SUSANNE HOFMANN ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION

ARCHITECTURE
DIE BAUPILOTEN—METHODS AND PROJECTS

IS PART 1

P. 8
PARTICIPATION AND ARCHITECTURE

THE POTENTIAL OF A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS

PARTICIPATION
P. 11 PARTICIPATION IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS—
A REVIEW
P. 17 ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AS A SHARED COGNITIVE PROCESS—
USERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND ARCHITECTS’ KNOWLEDGE
P. 20 COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ARCHITECTS AND USERS
P. 22 PERCEPTION OF SPACE AND ATMOSPHERE AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
P. 26 ATMOSPHERE AS A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN STRATEGY—
DIE BAUPILOTEN—METHODS AND PROJECTS
P. 40 ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION—
CONCLUSION

DIE BAUPILOTEN
METHODS
PART 2 METHODS
AND PROJECTS P. 44 METHODS AND INSTRUCTIONS
P. 46 A ATMOSPHERES
P. 58 U USERS’ EVERYDAY LIFE
P. 70 W WUNSCHFORSCHUNG
P. 90 F FEEDBACK
P. 108 P PRODUCTION OF GAME SETS

PART 3 PROJECTS

P. 118 DEVELOPING PROJECTS WITH USERS

P. 138 RENOVATING / BUILDING NEW / CONVERTING
P. 208 ACHIEVING MAXIMUM EFFECT WITH MINIMAL INTERVENTION

PART 4 DATA & INFO

P. 242 LIST OF WORKS

P. 246 THE ARCHITECTURE OFFICE DIE BAUPILOTEN BDA
P. 248 THE STUDY REFORM PROJECT DIE BAUPILOTEN 2003—2014
P. 250 LITERATURE & PUBLICITY
P. 253 IMAGE CREDITS
P. 254 NOTES
P. 256 IMPRINT
 ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION

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 effect does participation have? Does it create user identification 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

5
4
 PARTICIPATION AND ARCHITECTURE 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
THE POTENTIAL OF A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS 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
Democratic societies, which consist more and more of emancipated people, strongly demand that otherwise wouldn’t arise until construction or after completion of the building can be
participation in the design of their built environment. Participation is becoming increasingly identified during the design stage. A key element is the established trust between user, client, and
relevant for the architectural design process, while at the same time, the role of the architect as architect—whose relationships with each other should be evenly balanced, as in an equilateral
an expert is being called into question. Architects frequently have to contend with allegations triangle. A basic requirement here is the willingness of the client, the responsible body, or simply
that their work is too detached from client and user expectations, and only follows their own the investor to engage in participatory methods and consider user participation worthwhile. At
principles. Whether architects isolate and thus expose themselves to accusations of arrogance the same time, users also need to believe in their own self-efficacy. Only when these conditions
and self-indulgence, or whether they open up to users in a participatory design process has are met can the collaboration between the architect, user, and client be productive.
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, The precise exploration of users’ needs and ideas regarding the use of buildings, as well as
then high priority must be given to users’ participation in the design of their environment. effectual communication between laypeople and architects are important foundations for the
Laypeople’s understanding of the use and experience of space presents the architect with a design quality and sustainable use of buildings, which is expressed by the satisfaction of their
foundation of knowledge for the architectural design process. Therefore, the process should be users. The increased identification with the building contributes to a sense of well-being, which
built upon a viable communication between architect and users. 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
In the general practice of an architectural firm, working with users should be considered an increased user satisfaction with a building that responds to their demands, it can potentially
essential part of the design investigations, and thus an extension of the architect’s sphere of lead to a more careful use of the space and thereby reduce repair and renovation costs. Hence,
activity. Because this is not stipulated in the German Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers participation also has an economically relevant added value. While participation may be
(HOAI), it is not accordingly remunerated, and must therefore be negotiated separately with a challenge for society in general, in the manageable group of people involved in a building
the client. The German Federal Building Code only requires that people be informed about the project, agreement that minimizes the potential for conflict and the associated costs and time
project (Building Code § 3.1), but does not stipulate or plan for their participation. As a result, can be reached.
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 The extent to which users are involved in the design and building process, how and which
its ineffectiveness. Token participation, participation as an end in itself, participation not being processes they participate in, and who is actually defined as a user determines the intensity and
economically viable—these are just some of the concerns surrounding participation processes. quality of the participation process. Several groups may use a public building in different ways,
Not only do increasing protests against construction projects call for early user involvement, but but they should all have a say when it comes to the future of their built environment. People’s
well-planned participation can also contribute significantly to a high-quality built environment often implicit knowledge about spatial qualities and their demands on the use and the experience
and an increased sense of belonging. As a result, the issue of participation plays a central role in of space is a social potential that must be taken into account in architecture. Participation is also
wide-ranging discussions among experts about the use of “Stage Zero,” which serves as a pre- a challenge for architects and their designs, because potential conflicts between stakeholders
HOAI work stage. For the building of schools, the Montag Stiftungen (Montag Foundations) and their differing needs entail risk and uncertainty. Therefore, consensus—and the question
define Stage Zero as the “preparation and development stage … for the educational, spatial, of whether it is achievable or desirable—is a key issue in participation theories. The role the
economic and urban requirements in each school building project ... [it] includes a thorough architect plays in a participatory design process is at issue, like that of the future user, because
assessment of all relevant data, the development of robust usage scenarios and organizational participation is still perceived by many architects and clients to be disruptive as well as too time-
models for the pending construction project.”[1] Yet, Stage Zero is usually considered in consuming and costly.
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 Consequently, participation is not least a challenge to the self-image of architects, because a
Stiftungen recommend external, separately commissioned school design consultants. 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
Our particular approach to participation provides close collaboration between user, client, requirements than conventional approaches based frequently on assumptions of usage. Even
and architect through several stages of the design process. For the architect, openness to the if the intention of the latter may seem considerate, the problem with this approach—apart
users’ wishes is a prerequisite for targeted communication and observation of their everyday from the danger of not considering the actual users’ interests—is that to the users it is always
life. Strategic processes have to be designed to overcome communication barriers, and put into somewhat overbearing and confining, sometimes even aggressive. Essential here is a transparent
place user-specific, low-threshold levels of interaction that could potentially be developed by a and well-mediated design approach that makes the importance of the “people” (in the sense of
“translator.” This can be a specially trained staff, or—when working with adolescents—young the Austrian sociologist Helga Nowotny) visible in the design process.[2]

9
8
 A. 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.
B.

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
C. 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
YONA FRIEDMAN, 1974 MY GUIDE: HOW CITY DWELLERS CAN PLAN THEIR BUILDINGS AND CITIES THEMSELVES calls for a credible integration of users’ requirements and their concerns.[6]
A. 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

DESIGN TRANSPARENCY
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 The “Design Methods Movement” represents an important attempt to integrate participation
processes, such as public hearings.[3] Participation in the architectural design of their in a systematic planning process. Founded in the US during the early nineteen-sixties in
immediate environment often remains ignored. Architects barely participate in these debates, Berkeley, California—by the British and US-American architects Christopher Alexander,
frequently retreating with their design expertise and limiting themselves to the moderation or Bruce Archer, John Chris Jones, and German design theorist Horst Rittel, among others—
organization of architectural processes and related decisions. Hence, design is often considered a the Design Methods Movement embraced the desire to integrate users’ needs in the design,
field of subordinate aesthetic choices. But how can we design and build architecture that fulfills and to make them transparent in a participatory process. Generally, the British—but also the
the Vitruvian principles of durability, utility, and beauty? A utility that is not only measured in German debate in the late nineteen-sixties and the early nineteen-seventies—was driven by
terms of functionality, but also in terms of enhancing atmospheric qualities that support the use the question of how a design methodology could be made accessible to laypeople through a
and give users the opportunity to identify with the architecture? 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
All of these issues raise specific questions for the design process: order to make the design process comprehensible to outsiders—in other words, the users. The
1. How can the insights gained from user participation be integrated profitably in the representatives of the Design Methods Movement agreed that the opacity of the design process
architectural 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
2. What form should the communication take between users, clients, and architects, so that this entire buildings. Till criticizes the approach of the Design Methods Movement, because he sees a
process is a productive one and architecture laypeople feel they can participate on equal terms? fundamental contradiction between the seemingly authoritarian aesthetics and high economic
3. And how can the design be realized so that the users’ wishes are really fulfilled—without and technical expense on the one hand, and the social reality on the other.[7] A transparent
substantial curtailments and despite other parameters, such as low construction budgets, design process alone was not enough to enable laypeople or users to participate, since the
building regulations, and mandatory standards? drawings and technical information produced in a streamlined planning process are ultimately

11
10
 Tender Documentation
particularly important that the answers have an element of spontaneity and intuition, so

Developed Design

Construction Start
Technical Design
that subconscious ideas may be brought to light. In addition, any initial communication

Concept Design
issues may be resolved; any participants behaving dismissively, initially can be encouraged

LPH 6/7
FICTION

LPH 3
LPH 2

LPH 5

LPH 8
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

COMPLETION
WORK STAGE
PROCESS

locations, how they are perceived or the memory of them, with the aim of gathering users’
U3 A3
F7 W1 F4 first impressions, facilitating communication between them and the architect, and above all,
PARTICIPATION
10 11 12 01 02 06 02 03 04 07 08 09 creating a foundation of trust.
2009 2010 2011 2012

USERS’ EVERYDAY LIFE METHOD MODULES

TIMELINE PLANNING PROCESS LICHTENBERWEG KINDERGARTEN, LEIPZIG

AS RESULT OF THE PARTICIPATION AND FEEDBACK PROCESSES, THE AIM IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF A JOINT STORY ARISING FROM
The observation, or rather, monitoring and documenting of the users’ daily routines, forms
AN ANALYSIS OF THE PRAGMATIC REQUIREMENTS AND FUNCTIONALITY, WHICH AT THE SAME TIME BECOMES A BASIS FOR THE the second important category of method modules for the participatory design process. One
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
option, for instance, is to accompany the users in their everyday life, and to record different
OF METHOD MODULES, THE MOMENT OF THE STORY FORMULATION, AND THE INDIVIDUAL WORK STAGES (LPH#) ACCORDING TO THE events in order to draw conclusions with reference to the architecture. This might entail
GERMAN FEE STRUCTURE FOR ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS (HOAI).
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
ATMOSPHERES METHOD MODULES
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
The workshops that take place at the beginning of the participatory design process use behavior typical of the everyday and reveal new preferences.U5
atmosphere to create a common language between the users and architect, and hence build
The aim of the Users’ Everyday Life workshops is to learn about their everyday environments
trust and openness between them. Working with atmospheric representations (collages,
and discuss them collectively. The findings from the workshops are integrated into the design
models) and the verbal exchange regarding them, circumvents the established architectural
work, and at the same time, form a further basis of communication between the architect and the
codes of communication through technical drawings, plans, and models. Thus, it is possible to
users. It may serve as confirmation of the findings from the Wunschforschung or atmospheres
communicate more directly about architecture and its real and desired qualities. Using images
workshops, or help to correct them. The collective exploration of users’ everyday lives helps
and imagination, ideas about such qualities can be developed further, and eventually form the
to eliminate stereotypes on both sides. In any case, it presents an expansion of the designer’s
basis for a viable design concept that the user can identify with.
knowledge. In particular, the modules Move In U1 and Explore Everyday Locations U2 lead to
Different tools may be used to attune users to the participatory design process. For example, more intense contact with the user, and strengthens their trust in the architect. However, it
with the aid of presented visual material, a common language can be developed.A1 The remains a challenge for the designer to combine the individual findings in order to form a broad
images and their relationship with each other help the user to find atmospheric descriptions basis for the design.
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 WUNSCHFORSCHUNG METHOD MODULES
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 The Wunschforschung method modules in the participatory design process aim at collectively
for communication. These “mood boards” arising from the atmospheres workshops are developing a story—a narrative that acts as the conceptual basis of the architecture. The
documented by the architect (or moderator of the process), combined into a more coherent, workshops on users’ desires or needs offer a multitude of options regarding media and method,
precise concept, and explored even further using various media. The location and perception and can be employed early in the design, at the feedback stage, or as last-minute workshops.
of the atmospheric effects are mapped. 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
Documenting the atmospheres is essential to their perception, because it reflects and reinforces concerned with requirements reduced purely to function, but instead focus on the atmospheric
them in a permanent process, and it also establishes the foundation for their communication. qualities. For many of these workshops, specific games are created, with which the users’ wishes
An interview can also be a useful method for their exploration.A5 The so-called activating for certain atmospheres are developed, collated, and spatially assigned.W7 During the games,
survey should not be designed as a means of data retrieval, but as social interaction. It is differing interests and desires can be evaluated and negotiated.W8, W9 Other method modules

31
30
 ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION — CONCLUSION 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
The perception of spatial atmospheres and their analysis and communication, are closely particular with an architect. The architect can use this to their advantage, by developing a system
interrelated. At times, we only become aware of them when we try to identify and communicate of communication built on the comparison of different atmospheres.
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 The age of users, their social status and cultural background only play a role in how the method
process, by defining the existing atmospheres in the places and spaces which they design for, modules are set and differentiated. The methods must be adapted to the specific situation; any
and by being aware of what atmospheric changes they plan to implement in their projects. attempt to develop a panacea will fail. Important elements of this communication are, on the one
Atmospheres can be formulated, designed, and created. We were able to try out and redevelop hand, the abstraction of imagined atmospheric worlds, and, on the other hand, specific desires
different methods in numerous participatory design processes, which function at various levels related to atmospheres. A narrative is compiled, leading to the development of an architectural
of communication—from pure text and images, to atmospherically tangible environments. The concept: form follows fiction. From this, the architects are able to arrive at complex and detailed
experience of spatial atmospheres does not happen only in physical spaces, or architecture; it resolutions from which programmatic requirements can be integrated into the project. The
can also be created in our imagination with the aid of words, pictures, music, models, and fiction developed with the users—with the narratives based on their desires condensed within—
spatial installations. This is essential to the work of architects, who can use the ability to design as well as the resulting concept, form the backbone of the design which, in consequence, is able
and build atmospheric spaces. But they are not the only ones who possess, or are able to develop, to adapt to new requirements without disappointing the users. Feedback and evaluations of
this type of imaginativeness. In this respect, they are thinking ahead; they are “pre-sensors” for various projects have confirmed the success of this method: the users’ degree of identification
the use of spaces in place of the user, who not only has to take possession of the product, but also with the finished building is high.
empathize and identify with it. In the words of Walter Benjamin, “buildings are appropriated in
In the context of my professional practice and recently concluded study reform project Die
a twofold manner: by use and perception—or rather by touch and sight.”[69]
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.

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.

41
40
 METHODS
AND
INSTRUCTIONS
The method modules presented here—each of which is coupled be established beforehand if the participants are interested in craft/creative

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 WUNSCHFORSCHUNG
F1 – F8 FEEDBACK

Their overriding importance for the design process is described

individual work results are the many comments and stories that are provided or

Images with strong spatial effects thematically appropriate to the workshops and

The pictograms to the right clearly illustrate for which participants

A5 F6 W7–
W9 F7

can be adapted and further developed as you wish for your own

Have fun and gain lots of insight!

45
44
MOVE IN U1

and live according to the everyday rituals of the user: use all areas and test desired activities such as
1

A5

Baupiloten students lived for a weekend in different student residences around Berlin and recorded their
NEGOTIATE DREAM SPACE W9

25

The resulting dream space maps represent the spatial relationship between activities (at certain times of

as a willingness for neighborly interaction—such as through the connection of two units by a common area
TEST SCENARIOS F3

samples derived from their world of desires W2

They examined the potential of the modules and their physical and visual relationships with each other and then

97
 PROJECTS
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
174

LICHTENBERGWEG KG
55

GET INVOLVED, BIENNALE

DR. SUSANNE HOFMANN)

156 230 97

URBAN GARDEN LOVERS S13 ALBERT SCHWEITZER HS LE BUFFET KIDS RESTAURANT

51 | 81 | 101 85 CH 87 | CO | CH 130 126 168

EVANGELICAL SCHOOL HS KOTTI 3000 SOCIAL CLUB GALLERY NEIGHBORHOOD DONAUKIEZ AGING IN NEIGHBORHOOD BORNBROOK HS TEAM PLAYERS’ HIGH-RISE S12

210 194 140 222 99 | CH 93 77 134

ERIKA MANN ES I PETTENKOFER ES SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIA ECO-POP SIEGMUNDS HOF S# NEW SCHOOL FAMILY SERVICE HERMANN VON HELMHOLTZ HS NEW LYNN SCHOOL ES ADOLF REICHWEIN ES, KG RISING EDUCATION LIVING IN RURAL AREAS

110 234 69 79 105 CH 166 170

JFK INSTITUTE AEDES EXTRA FANTASIES TAKA TUKA LAND KG CARL BOLLE ES CARLO SCHMID HS CHILDREN’S DISCOVERY CENTER KARLSRUHE CIVIC CENTER MITMOABITWOHNEN LIFE AT A SMALL FOREST S10 PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S4/7

6 214 75 63 | 65 83 170 164

NIGHT SENSATIONS SCHADOW HS STAGE TREES ERIKA MANN ES II HEINRICH-SCHÜTZ-STRASSE EC BUILD THE SCHOOL NIKOLAUS AUGUST OTTO HS CULTURAL CENTER AT AEG PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S5/6 MUSIC AND FITNESS S11

204 208 67 190 226 | CO | CH 57 198 120

VACATION HOUSE MUDGE ISLAND TRAUMBAUM KG H100 LECTURE HALL GALILEI ES PAPENTEICH HS NIDO PICCOLO KG LEARN-MOVE-PLAY-GROUND UMEÅ, COMMUNITAS HEINRICH NORDHOFF HS HELLWINKEL SCHOOL ES

until 2004 2005 2006-08 2008 2008-09 2010-12 2012 2013 2014 from 2015
117
116
 DEVELOPING PROJECTS | LIVING AND RESIDING AS SENIORS IN RURAL AREAS

LIVING AND RESIDING AS SENIORS IN RURAL AREAS

DÖTLINGEN 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.”

Concept Design
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

FICTION

LPH 2
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,”

COMPLETION
WORK STAGE
PROCESS

“Senior Shared Apartment,” “Sole Compact,” and a “Couple Compact.” There will also be a neighborhood W9
building with a nursing facility, a community kitchen, and cultural offers for the entire community, as well as W6 F7
W2 F3
common rooms, which are assigned to particular groups of houses (small workshop/studio, guest room, etc.). PARTICIPATION
06 07 08 09 10 11
2014

135
134
 CONVERSION/RENOVATION | STUDENT RESIDENCE SIEGMUNDS HOF| S13

HOUSE FOR URBAN GARDEN LOVERS S13

STUDENT RESIDENCE SIEGMUNDS HOF

HERB GARDEN
Garden together

COMMUNAL KITCHEN
Cook and eat together

SPORTS COURT
Play sports

OUTDOOR LIVING ROOM

Gather and relax

TOWN SQUARE WITH STAGE

Gather, mingle, and perfom

http://www.dezeen.com/2012/06/19/inbolla-by-odoardo-fioravanti/
BOULDER SEATS
Meet each other and hang out
MIDNIGHT LIGHT
BOULDERING WALL Enjoy the evening
Climb together

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

rear to the newly designed outdoor spaces, the town square, and the backyard. Here, students can plant and
grow vegetables, and provide for themselves.

157
156
 NEW BUILD |LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN

LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN
LEIPZIG Councilor for Urban Development and Construction a.D., Prof. Dipl. Ing. Martin zur Nedden, City of Leipzig:

with the kindergarten, the participants gained important educational value beyond the improvements in
the quality of their environment.”

Tender Documentation
Developed Design

Construction Start
Technical Design
Concept Design
The new kindergarten for 100 children was designed so that the existing, dense population of mature trees

LPH 6/7
remained largely intact, and varied playing areas with different sheltered places and courtyard situations

FICTION

LPH 3
LPH 2

LPH 5

LPH 8
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

COMPLETION
WORK STAGE
PROCESS

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 U3 A3
F7 W1 F4
areas have been largely avoided in favor of an extended educational and social zone. PARTICIPATION
10 11 12 01 02 06 02 03 04 07 08 09
2009 2010 2011 2012

175
174
 CONVERSION | HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL

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.”

Tender Documentation

Construction Start
Developed Design

Technical Design
Concept Design
The conversion and expansion of the cafeteria, as well as the two-story atrium that serves as the central

LPH 6/7
FICTION

LPH 2

LPH 3

LPH 5

LPH 8
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

COMPLETION
WORK STAGE
PROCESS

large table, while in the “Quiet Study Zone,” they can work alone on large cushions or relax. The “Homework F7
Zone” is on the bridge. Part of the furniture, a meandering wooden ribbon, marks the classroom area. In the W6
W2 F3
cafeteria, trapezoidal tables with 200 seats are freely arranged around orange amphitheater-like seating. PARTICIPATION
05 06 07 08 09 10 03 04 01 04 05 06
2011 2012 2013 2014

199
198
 CONVERSION | HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL

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
A
rounds, the design ideas could be given a definite form with collages and models. The work on the cafeteria 1ST FLOOR PLAN, ATRIUM AND CLASSROOMS 1:320
and classrooms was done in the same way.

4 Airspace
8

4 5 5 6
7

2 Airspace
5 5 3 9 6
10

5 5 6
1

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

SECTION CAFETERIA AND ATRIUM A-A 1:320

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
201
200
 LIST OF WORKS LE BUFFET KIDS’ RESTAURANT, COLOGNE, 2014
PT Conversion
AGING IN NEIGHBORHOOD, BERLIN, 2013
PT Invited competition “Urban Living”
LEARN-MOVE-PLAY-GROUND, CAIRO, EGYPT, 2012
PT Design build studio (workshop and realization)
P Kids restaurant P Multigenerational housing P Learning landscape
: AWARDS AND HONORS / * PROJECT ARCHITECT / AR: ARCHITECTURE / C: CLIENT / C Le Buffet restaurant & cafe C Senate Department for Urban Development and the C Architecture & Urban Design Program, German University in Cairo
CH: CHAIR OF ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND BUILDING CONSTRUCTION (PROF. DR. S. HOFMANN) / CO 48.000 EUR gross Environment Berlin (Vittoria Capresi, Barbara Pampe)
CO: COSTS / COOP: COOPERATION / CON: CONSULTANCY / FUN: FUNDED BY /
ST LPH 1–9, participation CO 2.100.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–8, participation
GFA: GROSS FLOOR AREA / I: INITIATOR / SI: SITE SUPERVISION / ST: WORK STAGE /
T Susanne Hofmann, Martin Mohelnicky*, and Tina Strack, GFA 1.650 m² COOP Vittoria Capresi*, Barbara Pampe* (German University in Cairo),
P: PROGRAM / PP: PROJECT PARTICIPANTS / PT: PROJECT TYPE / R: RESPONSIBLE /
S: STUDENTS / T: PROJECT TEAM / TE: TEACHING T Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher, Kirstie Smeaton* and Moritz Bellers (University Stuttgart),
Omar Nagati (CLUSTER Cairo),
LIVING AND RESIDING AS SENIORS IN RURAL AREAS, DÖTLINGEN, 2014–16 BORNBROOK HIGH SCHOOL, HAMBURG, 2014 CON Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), Susanne Hofmann with Nils Ruf (Die Baupiloten), Urs Walter (CH),
ST raum a. (Landscape Design) Charalampos Lazos (Studio Matthias Görlich),
PT New build PT School design consultancy Magda Mostafa (American University Cairo)
P Multigenerational housing, 56 residents P High school FUN Fully funded by the German Academic Exchange Program (DAAD),
C Community of Dötlingen C Schulbau Hamburg ADOLF REICHWEIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, FREIBURG, 2013
Egyptian Ministry of Education, Goethe Institute Cairo
GFA 10.000 m² CO 9.800.000 EUR gross PT Invited competition, 3rd prize PP Montag Stiftungen (Karl-Heinz Irmhäuser, Brigitta Fröhlich),
ST LPH 1–2, Participation GFA 6.910 m² P All-day area and kindergarten Roweida Sabra (Authority of Educational Buildings (GAEB)),
TSusanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher*, Kirstie Smeaton*, ST School design consultancy up to post completion C City of Freiburg in Breisgau Renet Korthals-Altes (Playground Designer)
Susanne Vitt, and Omorinsola Otubusin T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Kirstie Smeaton*, and CO 5.500.000 EUR gross
PP Institute for Participatory Design (IPG), Jascha Rohr Noam Rosenthal, Mareike Schlatow, Jana Sommer, GFA 3.160 m²
LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN, LEIPzIG, 2009–12
(Concept “Living and Residing as Seniors”) T Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Marlen Kärcher, Judith Possliner,
Mathias Schneider, Kirstie Smeaton* and Omorinsola Otubusin PT New build
CON Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), P Kindergarten
HELLWINKEL SCHOOL, WOLFSBURG, 2011–16 RISING EDUCATION, BERTOUA, CAMEROON, 2013–14 C City of Leipzig Building Department
ST raum a. (Landscape Design)
PT Conversion, school design consultancy PT New build, school design consultancy R DRK Akademischer Kreisverband Leipzig e.V.
P Elementary school P Elementary school CO 1.673.000 EUR gross
C City of Wolfsburg C Hope Foundation MIT MOABIT WOHNEN, BERLIN, 2013 GFA 975 m²
CO 3.200.000 EUR gross CO PT New build ST LPH 1–5, participation and site supervision
GFA 5.278 m² ST LPH 1–8 self build, participation P Communal housing Architecture Prize Leipzig 2013, Special Mention
ST LPH 1–3, participation TE Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton* CO Affordable housing
ST Design, participation TSusanne Hofmann, Stefan Haas, Daniel Hülseweg,
T Susanne Hofmann, Nils Ruf, Kirstie Smeaton*, and Theresa Kaiser S Matthias Bednasch, Samantha Bock, Prokop Chadima, Martin Janekovic, Marlen Kärcher*, Susanne Vitt*,
TE Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton* Hugh Crothers, Till Dörscher, Anna-Katharina Dür, TE Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton Jannes Wurps and Marco Grimm, Oliver Henschel, Thomas Pohl
S Yasemin Can, Leonard Chmielewski, Dimitra Chrysoula, Tesela Coraj, Carolin Gaube, Rick Gebben, Melanie Missfeldt, Bartosz Peterek, S Sophia Bauer, Xenia Esau, Joan Gärtner, Julia Gahlow, CON ICL Ingenieur Consult (Structural Engineer),
Viktoria Darenberg, Evelyn Gröger, Sophia Gurschler, Lena Helten, Noam Rosenthal, Philipp Rust, Philipp Schwemberger, Chung Vu, Ioulios Georgiou, Simon Gerschewski, Alma Großen, Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant),
Solveig Hoffmann, Sarah Klohn, Mattila Mastaglio, Mareike Schlatow, Bao Wang, Björn Wittik, Simon Wübbels, Robert Wunder Sara Haegermann, Gesa Hallmann, Arzu Hasanova, Ingenieurgruppe B.A.C. (Building Services),
Antonina Schmidt, Ludovica Tomarchio, Casper van der zanden Tahereh Heidary, Marietta Loukissa, Christine Olesch, Einenkel Landschaftsarchitektur (Landscape Design)
QUIET LIFE AT THE EDGE OF A SMALL FOREST S10, BERLIN, 2012–14 Omorinsola Otubusin, Lea Schillmann, Jana Sommer,
TEAM PLAYERS’ HIGH-RISE S12, BERLIN, 2014–16 Isabelle Wolpert, Oliver Wolter
PT NIKOLAUS AUGUST OTTO HIGH SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2012
PT P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 53 residents PT New build
P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 136 residents C Studentenwerk Berlin CULTURAL CENTER AT AEG, NÜRNBERG, 2013
P Wooden pavilion
C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 2.900.000 EUR gross PT Conversion and renovation C Senate Department for Education, Youth and Science
CO 6.300.000 EUR gross GFA 2051 m² P Cultural building CO 124.000 EUR gross and 60.000 EUR gross
GFA 4.500 m² ST LPH 1–9, participation, landscape design LPH 1–4 C City of Nürnberg ST LPH 2–6, participation
ST LPH 1–9, participation, lead consultant T Susanne Hofmann, Daniel Hülseweg, Martin Mohelnicky, ST Participation
COOPSusanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic*
TSusanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Marlen Kärcher*, Martin Mohelnicky, Irmtraut Schulze, Susanne Vitt* and Corina Angheloiu, T Susanne Hofmann Prof. Dr. Volker Schmid, Jens Tandler (Structural Engineer),
Mathias Schneider and Omorinsola Otubusin | Stephan Biller (BL) Laura Engelhardt, Larisa Mos, Theresa Kaiser, AR Anderhalten Architekten Prof. Dr. Frank U. Vogdt, Jan Bredemeyer (Building Physics)
CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer),
S Marta Allona, Friederike Bauer, Annika Becker, Maria Boeneker,
ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), I KISS UMEÅ, UMEå, SWEDEN, 2013 Maren Böttcher, Dania Brächter, Sonia N.Medina Cardona,
Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), Julia Friesen, Armin Golshani, Cornelia Halbach, Camille Lemeunier,
Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer) Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant), PT Exhibition
P Installation Christopher von Mallinckrodt, Daniel Ölschläger, Sarah Tusk,
Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), Laure Schaller, Susanne Schwarzer, Jakob Skorlinski, Efe Üner,
Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), C Bildmuseet, Umeå, Sweden
PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S4/7, BERLIN, 2014–15 CO 1.500 EUR net Erwin Weil, Liang Qiao
Ingenieurbüro Fritsch (Building Physics), CON Andreas Kuelich (Structural Engineer)
PT
Teichmann LandschaftsArchitekten (Landscape Design), ST Participatory exhibition and workshop
P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 2 pavilions, each 16 residents FUN Funded by German Federal Environmental Foundation (DBU)
Florencia Young (Graphic Design) T Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton* and Laura Englhardt,
C Studentenwerk Berlin Larisa Mos
CO 1.140.000 EUR gross HOUSE FOR URBAN GARDEN LOVERS S13, BERLIN, 2009–12
GFA 1.112 m² PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S5/6, BERLIN, 2012–14
GET INVOLVED, BIENNALE, VENICE, ITALY, 2012 PT
ST LPH 1–9, participation PT
P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 46 residents
Susanne Hofmann, Max Graap*, Martin Mohelnicky, P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 2 pavilions, each 16 residents PT International symposium
T C Studentenwerk Berlin
C Studentenwerk Berlin P Architectural promotion/mediation of architecture
CO 2.860.000 EUR gross
Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), CO 1.090.000 EUR gross C Bink Initiative Baukulturvermittlung, Austria,
CON GFA 1.870 m²
ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), GFA 1.112 m² aut. architektur and tirol (Monika Abendstein)
ST LPH 1–9, participation, landscape design LPH 1–4
ST LPH 1–9, participation ST Participation
Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), DAM Prize for Architecture in Germany 2013
Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), T Susanne Hofmann, Martin Mohelnicky, Irmtraut Schulze, COOP Susanne Hofmann, Angela Uttke
(The 22 best buildings in/from Germany)
Florencia Young (Graphic Design) Susanne Vitt* and Judith Prossliner, Laura Engelhardt,
TSusanne Hofmann, Daniel Hülseweg, Jens Kärcher,
ALBERT SCHWEITZER HIGH SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2012
CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), Marlen Kärcher*, Martin Mohelnicky*, Nils Ruf, Jannes Wurps
HOUSE FOR MUSIC + FITNESS LOVERS S11, BERLIN, 2013–15 PT New build, exhibition and Falko Dutschmann, Laura Holzberg | Stephan Biller (SI)
ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning),
PT P Temporary pavilion “The View Catcher” CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer),
Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services),
P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 56 residents C Nordic Embassies Wangelow (Electrical Planning),
Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer),
C Studentenwerk Berlin CO 2,000 EUR (material), sponsorship funds Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant),
Florencia Young (Graphic Design)
CO 3.200.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1–8, participation Planungsteam Energie + Bauen (Building Services),
GFA 2.085 m2 TE Susanne Hofmann, Nils Ruf* Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer),
ST LPH 1–9, participation, landscape design LPH 1–4 HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL, WOLFSBURG, 2011–14 Ingenieurbüro Fritsch (Building Physics),
S Marius Busch, Max Graap
TSusanne Hofmann, Max Graap, Marlen Kärcher*, PT Conversion FUN IKEA Foundation Teichmann LandschaftsArchitekten (Landscape Design)
Elena Pavlidou-Reisig, Mathias Schneider and P Learning landscape, cafeteria, classrooms
Omorinsola Otubusin, Leslie Kuhn | Stephan Biller (SI) C City of Wolfsburg BUILD THE SCHOOL, WOLFSBURG, 2010
CIVIC CENTER, KARLSRUHE, 2012
CON Marzahn & Rentzsch (Structural Engineer), CO 284.000 EUR gross
GFA 1.470 m² PT Invited competition PT Concept design
ELT-ING GmbH (Electrical Planning), P Build the School
ST LPH 2–9, participation P Civic center
Ingenieurbüro Hetebrüg (Building Services), C City of Wolfsburg, architectural promotion/
C City of Karlsruhe
Architektur- und Sachverständigenbüro Stanek (Fire Engineer), T Susanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic, Kirstie Smeaton*, mediation of architecture
CO 1.300.000 EUR gross
Ingenieurbüro Fritsch (Building Physics), Susanne Vitt and Corina Angheloiu, Theresa Kaiser, ST Nicole Froberg with Monika Piehl
Anne Boissel (Lighting Design), ST raum a. (Landscape Design), Daniela Knappe, Noam Rosenthal T Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton*, and Corina Angheliou
TE 10 participation workshops
BBP Bauconsulting mbH (Acoustics) CON Andreas Kuelich (Structural Engineer) CON Anne Boissel (Lighting Design), Florencia Young (Graphic Design)
S Susanne Hofmann, Urs Walter, Fee Kyriakopolous
243
242
 CHILDREN’S DISCOVERY CENTER, HAMBURG, 2010 EVANGELICAL SCHOOL BERLIN CENTER, BERLIN, 2008 SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIA, BERLIN, 2005–08 AEDES EXTRA FANTASIES, BERLIN, 2005
PT Conversion PT School design consultancy PT Conversion PT Exhibition
P Learning landscape P High school P Cafeteria P Installation
C Hamburg Climate Protection Foundation C Education Foundation of the Evangelical Church C Technical University of Berlin C Aedes East Forum
CO 120.000 EUR gross ST LPH 1-2, participation CO 900.000 EUR gross ST Participatory exhibition
GFA 150 m² TE Susanne Hofmann*, Jannes Wurps GFA 224 m² TE Susanne Hofmann, Jannes Wurps
ST LPH 1–3, participation S Agnieszka Przybyszewska, Donat Kirschner, Fabian Thielken, ST LPH 2-8, participation S Nora Asmus, Maximilian Assfalg, Anja Bauer, Julie Baumann,
TE Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher* Gaspard Van Parys, Giulia Tubelli, Janna Störmer, TESusanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic, Marlen Kärcher, Christian Behrendt, Anna Lena Berger, Uta Böcker,
S Christian Ahrens, Camilla Bellatini, Nora Brinkmann, Kyunghee Choi, Jessika Strzys, Joanna Szczepanska, Kathrin du Hamél, Monica Wurfbaum Etta Dannemann, Marc Dufour-Feronce, Stephie Eberhardt,
Lena Geiger, Juliane Glau, Parker Hoar, Viviane Hülsmeier, Laura Larraz, Margit Sichrovsky, Martin Hartwig, SMario Bär, Christian Baalß, Tobias Bernecker, Anne Doose, Claus Friedrichs, Mathias Grabe, Anneke Hillmann, Minji Kang,
Theresa Kaiser, Daniela Knappe, Johanna Lehrer, Anja Malone, Michaela Hillmer, Radostina Simeonova, Sonja Winkler Julian Fissler, Patrick Hoffmann, Denitsa Ilieva, Christoph Jantos, Annika Kern, Lara Kittel, Ariane Mielke, Christian Necker,
Dessislava Panova, Hanna Ranstad, Diana Lüpke Santos, Lena Schade Jens Kärcher, Eva Kanagasabai, Martin Mohelnicky, Mari Pape, Ingo Nolte, Mari Pape, Nina Pawlicki, Jongki Park, Lisa Plückler,
ECO-POP SIEGMUNDS HOF, BERLIN, 2007–08 Elena Pavlidou-Reisig, Simone Sexauer, Helen Ströh, Benedikt Andreas Reeg, Brigitte Schultz, Jeanette Werner
Tulinius, Katya Vangelova, Ines Wegner, Ivonne Weichold
NIDO PICCOLO KINDERGARTEN, BERLIN, 2009–10 PT Master plan CON Pichler Ingenieure GmbH (Structural Engineer), TRAUMBAUM KINDERGARTEN, BERLIN, 2004–05
PT Conversion and façade renovation P Student residence complex pin planende ingenieure GmbH (Building Services)
P Kindergarten C Studentenwerk Berlin PT Conversion
C Independent Living GmbH CO 18.000.000 EUR gross P Kindergarten
TAKA TUKA LAND KINDERGARTEN, BERLIN, 2005–07 ASB Kinder- and Jugendhilfe (since 2007 Orte für Kinder GmbH)
CO 610.000 EUR gross GFA 12.500 m², 25.000 m² landscape design C
GFA 2.698 m² ST LPH 1-2, participation PT Conversion and façade renovation CO 47.000 EUR gross
ST LPH 1-9, participation P Kindergarten ST LPH 1–9, participation
T Susanne Hofmann*, Helmuth Hanle, Marlen Kärcher*,
C ASB Kinder- and Jugendhilfe (Since 2007, Orte für Kinder GmbH) European Architecture Prize Putz, ECOLA-Award 2008
Nominated as pilot project in the Federal Government Economic Jannes Wurps
CO 115.000 EUR gross (European Conference of Leading Architects)
Stimulus Package II TE Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher
GFA 545 m²
T Susanne Hofmann, Helmuth Hanle*, Daniel Hülseweg, Jens Kärcher S Khoi Bui, Carolin Ehrig, Marc Fabrés Masip, Paul Hansen, TE Susanne Hofmann*, Martin Janekovic
ST LPH 1–9, participation
FUN GSE Ingenieur-GmbH (Structural Engineer, Donat Kirschner, Niklas Kuhlendahl, Johanna Lehrer, S Julie Baumann, Jenny Brockmann, Nikolai Erichsen,
Nadine Muhr, Sophie Mundrzik, Viet Dung Nguyen, Architecture Prize — Color, Structure, Surface 2008 Daniel Hülseweg, Stefan Kels, Franziska Ritter, Uta Schrameyer
Environmental Consultant), BioloGIS (bird expert)
(Caparol Farbe Lacke Bautenschutz GmbH),
Nils Ruf, Joanna Szczepanska, Agnes Thöni Nominated for Invest in Future Award 2008
KOTTI 3000, BERLIN, 2009 (State of Baden-Württemberg) ERIKA MANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL I, BERLIN, 2003
CON S.T.E.R.N. GmbH (Building Services)
PT Concept design TE Susanne Hofmann*, Christos Stremmenos PT Conversion
P Neighborhood scenario S Ilja Gendelmann, Niklaus Haller, Ole Hallier, Daniel Hülseweg, P Learning landscape
CARL BOLLE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2006–08 L.I.S.T. GmbH
C Neighborhood Management Center Kreuzberg Susan Jutrowski, Annika Köster, Anna Meditsch, Christian Necker, C
ST Participation PT Conversion CO 140.000 EUR gross
Anne Pind, Mirko Wanders, Katrin zietz, Katja zimmerling
P Learning landscape GFA 1.100 m²
TE Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher*, Jannes Wurps
C Jahn, Mack & Partner ST LPH 1–9, participation
S STAGE TREES, CHEMNITz, 2003–06
CO 50.000 EUR gross Contractworld Award 2007, Rabe of the month June 2005,
Elena Reig, Ralph Reisinger, Florentin Steininger
GFA 241 m² PT New build Honorable mention AR+D Awards for Emerging Architecture 2004,
ST LPH 1-9, participation P Stage for cabaret “Socially Integrative City” Prize 2004, 1st Place
FAMILY SERVICE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2009 CO Park Railway Chemnitz
TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe*, TE Susanne Hofmann
PT Conversion S GFA 70.000 EUR gross
ST LPH 1–5, site supervision S Frank Drenkhahn, Johannes Gutsch, Gordana Jakimovska,
P Daniel Theiler, Nadia Poor-Rahim Nils Ruf, Urs Walter and Karen Behrendt, Olga Dementieva,
C Global Education pme Familienservice GmbH PP Neighborhood Management Moabit West, Berlin Bewegt e.V. TE Susanne Hofmann Sandra Grünwald, Alexandra Heine, Lena Rehberg,
CO 110.000 EUR gross FUN EU, Germany, and the State of Berlin as part of the program for S Hendrik Bohle, Kai Grüne, Stefan Haas Malte Scholl
GFA 660 m² “Living Environment Improvement Measures” CON Dipl.-Ing. Eckhard Bartel (SI), PP Neighborhood Management Pankstraße
ST LPH 1-9, participation Ingenieurbüro Uhlmann (Structural Engineer), CON Klangwerkstatt Deutz (Music Instrument Making)
T Susanne Hofmann, Daniel Hülseweg, Marlen Kärcher*, ERIKA MANN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL II, BERLIN, 2006–08 Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics) FUN Federal-State Program “Socially Integrative City”
Jannes Wurps and Lisa Plücker, Laure Severac FUN Chemnitz Municipal Utilities, Chemnitz Transport Services,
PT Conversion Individual donors
P Learning landscape JFK INSTITUTE, BERLIN, 2001–02
CARLO SCHMID HIGH SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2009 C Stattbau GmbH
H100 MULTIPURPOSE LECTURE HALL, BERLIN, 2003–06 PT Conversion
PT Conversion CO 150.000 EUR gross P Lecture hall
P Learning landscape GFA 605 m² PT Conversion C John F. Kennedy Institute, Free University Berlin
C Spandau City Council ST LPH 1-9, participation P Event hall CO 75.000 EUR gross
CO 70.000 EUR gross Shortlist Making Space 2010 Award C Technical University of Berlin ST LPH 1–9
ST LPH 1-9, participation (Architecture and Design Scotland) CO 640.000 EUR gross
LPH 2–6 TE Susanne Hofmann
TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe, Helmuth Hanle* ST
TESusanne Hofmann S Philipp Baumhauer, Julian Sauer, Christian Weinecke
S Anna-Lena Berger, Geilon Cannarozzi, Elisabeth Söiland, TESusanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe*
SMaximilian Assfalg, Ania Busiakiewicz, Andrea Ceaser, CON Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics)
Flora Marchand, Ralph Reisinger, Johannes Maas, SChristian Behrendt, Manuela Döbelin, Marc Dufour-Feronce,
Anika Kern, Daniel Fernandez Pascual, Marie-Charlotte Dalin, Fee Kyriakopoulos, Ansgar Schmitter, Irmtraut Schulze,
Philippe Dufour-Feronce, Oliver Gassner, Marie Harms,
Maciej Sokolnicki, Annett Fischer, Iris Lacoudre-Nabert Thilo Reich, Wojciech Wojakowski NIGHT SENSATIONS, BERLIN, 2001
Frank Henze, Jens Kärcher, Thomas Marx, Martin Murrenhoff,
PP Neighborhood Management/District Management Heerstraße PP Neighborhood Management Pankstraße
Robert Niemann, Anne-Marie Octave, Nori Rhee, Norman Westphal PT Exhibition
CON GSE Ingenieur-GmbH (Structural Engineer)
CON Ingenieurbüro Lutz C. Knitter (Building Services), P Installation
FUN EU, Germany, and the State of Berlin as part of the program for
EDUCATIONAL CENTER HEINRICH-SCHÜTZ-STRASSE, CHEMNITz, 2008 Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics), C Temporary garden 2001
“Living Environment Improvement Measures”
Ingenieurbüro Reimund Draheim (Electrical Planning) ST Participatory exhibition
PT Invited competition
P Educational center TE Susanne Hofmann
GALILEI ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2005–08
C City of Chemnitz PETTENKOFER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2005 S Sigurd Buhr, Stephanie David, Sandra Grünwald,
CO 45.000.000 EUR gross PT Conversion and renovation Lisa Kadel, Kian Lian, Sven Morhard, Jan Moritz,
PT Conversion
GFA 9.000 m² P Learning landscape Malte Scholl, Jenny Witte, Christian Sommer,
P Learning landscape
C Stattbau GmbH Vincent Taupitz, Jost Völker, Margaret Weissig
T Susanne Hofmann*, Marlen Kärcher, Jannes Wurps and C Friends of Pettenkofer Elementary School e.V.
CO 200.000 EUR gross
Katharina Schawinski, Christian Necker, Lisa Plücker, ST LPH 1–2, participation
GFA 1.150 m²
Irmtraut Schulze TE Susanne Hofmann, Anupama Kundoo* VACATION HOUSE MUDGE ISLAND, CANADA, 1990
ST LPH 1-9, participation
COOP IPROPLAN (Volker Hesse) S Jovita Andriani, Kathrin Ederer, Diana Ferreira, Philipp Kress, PT New build
TE Susanne Hofmann, Constantin von der Mülbe* Vacation house
Anne Pind, Merel Pit, Michael Schulz, Marie Viard, Sonja Winkler P
S Melanie Berkholz, Tanja Freund, Anna Ohlrogge, Joan Comparelli
PAPENTEICH HIGH SCHOOL, GROSS SCHWÜLPER, 2008 C

SCHADOW HIGH SCHOOL, BERLIN, 2005 CO 7.400 CA$ (recyclable materials), material donations
PT School design consultancy Benno Fiehring, Florence Harbach, Gaspard van Parys, ST LPH 1–9 self build
P High school Jorge Valiente Oriol, Leif Lobinski, Neli Pavlova, Quentin Nicolai, PT New build
C Comprehensive School Gross Schwülper María García, Clara Rodriguez, Sophie Mundzik, Robert Tech P Canopy T John Comparelli, Susanne Hofmann
ST Participation PP Neighborhood Management at Mehringplatz C Schadow High School
TE Susanne Hofmann CON Ingenieurbüro Moll (Acoustics) CO 82.000 EUR gross
S Mario Bär, Lena Fischer, Claus Friedrichs, Ole Hallier, FUN EU, Germany, and the State of Berlin as part of the program for ST LPH 1–2, participation
Christian Necker, Quentin Nicolaï, Mari Pape, Gaspard “Living Environment Improvement Measures” TE Susanne Hofmann, Martin Janekovic*
S Sören Hanft, Martin Mohelnicky, Elena Pavlidou-Reisig
Elena Stoycheva, Agnes Thöni, Jorge Valiente Oriol
245
244
 THE ARCHITECTURE OFFICE DIE BAUPILOTEN BDA
O: OFFICE / TR: TEACHING AND RESEARCH / A: AWARDS AND HONORS / TE: TEACHING NILS RUF, Dipl.-Ing., Carpenter, *1972
UNTIL 2013 SUSANNE HOFMANN ARCHITEKTEN, SINCE 2011 MEMBER OF THE GERMAN ARCHITECTS ASSOCIATION (BDA)
2010 Diploma Technical University of Berlin
1998 Carpenter/Skilled worker wood construction apprenticeship
O 2010– Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA
1995–99 Training and work as carpenter in Aachen and Berlin
TE 2011–12 Lectureship: Die Baupiloten and Prof. Dr. Herrle, TU Berlin

SUSANNE HOFMANN Prof. Dr.-Ing. AA Dipl. Architect BDA, *1963

1992 Diploma Architectural Association School of Architecture, London
O 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 SUSANNE VITT, Dipl.-Ing., *1970
TR 2012 Doctorate Atmosphere as Participatory Design Strategy (summa cum laude) 1998 Diploma Technical University of Karlsruhe
2012 Visiting Professor: The University of Auckland, Design Intensive Studio, New zealand O 2010– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA
2009– Visiting Professor: Architectural Design and Building Construction, TU Berlin 2006– Freelance
2008 Scholar: RMIT School of Architecture and Design, Melbourne 2001–05 Project Architect: von Bothmer Architekten, Berlin
2003–14 Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin 1995–01 Architectural Assistant: Henn Architekten, Berlin;
1996–09 University Westminster, London, TU Berlin, and HAW Hamburg GUSSMANN + VALENTIEN Atelier, Berlin; Abt Architekten, Binningen
A 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

MARLEN KÄRCHER née Weiser, Dipl. Architect, *1976 KIRSTIE SMEATON, Dipl. Architect, *1980
2002 Diploma in Architecture Bartlett School of Architecture, London 2008 Diploma in Professional Studies University College Dublin
O 2013– Associate Director: Die Baupiloten BDA 2006 Diploma in Architecture Bartlett School of Architecture, London
2007– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA O 2011– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA
2002–06 Project Architect: Eger Architects, London; 2006–11 Project Architect: O’Donnell + Tuomey Architects, Dublin
Architectural Assistant: Barkow Leibinger Architekten, Berlin; 2002–05 Architectural Assistant: Satellite Architects, London
Freelance: Interior Concept All-day School Annaberg Buchholz TE 2011–14 Assistant Professor: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin
TE 2007–13 Assistant Professor: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin
A 1999–02 Scholarship from the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes

HELMUTH HANLE, Dipl.-Ing. Architect, *1956 IRMTRAUT SCHULZE, Dipl.-Ing., *1983

1986 Diploma Technical University of Berlin 2012– Expert for accessibility in buildings, outdoor space, and urban planning
O 2007– Cooperation with Die Baupiloten BDA 2011 Diploma Technical University of Berlin
1993– Freelance O 2012–14 Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA
1992–93 Architectural Assistant: Daniel Libeskind Studio, Berlin 2011–12 Freelance Architect: Möller Mainzer Architekten, Berlin
2008– Working Student: Estée Lauder GmbH, Division Aveda, Berlin
A 1991–92 Monbusho-Scholarship from the Japanese Ministry of Education
TE 2008–10 Student Assistant: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin

DANIEL HÜLSENWEG, Dipl.-Ing., *1978 MAX GRAAP, M. Sc. Architecture, *1985

2009 Diploma Technical University of Berlin 2013 Master of Science in Architecture Technical University of Berlin
O 2012– Project Architect: de Winder Architekten, Berlin O 2013– Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA
2008–12 Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA 2010 Architectural Assistant: modulorbeat, Münster
2009–10 Architectural Assistant: Bolles+Wilson, Münster
TE 2014– Assistant Professor: Prof. Dr. Hofmann, TU Berlin TE 2012–13 Student Assistant: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin
2007–09 Student Assistant: Prof. Schulze, RWTH Aachen

MARTIN MOHELNICKY, Dipl.-Ing., *1975 MATHIAS SCHNEIDER, Dipl.-Ing.(FH), *1981

2010 Diploma Technical University of Berlin 2009 Diploma Beuth Hochschule, Berlin
2002 Carpentry apprenticeship 2001 Metal construction apprenticeship
O 2009– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA O 2013– Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA
2007–13 Architectural Assistant: BRT Architekten, Hamburg; STI-Studio, Hangzhou;
TE 2014– Assistant Professor: Prof. Dr. Hofmann, TU Berlin Sauerbruch Hutton, Berlin; wiewiorra hopp schwark architekten, Berlin
2007–09 Student Assistant: Prof. Fioretti, TU Berlin 2003–05 Trade Fair Construction, Delafair Berlin

247
246
 THE STUDY REFORM PROJECT DIE BAUPILOTEN 2003–2014

Die Baupiloten was founded in 2003 as a study reform project, in a cooperation Prof. Dr. Gerd Brunk with Dr.-Ing. Olaf Weckner (Mechanics); Dipl.-Ing. Christiane
between Susanne Hofmann Architekten and the Technical University Berlin. Straße, Prof. Dr. Johannes Cramer (Architectural History); Dr.-Ing. Joachim Feldmann
Architecture students were given the opportunity to work on real projects, within (Acoustics); Dr.-Ing. Stefan Gräbener, Prof. Dr. Mathias Hirche (Visualization);
tight budgetary constraints, from conception to completion under professional Prof. Rainer Mertes (Construction Economics); Reimund Ross (Fire Engineering);
Dr.-Ing. Eddy Widjaja, Dipl.-Ing. Roland Lippke, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Klaus Rückert (Structure);
the completion of the study reform project at the Technical University Berlin in 2014, Prof. Dr. Rudolf Schäfer (Planning Law); Prof. Dr.-Ing. Volker Schmid with Dr.-Ing. Jens
Susanne Hofmann Architects has operated under the name “Die Baupiloten BDA.” Tandler MSc (Structure); Dr.-Ing. Paul Schmits (Lighting); Dipl.-Ing. Katja Pfeiffer,
Prof. Claus Steffan (Building Services); Mathias Heyden, Prof. Jörg Stollmann (Urban
We would like to thank all of the other departments, teachers and collegues who Development); Dipl.-Ing. Jan Bredemeyer, Prof. Dr.-Ing. Frank U. Vogdt (Building
have supported us: Physics); Dipl.-Ing. Astrid zimmermann (Landscape Architecture)

DIE BAUPILOTEN TEACHERS

DIE BAUPILOTEN STUDENTS DIE BAUPILOTEN STUDENTS

249
248