupama Kundoo* S Jovita Andriani, Kathrin Ederer, Diana Ferreira, Philipp Kress, Anne Pind, Merel Pit, Michael Schulz, Marie Viard, Sonja Winkler

SCHADOW HIGH SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2005 PT New build P Canopy C Schadow High School CO 82.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–2, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic* S Sören Hanft, Martin Mohelnicky, Elena Pavlidou-Reisig

AEDES EXTRA FANTASIES, BERLIN, 2005 PT Exhibition P Installation C Aedes East Forum ST Participatory exhibition TE Susanne Hofmann, Jannes Wurps S Nora Asmus, Maximilian Assfalg, Anja Bauer, Julie Baumann, Christian Behrendt, Anna Lena Berger, Uta Böcker, Etta Dannemann, Marc Dufour-Feronce, Stephie Eberhardt, Claus Friedrichs, Mathias Grabe, Anneke Hillmann, Minji Kang, Annika Kern, Lara Kittel, Ariane Mielke, Christian Necker, Ingo Nolte, Mari Pape, Nina Pawlicki, Jongki Park, Lisa Plückler, Andreas Reeg, Brigitte Schultz, Jeanette Werner

TRAUMBAUM KINDERGARTEN, BERLIN, 2004–05 PT Conversion P Kindergarten C ASB Kinder- and Jugendhilfe (since 2007 Orte für Kinder GmbH) CO 47.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–9, participation European Architecture Prize Putz, ECOLA-Award 2008 (European Conference of Leading Architects) TE Susanne Hofmann*, Martin Janekovic S Julie Baumann, Jenny Brockmann, Nikolai Erichsen, Daniel Hülseweg, Stefan Kels, Franziska Ritter, Uta Schrameyer

ERIKA MANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I, BERLIN, 2003 PT Conversion P Learning landscape C L.I.S.T. GmbH CO 140.000 EUR gross GFA 1.100 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation Contractworld Award 2007, Rabe of the month June 2005, Honorable mention AR+D Awards for Emerging Architecture 2004, “Socially Integrative City” Prize 2004, 1st Place TE Susanne Hofmann S Frank Drenkhahn, Johannes Gutsch, Gordana Jakimovska, Nils Ruf, Urs Walter and Karen Behrendt, Olga Dementieva, Sandra Grünwald, Alexandra Heine, Lena Rehberg, Malte Scholl PP Neighborhood Management Pankstraße CON Klangwerkstatt Deutz (Music Instrument Making) FUN Federal-State Program “Socially Integrative City”

JFK INSTITUTE, BERLIN, 2001–02 PT Conversion P Lecture hall C John F. Kennedy Institute, Free University Berlin CO 75.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–9 TE Susanne Hofmann S Philipp Baumhauer, Julian Sauer, Christian Weinecke CON Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics)

NIGHT SENSATIONS, BERLIN, 2001 PT Exhibition P Installation C Temporary garden 2001 ST Participatory exhibition TE Susanne Hofmann S Sigurd Buhr, Stephanie David, Sandra Grünwald, Lisa Kadel, Kian Lian, Sven Morhard, Jan Moritz, Malte Scholl, Jenny Witte, Christian Sommer, Vincent Taupitz, Jost Völker, Margaret Weissig

VACATION HOUSE MUDGE ISLAND, CANADA, 1990 PT New build P Vacation house C Joan Comparelli CO 7.400 CA$ (recyclable materials), material donations ST LPH 1–9 self build T John Comparelli, Susanne Hofmann

CHILDREN’S DISCOVERY CENTER, HAMBURG, 2010 PT Conversion P Learning landscape C Hamburg Climate Protection Foundation CO 120.000 EUR gross GFA 150 m² ST LPH 1–3, participation

TE Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher* S Christian Ahrens, Camilla Bellatini, Nora Brinkmann, Kyunghee Choi, Lena Geiger, Juliane Glau, Parker Hoar, Viviane Hülsmeier, Theresa Kaiser, Daniela Knappe, Johanna Lehrer, Anja Malone, Dessislava Panova, Hanna Ranstad, Diana Lüpke Santos, Lena Schade

NIDO PICCOLO KINDERGARTEN, BERLIN, 2009–10 PT Conversion and façade renovation P Kindergarten C Independent Living GmbH CO 610.000 EUR gross GFA 2.698 m² ST LPH 1-9, participation Nominated as pilot project in the Federal Government Economic Stimulus Package II T Susanne Hofmann, Helmuth Hanle*, Daniel Hülseweg, Jens Kärcher FUN GSE Ingenieur-GmbH (Structural Engineer, Environmental Consultant), BioloGIS (bird expert)

KOTTI 3000, BERLIN, 2009 PT Concept design P Neighborhood scenario C Neighborhood Management Center Kreuzberg ST Participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher*, Jannes Wurps S� 'DQLHO�)HUQiQGH]��7LOO�0RULW]�*DQVVDXJH��-RKDQQHV�0DDV�� Elena Reig, Ralph Reisinger, Florentin Steininger

FAMILY SERVICE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2009 PT Conversion P� (OHPHQWDU\�VFKRRO�LQ�RIÀFH�EXLOGLQJ C Global Education pme Familienservice GmbH CO 110.000 EUR gross GFA 660 m² ST LPH 1-9, participation T Susanne Hofmann, Daniel Hülseweg, Marlen Kärcher*, Jannes Wurps and Lisa Plücker, Laure Severac

CARLO SCHMID HIGH SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2009 PT Conversion P Learning landscape C Spandau City Council CO 70.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1-9, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe, Helmuth Hanle* S Anna-Lena Berger, Geilon Cannarozzi, Elisabeth Söiland, Flora Marchand, Ralph Reisinger, Johannes Maas, Anika Kern, Daniel Fernandez Pascual, Marie-Charlotte Dalin, Maciej Sokolnicki, Annett Fischer, Iris Lacoudre-Nabert PP Neighborhood Management/District Management Heerstraße

EDUCATIONAL CENTER HEINRICH-SCHÜTZ-STRASSE, CHEMNITz, 2008 PT Invited competition P Educational center C City of Chemnitz CO 45.000.000 EUR gross GFA 9.000 m² T Susanne Hofmann*, Marlen Kärcher, Jannes Wurps and Katharina Schawinski, Christian Necker, Lisa Plücker, Irmtraut Schulze COOP IPROPLAN (Volker Hesse)

PAPENTEICH HIGH SCHOOL, GROSS SCHWÜLPER, 2008 PT School design consultancy P High school C Comprehensive School Gross Schwülper ST Participation TE Susanne Hofmann S Mario Bär, Lena Fischer, Claus Friedrichs, Ole Hallier, Christian Necker, Quentin Nicolaï, Mari Pape, Gaspard � � � YDQ�3DU\V��$PDLD�6iQFKH]�9HODVFR��,UPWUDXW�6FKXO]H�� Elena Stoycheva, Agnes Thöni, Jorge Valiente Oriol

EVANGELICAL SCHOOL BERLIN CENTER, BERLIN, 2008 PT School design consultancy P High school C Education Foundation of the Evangelical Church ST LPH 1-2, participation

TE Susanne Hofmann*, Jannes Wurps S Agnieszka Przybyszewska, Donat Kirschner, Fabian Thielken, Gaspard Van Parys, Giulia Tubelli, Janna Störmer, Jessika Strzys, Joanna Szczepanska, Kathrin du Hamél, Laura Larraz, Margit Sichrovsky, Martin Hartwig, Michaela Hillmer, Radostina Simeonova, Sonja Winkler

ECO-POP SIEGMUNDS HOF, BERLIN, 2007–08

PT Master plan P Student residence complex C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 18.000.000 EUR gross GFA 12.500 m², 25.000 m² landscape design ST LPH 1-2, participation

T Susanne Hofmann*, Helmuth Hanle, Marlen Kärcher*, Jannes Wurps TE Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher S Khoi Bui, Carolin Ehrig, Marc Fabrés Masip, Paul Hansen, Donat Kirschner, Niklas Kuhlendahl, Johanna Lehrer, Nadine Muhr, Sophie Mundrzik, Viet Dung Nguyen, � � � $JQLHV]ND�3U]\E\V]HZVND��-RVp�,JQDFLR�5HMDV�)HUQiQGH]�� Nils Ruf, Joanna Szczepanska, Agnes Thöni CON S.T.E.R.N. GmbH (Building Services)

CARL BOLLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2006–08

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

TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe*, S� /HQD�)LVFKHU��$QQD�/DÀWH��/XNDV�GH�3HOOHJULQ��/LVD�3O�FNHU�� Daniel Theiler, Nadia Poor-Rahim PP Neighborhood Management Moabit West, Berlin Bewegt e.V. FUN EU, Germany, and the State of Berlin as part of the program for “Living Environment Improvement Measures”

ERIKA MANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL II, BERLIN, 2006–08

PT Conversion P Learning landscape C Stattbau GmbH CO 150.000 EUR gross GFA 605 m² ST LPH 1-9, participation Shortlist Making Space 2010 Award (Architecture and Design Scotland)

TE Susanne Hofmann S Maximilian Assfalg, Ania Busiakiewicz, Andrea Ceaser, Fee Kyriakopoulos, Ansgar Schmitter, Irmtraut Schulze, Thilo Reich, Wojciech Wojakowski PP Neighborhood Management Pankstraße CON GSE Ingenieur-GmbH (Structural Engineer) FUN EU, Germany, and the State of Berlin as part of the program for “Living Environment Improvement Measures”

GALILEI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2005–08

PT Conversion and renovation P Learning landscape C Stattbau GmbH CO 200.000 EUR gross GFA 1.150 m² ST LPH 1-9, participation

TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe* S Melanie Berkholz, Tanja Freund, Anna Ohlrogge, � � � %HDWULFH�7UDVSHGLQL��.DWMD�=LPPHUOLQJ��$PDLD�6iQFKH]�9HOD]OR��� Benno Fiehring, Florence Harbach, Gaspard van Parys, Jorge Valiente Oriol, Leif Lobinski, Neli Pavlova, Quentin Nicolai, María García, Clara Rodriguez, Sophie Mundzik, Robert Tech PP Neighborhood Management at Mehringplatz CON Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics) FUN EU, Germany, and the State of Berlin as part of the program for “Living Environment Improvement Measures”

247246

KIRSTIE SMEATON, Dipl. Architect, *1980 2008 Diploma in Professional Studies University College Dublin 2006 Diploma in Architecture Bartlett School of Architecture, London 2011– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA 2006–11 Project Architect: O’Donnell + Tuomey Architects, Dublin 2002–05 Architectural Assistant: Satellite Architects, London 2011–14 Assistant Professor: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin

O

TE

IRMTRAUT SCHULZE, Dipl.-Ing., *1983 2012– Expert for accessibility in buildings, outdoor space, and urban planning 2011 Diploma Technical University of Berlin 2012–14 Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA 2011–12 Freelance Architect: Möller Mainzer Architekten, Berlin 2008– Working Student: Estée Lauder GmbH, Division Aveda, Berlin � ����²���$UFKLWHFXUDO�$VVLVWDQW��YDULRXV�DUFKLWHFKWXUH�RIÀFHV 2008–10 Student Assistant: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin

O

TE

MAX GRAAP, M. Sc. Architecture, *1985 2013 Master of Science in Architecture Technical University of Berlin 2013– Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA 2010 Architectural Assistant: modulorbeat, Münster 2009–10 Architectural Assistant: Bolles+Wilson, Münster 2012–13 Student Assistant: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin 2007–09 Student Assistant: Prof. Schulze, RWTH Aachen

O

TE

MATHIAS SCHNEIDER, Dipl.-Ing.(FH), *1981 2009 Diploma Beuth Hochschule, Berlin 2001 Metal construction apprenticeship 2013– Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA 2007–13 Architectural Assistant: BRT Architekten, Hamburg; STI-Studio, Hangzhou; Sauerbruch Hutton, Berlin; wiewiorra hopp schwark architekten, Berlin 2003–05 Trade Fair Construction, Delafair Berlin

O

NILS RUF, Dipl.-Ing., Carpenter, *1972 2010 Diploma Technical University of Berlin 1998 Carpenter/Skilled worker wood construction apprenticeship 2010– Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA 1995–99 Training and work as carpenter in Aachen and Berlin 2011–12 Lectureship: Die Baupiloten and Prof. Dr. Herrle, TU Berlin

O

TE

SUSANNE VITT, Dipl.-Ing., *1970 1998 Diploma Technical University of Karlsruhe 2010– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA 2006– Freelance 2001–05 Project Architect: von Bothmer Architekten, Berlin 1995–01 Architectural Assistant: Henn Architekten, Berlin; GUSSMANN + VALENTIEN Atelier, Berlin; Abt Architekten, Binningen

O

DANIEL HÜLSENWEG, Dipl.-Ing., *1978 2009 Diploma Technical University of Berlin 2012– Project Architect: de Winder Architekten, Berlin 2008–12 Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA � ����²���$UFKLWHFWXUDO�$VVLVWDQW��YDULRXV�DUFKLWHFWXUH�RIÀFHV 2014– Assistant Professor: Prof. Dr. Hofmann, TU Berlin

O

TE

SUSANNE HOFMANN Prof. Dr.-Ing. AA Dipl. Architect BDA, *1963 1992 Diploma Architectural Association School of Architecture, London 2001 Founded Die Baupiloten BDA 1987–97 Project Architect: G. Spangenberg, Architect, Berlin; Architectural Assistant: Sauerbruch Hutton, London, Berlin; Alsop und Lyall Architects, London; Steidle und Kiessler Architekten, Hamburg 2012 Doctorate Atmosphere as Participatory Design Strategy (summa cum laude) 2012 Visiting Professor: The University of Auckland, Design Intensive Studio, New zealand 2009– Visiting Professor: Architectural Design and Building Construction, TU Berlin 2008 Scholar: RMIT School of Architecture and Design, Melbourne 2003–14 Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin 1996–09 University Westminster, London, TU Berlin, and HAW Hamburg 2013 Fellowship from the German Academy Rome Villa Massimo for study abroad in Casa Baldi 1992 Nomination for the Silver Medal from the RIBA President’s Medals Student Awards 1988–89 DAAD scholarship holder

O

TR

A

MARLEN KÄRCHER née Weiser, Dipl. Architect, *1976 2002 Diploma in Architecture Bartlett School of Architecture, London 2013– Associate Director: Die Baupiloten BDA 2007– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA

2002–06 Project Architect: Eger Architects, London; Architectural Assistant: Barkow Leibinger Architekten, Berlin; Freelance: Interior Concept All-day School Annaberg Buchholz 2007–13 Assistant Professor: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin 1999–02 Scholarship from the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes

O

TE

A

HELMUTH HANLE, Dipl.-Ing. Architect, *1956 1986 Diploma Technical University of Berlin 2007– Cooperation with Die Baupiloten BDA 1993– Freelance 1992–93 Architectural Assistant: Daniel Libeskind Studio, Berlin � ����²���3URMHFW�$UFKLWHFW��.ODXV�*�QWKHU�$UFKLWHFWXUH�2IÀFH��%HUOLQ 1991–92 Monbusho-Scholarship from the Japanese Ministry of Education

O

A

MARTIN MOHELNICKY, Dipl.-Ing., *1975 2010 Diploma Technical University of Berlin 2002 Carpentry apprenticeship 2009– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA � ����²���$UFKLWHFWXUDO�$VVLVWDQW��YDULRXV�DUFKLWHFWXUH�RIÀFHV 2014– Assistant Professor: Prof. Dr. Hofmann, TU Berlin 2007–09 Student Assistant: Prof. Fioretti, TU Berlin

O

TE

THE ARCHITECTURE OFFICE DIE BAUPILOTEN BDA�� ��O: OFFICE / TR: TEACHING AND RESEARCH / A: AWARDS AND HONORS / TE: TEACHING UNTIL 2013 SUSANNE HOFMANN ARCHITEKTEN, SINCE 2011 MEMBER OF THE GERMAN ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION (BDA)

249248

DIE BAUPILOTEN TEACHERS

DIE BAUPILOTEN STUDENTS

THE STUDY REFORM PROJECT DIE BAUPILOTEN 2003–2014

Die Baupiloten was founded in 2003 as a study reform project, in a cooperation between Susanne Hofmann Architekten and the Technical University Berlin. Architecture students were given the opportunity to work on real projects, within tight budgetary constraints, from conception to completion under professional JXLGDQFH��7KH�RIÀFH�DVVXPHG�DOO�OLDELOLW\�DQG�UHVSRQVLELOLW\�IRU�WKH�SURMHFWV��6LQFH�the completion of the study reform project at the Technical University Berlin in 2014, Susanne Hofmann Architects has operated under the name “Die Baupiloten BDA.”

We would like to thank all of the other departments, teachers and collegues who have supported us:

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

DIE BAUPILOTEN STUDENTS