Architecture is Participation

SUSANNE HOFMANN
ARCHITECTURE
IS ----
PARTICIPATION
DIE BAUPILOTEN
METHODS
AND PROJECTS

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

PARTICIPATION AND ARCHITECTURE
THE 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
8

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 timeconsuming
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]
9

Yona Friedman, 1974 MY GUIDE: HOW CITY DWELLERS CAN PLAN THEIR BUILDINGS AND CITIES THEMSELVES
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
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?
10

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
11

eflective process. That implies: the users of architecture—which generally includes all members
of society, and especially those who are affected by the design—can contribute along with the
client to the substantial knowledge gained during the design process. According to Nowotny,
they are stakeholders with diverse knowledge who actively contribute their expertise. Nowotny
refers to knowledge acquired in exchanges in such groups as “socially robust” and describes
the space of the exchange as the “agora;”[44] by which she means a social space based on the
perception of a classical Greek city market square whereby, in the original democratic sense, the
wishes, desires, and needs are articulated resulting in different visions, values, and alternatives.
SOCIALLY ROBUST KNOWLEDGE
Applied to the architectural design process, user participation can contribute socially robust
knowledge to the design—i.e., Mode 2 Knowledge—as well as a shared understanding of the
users’ needs and expectations. If one accepts the agora as the basis for participatory design, the
question of the architect’s role arises once more. They are the mediator and translator in the
design process for the architectural requirements and wishes stipulated by the agora, whereby
a new dimension in the participatory architectural design can be achieved. The decisive factor
is communication between the architect and users, which allows users to articulate their wishes
and ideas, thus enabling the architect to comprehend and thereby integrate them into the
design. At the same time, the architect should be given the opportunity to comprehensively
convey their design approach to the users, in order to lay the foundations for a successful
participatory design process.
COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ARCHITECTS AND USERS
The relationship between people and their built environment is determined by experiences of
appropriation and the use of buildings. The users must, however, be in a position to feel able
to formulate their demands regarding spatial aspirations; the architect, in turn, must be able to
present the appropriate design responses. To this end, they might have to look for adequate new
forms and means of communication, because looking at the prevailing communication between
architect and client or user, there are a number of shortcomings to eliminate or overcome. In
general, the understanding is based upon architectural drawings, models, and the discourse about
the design. Yet, in most cases this only represents an image of a space, not its intended effect.
There are fundamental problems affecting the communication between architects and laypeople,
including: their differing knowledge of construction, divergent assessments of architectural
qualities, and a clichéd preconception of the respective partners. Studies from psychological,
sociological, and pedagogical points of view have dealt with architecture, space, its experience,
and its appropriation by laypeople, and found that this harbors particularly relevant insights
for architectural design. Sociologist Daniela Rätzel discovered in her studies that the general
difference in their respective approaches is that architects predominantly dealt with the materiality
and building conditions in order to initiate the design process, while in contrast, the user initially
explored the room or building’s atmosphere and then considered the programming of the
spaces.[45] Users initially always construct a situational social space from the physical space.[46]
20

Architects ought to recognize these scientific findings and take them seriously. Their efforts to
communicate their architectural philosophies through the effective use of popular media, through
increased marketing efforts, or initiatives in school education fail if it is simply about trying to
educate laypeople to conform to architects’ ideas. Initiatives aimed at strengthening the sense of
space and the engagement with space are more promising, because they respond to the laypeople’s
understanding of architecture and its appropriation, rather than trying to educate them.
SHARED REALITIES & STORYTELLING
In this sense, the close proximity of the architects to everyday life is stipulated by Giancarlo
De Carlo as an essential part of co-housing projects. This is evident in the “Sarg Fabrik”—a
project in Vienna implemented by BKK-3, a group of Austrian architects. The design-build
program “Rural Studio,” launched by Samuel Mockbee in 1993 at Auburn University in the US,
encourages living close to the client for several weeks to understand their needs and determine
their wishes. However, it is not always feasible to facilitate such an intense proximity between
architect and their clients, meaning that alternative communication strategies need to be
developed in order to derive the users’ wishes and translate them into architecture. Alternative
methods have therefore emerged, such as games developed for the urban planning area, the
aforementioned AOC’s planning games, or the “playing cards” from the German-British
architectural firm offsea (office for socially engaged architecture). Digital data processes have
become viable for participatory tools, since the significant evolution of computer technology
from the nineteen-sixties and the Design Methods Movement.
Equally vital is what Jeremy Till refers to as “urban storytelling,” through which the layperson’s
knowledge is imparted.[47] Nowotny also considers the story an important communication
tool in the agora as a complex exchange on a narrative basis. In the context of urban storytelling,
architects are able to leave their detached, spectator position and interact with the users in a
social relationship. The stories that result from such talks should be recorded, in Till’s opinion,
and made the foundation of the design process.
Therefore, the selection of tools and methods of communication that can capture and
communicate differing perceptions of reality is decisive for the participatory design process. The
objective is to arrive at a “shared reality” or “shared realities.” Imaginings and ideas are compiled,
resulting in a collective story and a shared reality. This is not about compromising, finding
the lowest common denominator, or establishing what is common to each, but developing a
nuanced approach to “making best sense” out of the differing desires.[48]
It can be assumed that lowering the barriers to participation or involvement has as much to
do with a genuine thematic debate and the appropriation of knowledge, as with the essential
enjoyment of participation itself. The playfulness of this process not only facilitates participation,
it also sets the necessary creativity free. Since the aforementioned spatial atmospheres
play a major role, particularly in the layperson’s expertise, describing these atmospheres is
crucial to the communication between architects and users. Since spatial atmospheres are an
everyday phenomenon, there is a strong consensus from both sides about the experience of space.
This enables the architect to comprehensively understand the users’ wishes and simultaneously
helps achieve a necessary level of abstraction that provides room for interpretation in the
21

PROCESS
WORK STAGE
PARTICIPATION
FICTION
LPH 2
Concept Design
U3 A3
F7 W1 F4
10 11 12 01 02 06 02 03 04 07 08 09
2009
2010
2011
2012
LPH 3
Developed Design
LPH 5
Technical Design
LPH 6/7
Tender Documentation
LPH 8
Construction Start
COMPLETION
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
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).
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
30

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
31

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.
40

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.
41

METHODS
AND
INSTRUCTIONS
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 WUNSCHFORSCHUNG
F1 – F8 FEEDBACK
Their overriding importance for the design process is described
in detail in the first part of the book. They can be combined, and
some can also be easily modified for use in other stages. The
workshops can be carried out in several small groups or rounds.
In most cases, the architect acts as the moderator , who actively
gathers the emerging suggestions and ideas, and feeds them back
into the process. It is also important that they carefully record the
resulting ideas, expressed wishes, and developing stories in order
to make as thorough an evaluation as possible. This can be done
qualitatively and/or quantitatively. An interpretative-explicative
evaluation by means of an exhibition can also be useful.
The “Atmosphere as a Participatory Design Strategy” method
modules are varied and diverse, because different kinds of
participation are suitable for different users, different locations,
and different projects. The type of materials and means used
and produced (collages, movies, pictures, games, etc.) must also
be adapted to suit the participants and the project. The choice of
method modules also depends on the pre-determined time frame
and the available budget.
The pictograms to the right clearly illustrate for which participants
and target group the workshops are recommended, and which
material should be used or prepared. For some workshops, “Wünschepostkarten”
A5, questionnaires F6, or planning games W7–
W9, F7 were developed, and their production is explained in the
conclusion of this methods chapter. The pictograms provide information
on the occupational structure of the workshops, such as
their recommended size, their possible linkage with a design stage
according to the German fee structure for architects (HOAI), and
their average duration.
The method modules are to be understood as suggestions, which
can be adapted and further developed as you wish for your own
projects.
Have fun and gain lots of insight!
44

ADULTS
Many of the workshops developed for young people are suitable for adults. It should
be established beforehand if the participants are interested in craft/creative
workshops, or whether a more reserved, challenging alternative is preferred.
YOUNG PEOPLE
In projects with youth, implementation as part of a live project at a university is very
valuable. Students are at a similar age, and thus share similar experiences.
CHILDREN FROM 4Y, 6Y, 8Y
The workshops are differentiated according to age groups: from four, six, and
eight years old. In order to express themselves, some young children prefer having
somebody they know present, as this gives them a feeling of security.
NOTEPAPER, PEN
Taking notes during the workshops is recommended. Just as interesting as the
individual work results are the many comments and stories that are provided or
told during the process.
CAMERA
Like the written record, the photographic documentation is very insightful and
important for the evaluation. The results from the planning games should always be
photographed from above, from the bird’s-eye view, so to speak.
VISUAL MATERIAL
Images with strong spatial effects thematically appropriate to the workshops and
from the non-architectural world, preferably in A4 size. Good sources are nature
magazines or the Internet.
MATERIALS
Ordinary materials such as glue, scissors and cardboard. Simple modeling materials
such as colored or reflective acrylic, sponges, wooden sticks, cotton balls, string,
and beads. Found materials, such as bottle caps, corks, fabric, scraps, et cetera.
SPECIAL MATERIALS
Materials that have to be prepared or may need to be customized—such as scale
figures, architectural models and modules, specific (model) building materials—or
things that have to be specially obtained (e.g., postcards).
GAME SET
The production of the game sets is described on p. 110. The game sets can be
specified according to the project and the location. Custom developed and produced
games can be ordered from Die Baupiloten.
die BAUPILOTEN STUDY
REFORM PROJECT, TU BERLIN
GROUP SIZE
MODERATOR/ARCHITECT
The number of students involved in a study project, in which more aspects of the
design can be explored in a large-scale needs and desires research project and
therefore more impressions can be collected and more insight gained. Brackets
indicate cooperation with a university other than the TU Berlin.
A lot of individual work can also be carried out discursively in pairs. For the
planning games and some of the workshops, specific group sizes per moderator are
recommended. In larger groups, more rounds and—if necessary—more game sets
should be made available.
The moderator is usually the project architect. Through the participation, they get a
very good feeling for the project user group, and thus important insight for a holistic
design process.
MAXIMUM NUMBER
OF PARTICIPANTS
Design stage
ACCORDING TO HOAI
Workshops ranging in size from twelve to twenty people have proved to be
very feasible. With more than twenty people, a second moderator is usually
recommended. Planning games are most productive with one moderator per team
of about six participants.
The workshop modules are assigned a specific design stage, and within these
stages the different modules can be combined. In addition, some can be lightly
modified for use in other stages.
TIME FRAME
90
min
All time designations recommend an average time frame in a group of a maximum
of twenty participants with no preparation time. This includes the entire course of
the workshop, which can be spread over several days as individual steps if required.
45

EXPLORE ATMO
EXPLORE A LOCATION BY TAKING A STROLL, TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS
OF ITS ATMOSPHERIC QUALITIES AND PROCESSING THEM INTO
ATMOSPHERIC MONTAGES
INTRO
EXPLORE ATMO is a strolling photographic approach to discover the atmospheric qualities of a place. The aim
is sensitization towards atmospheric qualities by naming them and processing the photographs into collages
or montages.
PROCESS
STROLL: Drift through the city with the aim of discovering a location that is perceived as special. The following
aspects are important: visible qualities (materials, colors, light, architecture), invisible qualities (movement
patterns, memories), variable qualities (use, influence of users), and point in time (weather, time of day).
PHOTOGRAPH ATMO: Photograph the location in the areas where its character or atmosphere is particularly
prevalent. Print the photographs.
ARRANGE ATMO: Select and arrange the photos so that an overall atmospheric impression is conveyed. This
impression might seek to convey a change in atmosphere, to juxtapose two very different atmospheres, or to
convey multiple atmospheres in a single montage.
DESCRIBE ATMO: Find five descriptive adjectives and a stimulating title for the atmospheres detected.
PRESENT/DISCUSS ATMO: Present the panels individually. All of the participants should find adjectives.
REVIEW ATMO: Compare the adjectives given with those from the creator and check the extent to which the
communication about the perceived atmospheres was successful.
120
min
60
min
100
min
TIP 1: Instead capture film or audio of atmospheres. Create fifteen-minute videos with visuals and verbal
atmospheric descriptions. Summarize the key statements about the atmospheric qualities into a one-minute
clip and present for discussion.
TIP 2: This method module is also suitable as a design tool—for example, to explore the site in a more
nuanced manner.
DESIGN
The material created in the workshop forms a basis from which the user can communicate with the architect
about their perception of atmospheric spatial qualities. In addition, it also helps the user to increase their
awareness of the atmospheric qualities of spaces. Architectural concepts can also be initiated, reviewed, and
differentiated with the help of this method module.
50

• • - • • - - - - - - 1 - 1 1 DAY
MODULE
PROJECT
- • - • • - - - - 16 8 1 97 1 1 DAY A2
HOW DO YOU FEEL
UNDER A SYCAMORE TREE?
BEWITCHED
ENCHANTED
MYSTERIOUS
HOW DO YOU FEEL
UNDER A CHESTNUT TREE?
COZY
PLEASANT
AGREEABLE
COMFORTABLE
SHELTERED
HOW DO YOU FEEL
UNDER A CHERRY TREE?
GENTLE
SOFT
PEACEFUL
DELICATE
MILD
EVANGELICAL SCHOOL BERLIN CENTER Ten pupils explored their favorite location, Monbijou Park,
accompanied by Die Baupoliten student Laura Larraz. They initially looked for descriptive words for the
park’s general qualities (happy and relaxing) and then they differentiated between the atmospheric moods
underneath the different types of trees. They chose these perceived “special” qualities to be included in the
transformation of their school.
DESIGN
BERLIN
4.2008
51

MOVE IN
SLIP INTO THE ROLE OF THE USER AND EXPERIENCE THEIR
EVERYDAY LIFE
INTRO
MOVE IN is the architect’s experience of the users’ everyday lives, which is more in-depth than a mere
observation. The aim is to develop personal perceptions of the users’ everyday life and activities, and to
identify, set aside, or prevent stereotypes from emerging in the first place.
PROCESS
PREPARE: Select an appropriate residence.
SLIP INTO THE ROLE OF THE USER: For one day and one night, move into the residence to be examined,
and live according to the everyday rituals of the user: use all areas and test desired activities such as
cooking, relaxing, working, et cetera. If roommates share the living space, then in the ideal situation they will
be present.
1
DAY
1
NIGHT
m
RECORD EXPERIENCE: The entire daily routine should be logged with a written and photographic record:
where does one linger with others and where are the private areas? Which activities does one choose for
which location? How does one move through the building? Record other spatial and building-relevant use
criteria, strengths and weaknesses.
CREATE RESIDENCE DIARY: Compile the experiences on several notecards A5. You should categorize the
information. For example: 1. objective data such as size, rooms, and number of residents; 2. daily routine and
noteworthy events; 3. description of strengths and weaknesses, sketches, and photographs.
120
MIN
DESIGN
The architect can better comprehend the user’s way of life and specific appropriation of space than with a
mere observation or through hypothetical considerations about functional processes. Different activities as
yet unknown to the architect are revealed and can be considered in the planning, just as incorrect usage
assumptions can be revised in a timely manner.
60

U1
- • - • - • - - - - - 1 - 1 1 DAY
- - - • •
- - - - 15 - 1 - 1 2 DAYS
MODULE
PROJECT
STUDENT RESIDENCE SIEGMUNDS HOF As part of the design seminar “Move in Together 2010,” the Die
Baupiloten students lived for a weekend in different student residences around Berlin and recorded their
experiences in the form of notecards with photos of special moments. The so-called residence diary clearly
visualized the character, strengths, and weaknesses of the residence and sharpened the design decisions
(J. Lehrer).
RECONSTRUCTION
RENOVATION
BERLIN
11.2007
P. 140
61

BUILD YOUR THING
BUILD CUSTOM FURNITURE OR MODULES using PREPARED OR
FOUND MATERIAL
INTRO
BUILD YOUR THING is a creative hands-on workshop. Here the ergonomic and haptic design takes priority
instead of the spatial atmosphere. The aim is to learn more about the immediate physical and sensory
needs of the user. The resulting furniture or module could potentially become a basic module for the final
design.
PROCESS
PREPARE: Organize a workshop and ensure there are the appropriate technical and material facilities
available. Define a simple brief—e.g., create a piece of furniture for a desirable activity. Select materials that
can be used directly, simply, and quickly. The preparation or procurement of found or recyclable materials can
also be a part of the assignment.
STRIKE A POSE: In sketches, illustrate the specific posture for which a piece of furniture/module should be
built, or have the posture photographed.
1
DAY
m
BUILD MODULES: Build a life-size module for the desired posture and test it first-hand.
REFINE POSTURE: Develop the module. If necessary, modify it until an object emerges that can be used for
the desired activity.
ILLUMINATE MODULES: Experiment with the module in its “proper light.” How is it meant to be experienced
during use, and how is it perceived by onlookers?
BUILD RELATIONSHIPS: Consider the relationships that the different modules could have with one another to
create social situations or boundaries which offer privacy.
POSITION MODULES: In what place and position is the module most successful or does it function best?
PRESENT MODULES: A final exhibit makes it possible to present, test, and if necessary improve the modules.
TIP: A desired spatial situation can also be assembled very quickly from found objects. This allows a sense of
scale, incidence of light, et cetera to be tested simply and effectively. (Suitable for children over six years old.)
DESIGN
The physical objects allow the architect to gain a deeper insight not only into the users’ desires, but also into
their real physical needs. This leads to an ergonomic, user-oriented design, which is spatially optimized for its
occupation. In addition, the prototypes get the user to reflect and convert their needs into a physical object
that will help them identify with the completed project.
78

• • 6 Y - - - - • - - - 1 - 2 1 DAY
W4
MODULE
- • - - - - - • - 12 - 1 17 2 2 DAY
PROJECT
Deep-sea swing Exercise island Climbing chair Climbing glacier
Research capsule Space capsule Tension bridge Movement concentrator
Oasis Scream machine Observation lounger
CARLO SCHMID HIGH SCHOOL Together, seventh to eleventh graders helped influence the design of their
school in several steps with the support of Die Baupiloten students. To give the somber building a more
social atmosphere, they developed a variety of situations for learning islands, which they built as life-size
models: “That is a nice feeling, to contribute something yourself that can brighten the school routine.”
(Pupils Louisa and Jenia, 17Y)
CONVERSION
Berlin
11.2008
79

TEST SCENARIOS
USE ARCHITECTURAL MODELS, GAME MODULES, AND SCALE
FIGURES TO CREATE AND REVIEW DIFFERENT SCENARIOS FOR
THE DESIGN PROPOSAL
INTRO
TEST SCENARIOS is an exploration (building) game that uses spatial game modules in a specific architectural
scale. The aim is to enable users to adjust their needs and desires within the future built environment, using
these building blocks, which transfer easily into the design process because of their scale.
PROCESS
PREPARE: Architectural model 1:20, game modules 1:20, model figures 1:20 (preferably, the participants
themselves). For larger projects, however, a smaller scale may be used.
PRESENT MODEL: Present the architectural model and individual game modules in terms of their functional
and atmospheric qualities. Spread out the scale figures and other model-building material (e.g., reflective
materials, colored acetate, colored sponges).
EXPERIMENT WITH MODULES: Spin, turn upside down, exchange, supplement, or combine game modules
in new ways; illuminate with different light sources and experiment with shadows, et cetera. They can be
separated from the architectural model and arranged differently; additional game modules can be added.
ACT OUT SCENARIOS: Test and record quick variations for evaluation later: where is the atmospheric focus
of the scenarios? Is there an inviting, cozy, and familiar mood created, or is the character of the scenario for
example cool, minimal, or industrial?
INHABIT SCENARIOS: Place scale model figures in the composite model. How many fit? And during which
activity? Act out usage processes.
REVIEW SCENARIOS: Do the main functions, activities, and atmospheric qualities work together? Are the
proportions, sequencing, and zoning of the resulting spaces correct? Is the effect a desirable one? What is
missing?
DESCRIBE AND NAME SCENARIOS: Put the alternative scenarios into words and identify their differences,
similarities, and emphases; consider the extent to which the different model scenarios could be combined. Is
there a hierarchy among the favorites? Should some be excluded? After that, find a stimulating title.
40
MIN
m
m
LINK STORIES: Think of some conceptual stories to link the favorite scenarios.
20
MIN
DESIGN
The desires of the user and the concrete design model are synchronized, in order for the user’s needs to
integrate better into the ongoing design process. In addition, the emphasized haptic qualities of the produced
scenarios engage the user with the more physical and intuitive aspects of the design. Good guiding principles
and character can be developed here for the design proposal.
96

• • 6 Y • - •
F3
- - - 16 - 1 4 2 60 MIN MODULE
- - 6 Y • - - - • - - 2 3 6 2 60 MIN
PROJECT
LE BUFFET KIDS RESTAURANT From the space modules with reflective elements, colored acetate, and material
samples derived from their world of desires W2, the children assembled their own play area for the restaurant.
They examined the potential of the modules and their physical and visual relationships with each other and then
began to put it all together based on their own desires and imagination, experimenting with light and material.
“We would like to look out from high above.” (Josefine, 7Y and Laura, 8Y)
CONVERSION
Cologne
3.2014
97

EVALUATE DESIGNS
FILL OUT QUESTIONNAIRES TO EVALUATE THE DESIGN PROPOSALS
OR SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THEM
INTRO
EVALUATE DESIGNS is an effective decision tool, which works well for very large groups. The aim is to
comparatively evaluate different proposals of a new design through project-specific, targeted questions. The
strengths of each proposal can be identified and compared, so that the evaluation of the questionnaire
results can form a solid decision-making basis for the next stage of the design process. With a fixed, uniform
catalog of questions, it is possible to transform users’ desires and insight into an objective collection of data
for use by the architect.
PROCESS
PREPARE: Create questionnaires (P. 111).
PRESENT DESIGNS: Present all designs and their different aspects to be evaluated; queries are allowed. Each
participant receives a questionnaire.
ASSESS DESIGNS: After each presentation, note the strengths and weaknesses: for example, strengths:
“grass,” “natural materials,” “warmth,” “the feeling of being on a farm.” Take plenty of time to consider which
parts of each proposal are desired for which aspects of the design.
REVIEW ASSESSMENTS: After all of the proposals have been evaluated review the answers once more as a
whole. Are the evaluations justified in comparison? Improve and amend, if necessary.
DISCUSS ASSESSMENTS: Describe the first impressions of the strengths and weaknesses of each proposal,
and use them to identify the group preferences.
EVALUATE: At the end of the workshop, evaluate in detail the results of the session and the impact they might
have on the design process.
90
MIN
m
m
m
TIP 1: Questionnaires with yes/no answers can be posted publicly—e.g., with representations of the
design proposals. The assessment can be done with colored adhesive dots: for each question, each group
representative receives the corresponding colored dot in half the number of proposals. It is possible to give
all the dots of one color to one proposal. (P. 111)
TIP 2: As part of a school project, the questionnaires can be developed with the pupils, evaluated, and
provided to the architect as “objectified user knowledge.”
DESIGN
The user knowledge and the appraisal of the user/decision-maker can be integrated into the design. This is
an important decision-making tool, which could prove invaluable when there are several proposals to choose
from in a design process.
102

F6
• • 8 Y • - - - - • - - 1 ∞ 3 90 MIN MODULE
• - - - - - - - • 17 - 1 20 0 120 MIN PROJECT
HELLWINKEL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL The teachers at the school were presented with alternative designs
that were then put up on the wall for discussion. They assessed each project in writing using a concise
questionnaire regarding the aspects previously agreed upon with the school management—such as the
connection to exterior space and the type of specialized facilities available. The idea of integrating different
environmental features into the school was very well received.
CONVERSION
WOLFSBURG
7.2012
P. 120
103

PRODUCTION
OF GAME SETS
108

109

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
Dr. Susanne Hofmann)
51 | 81 | 101
85
EVANGELICAL SCHOOL HS Kotti 3000
210 194 140
222
ERIKA MANN ES I
PETTENKOFER ES SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIA ECO-POP SIEGMUNDS HOF S#
new school FAMILY SERVICE
110 234 69
79
JFK INSTITUTE
AEDES EXTRA FANTASIES TAKA TUKA LAND KG CARL BOLLE ES
CARLO SCHMID HS
6 214
NIGHT SENSATIONS SCHADOW HS
STAGE trees ERIKA MANN ES II
Heinrich-schütz-StraSSe EC
204 208
VACATION HOUSE MUDGE ISLAND TRAUMBAUM KG H100 LECTURE HALL GALILEI ES
67
PAPENTEICH HS
116
bis 2004 2005 2006-08
2008
2008-09

174
LICHTENBERGWEG Kg
55
Get Involved, Biennale
156
URBAN GARDEN LOVERS S13
230
ALBERT SCHWEITZER HS
97
Le Buffet KIDS restaurant
CH
87 | CO | CH
130 126 168
Social Club gallery
NEIGHBORHOOD Donaukiez
AGING IN NEIGHBORHOOD
BORNBROOK HS
TEAM PLAYERS’ HIGH-RISE S12
99 | CH
93
77 134
Hermann von helmholtz HS
New Lynn School ES ADOLF REICHWEIN ES, KG RISING EDUCATION
living IN RURAL AREAS
105 CH
166 170
CHILDREN’S DISCOVERY CENTER Karlsruhe CIVIC CENTER MITMOABITWOHNEN
LIFE AT A SMALL FOREST S10 PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S4/7
75 63 | 65
83 170 164
BUILD THE SCHOOL
NIKOLAUS AUGUST OTTO HS
CULTURAL CENTER At AEG
PAVILION GARDEN LIFE S5/6
MUSIC AND FITNESS S11
190 226 | CO | CH
57 198 120
NIDO PICCOLO KG
learn-move-play-ground
UMEÅ, COMMUNITAS
HEINRICH NORDHOFF HS
HELLWINKEL SCHOOL ES
2010-12 2012
2013 2014 ab 2015
117

138
RENOVATING
BUILDING NEW
CONVERTING

139

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.
174

NEW BUILD |LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN
Councilor for Urban Development and Construction a.D., Prof. Dipl. Ing. Martin zur Nedden, City of Leipzig:
“As a result of the exemplary character of this user participation model, and their increased identification
with the kindergarten, the participants gained important educational value beyond the improvements in
the quality of their environment.”
PROCESS
WORK STAGE
PARTICIPATION
U3 A3
F7 W1 F4
10 11 12 01 02 06 02 03 04 07 08 09
2009
FICTION
LPH 2
Concept Design
2010
LPH 3
Developed Design
LPH 5
Technical Design
2011
LPH 6/7
Tender Documentation
LPH 8
Construction Start
2012
COMPLETION
175

Form follows Fiction
LOOKOUT CLOUDS
SOUND SHELL
OBSERVATION PERISCOPE
RAINBOW
The ideas and stories derived from the worlds created by the children were explored through a series of
sketch models and sections at a 1:200 scale. Attempts were made, for example with the “Rainbow World,”
to consider the ephemeral qualities the children desired—such as heat and warmth, or cold—in the architecture.
Some of the Ideas from the workshop began to inspire the basic concepts of the building structure.
The idea of a “Volcanic Landscape” and a “Rainbow Garden” turn up in the massive masonry of the main
building and in the lighter wooden adjoining group classrooms.
LOOKOUT CLOUDS
LIGHT GAME
MOBILE WALL
FOYER EXERCISE SPACE GARDEN GALLERY
GROUP SPACES
RAINBOW STAIRS
EDUCATIONAL AREA
180

NEW BUILD | LICHTENBERGWEG KINDERGARTEN
181

SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIA
TU Berlin
The cafeteria was built as part of the new master plan for the redesign of TU Berlin’s main building. It connects
the two courtyards of the listed building and gives them new purpose. The lining of the cafeteria’s ceiling is
the centerpiece of the design and consists of eight luminescent textile elements: “light drops,“ which ensure
the basic lighting of the cafeteria and also focused lighting of the individual tables. They are also acoustic
absorbers. The color of the light drops is determined by the season—the warmer the outside temperature,
the cooler the light color. The red-orange trays, stools and chairs can be carried into the courtyards in good
weather, as so-called “climate change elements.”
194

CONVERSION | SHEET LIGHTNING CAFETERIA
Student Jonas Galler, 10th Semester, Technical University of Berlin: “The ‘Sheet Lightning’ café is my
favorite place. There you have sun as well as shade.“
FICTION
LPH 2
Concept Design
LPH 3
Developed Design
PROCESS
LPH 5
Technical Design
LPH 6/7
Tender Documentation
LPH 8
Construction Start
WORK STAGE
PARTICIPATION
A2
04
2005
A5
05 06 07 08 09 03 04 08 01 02 03 04 02
2006 2007 2008
COMPLETION
195

HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL
Wolfsburg
The conversion and expansion of the cafeteria, as well as the two-story atrium that serves as the central
lounge and study area for the senior class, was the result of findings from participation workshops. The
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.
198

CONVERSION | HEINRICH NORDHOFF HIGH SCHOOL
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.”
PROCESS
WORK STAGE
PARTICIPATION
F7
W6
W2
05
2011
FICTION
LPH 2
Concept Design
F3
LPH 3
Developed Design
LPH 5
Technical Design
LPH 6/7
Tender Documentation
LPH 8
Construction Start
06 07 08 09 10 03 04 01
04 05 06
2012 2013 2014
COMPLETION
199

FAMILY SERVICE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Berlin
For a private elementary school, administrative offices were converted into learning, exercise, and rest
areas tailored to the children‘s needs. The space, which one enters immediately after exiting the elevator, is
designed as a green indoor garden with plants and pictures; which together with the adjacent exercise room
forms a counterpart to the schoolyard. Core elements of the design are the modular partitions, which can be
lived in, played with, and climbed through, and thus adapted to the desired use. Fresh colors have replaced
the beige and gray of the original offices.
222

MINIMAL INTERVENTION – MAXIMUM EFFECT | FAMILY SERVICE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
Project Manager Neue Schule Alexandra Stieper, Global Education pme Familienservice GmbH: “The
concept of the school is global learning. That should be experienced in the school’s architecture. From
the ‘World of Learning,’ which emerged in the workshops with the children, Die Baupiloten created ‘World
Wonders.’ Now each of the ‘World Wonders’ makes global learning wonderful.”
PROCESS
WORK STAGE
PARTICIPATION
01 02
03 04
05 06 07 08
2009
FICTION
W2
LPH 2
Concept Design
F3
LPH 3
Developed Design
LPH 5
Technical Design
LPH 6/7
Tender Documentation
LPH 8
Construction Start
COMPLETION
223

242
LIST OF WORKS
: 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
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
S Susanne Hofmann, Kirstie Smeaton*
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 Conversion and energy efficient renovation
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 Conversion and energy efficient renovation
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,
Susanne Vitt*, and Zuzana Tabačková
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 Conversion and energy efficient renovation
P Student residence Siegmunds Hof, 56 residents
C Studentenwerk Berlin
CO 3.200.000 EUR gross
GFA 2.085 m 2
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)
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,
Zuzana Tabačková
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,
Zuzana Tabačková, Meltem Yavuz
rising education, Bertoua, Cameroon, 2013–14
PT New build, school design consultancy
P Elementary school
C Hope Foundation
CO 20.000 EUR gross (first phase of construction)
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 Conversion and energy efficient renovation
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,
Daniela Knappe, Zuzana Tabačková | Helmuth Hanle (SI)
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 Conversion and energy efficient renovation
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,
Zuzana Tabačková
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)

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
Tina Strack, Mareike Schlatow, Jana Sommer, Zuzana Tabačková
CON Jörg Lammers (Environmental Consultant),
ST raum a. (Landscape Design)
ADOLF REICHWEIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Freiburg, 2013
PT Invited competition for new building, 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 Posslinger,
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
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, 2010–12
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 Conversion and energy efficient renovation
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)
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)
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
243

244
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
S Susanne Hofmann, Marlen Kärcher*
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 Daniel Fernández, Till-Moritz Ganssauge, Johannes Maas,
Elena Reig, Ralph Reisinger, Florentin Steininger
FAMILY SERVICE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, Berlin, 2009
PT Conversion
P Elementary school in office building
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
T Susanne Hofmann
S Mario Bär, Lena Fischer, Claus Friedrichs, Ole Hallier,
Christian Necker, Quentin Nicolaï, Mari Pape, Gaspard
van Parys, Amaia Sánchez Velasco, Irmtraut Schulze,
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,
Agnieszka Przybyszewska, José Ignacio Rejas Fernández,
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 Lena Fischer, Anna Lafite, Lukas de Pellegrin, Lisa Plücker,
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,
Beatrice Traspedini, Katja Zimmerling, Amaia Sánchez Velazlo,
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”

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
245

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)
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
TR 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
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
2002 Diploma in Architecture Bartlett School of Architecture, London
O 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
TE
A
2007–13 Assistant Professor: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin
1999–02 Scholarship from the Studienstiftung des deutschen Volkes
Helmuth Hanle, Dipl.-Ing. Architect, *1956
1986 Diploma Technical University of Berlin
O 2007– Cooperation with Die Baupiloten BDA
1993– Freelance
1992–93 Architectural Assistant: Daniel Libeskind Studio, Berlin
1986–91 Project Architect: Klaus Günther Architecture Office, Berlin
A 1991–92 Monbusho-Scholarship from the Japanese Ministry of Education
DANIEL HÜLSENWEG, Dipl.-Ing., *1978
2009 Diploma Technical University of Berlin
O 2012– Project Architect: de Winder Architekten, Berlin
2008–12 Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA
2006–08 Freelance Architect: various architecture offices
TE 2014– Assistant Professor: Prof. Dr. Hofmann, TU Berlin
Martin Mohelnicky, Dipl.-Ing., *1975
2010 Diploma Technical University of Berlin
2002 Carpentry apprenticeship
O 2009– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA
2007–08 Freelance Architect: various architecture offices
TE 2014– Assistant Professor: Prof. Dr. Hofmann, TU Berlin
2007–09 Student Assistant: Prof. Fioretti, TU Berlin
246

Nils Ruf, Dipl.-Ing., Carpenter, *1972
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 Vitt, Dipl.-Ing., *1970
1998 Diploma Technical University of Karlsruhe
O 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
Kirstie Smeaton, Dipl. Architect, *1980
2008 Diploma in Professional Studies University College Dublin
2006 Diploma in Architecture Bartlett School of Architecture, London
O 2011– Project Architect: Die Baupiloten BDA
2006–11 Project Architect: O’Donnell + Tuomey Architects, Dublin
2002–05 Architectural Assistant: Satellite Architects, London
TE 2011–14 Assistant Professor: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin
Irmtraut Schulze, Dipl.-Ing., *1983
2012– Expert for accessibility in buildings, outdoor space, and urban planning
2011 Diploma Technical University of Berlin
O 2012–14 Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA
2011–12 Freelance Architect: Möller Mainzer Architekten, Berlin
2008– Working Student: Estée Lauder GmbH, Division Aveda, Berlin
2007–08 Architecure Assistant: various architechture offices
TE 2008–10 Student Assistant: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin
Max Graap, M. Sc. Architecture, *1985
2013 Master of Science in Architecture Technical University of Berlin
O 2013– Architectural Assistant: Die Baupiloten BDA
2010 Architectural Assistant: modulorbeat, Münster
2009–10 Architectural Assistant: Bolles+Wilson, Münster
TE 2012–13 Student Assistant: Study Reform Project “Die Baupiloten,” TU Berlin
2007–09 Student Assistant: Prof. Schulze, RWTH Aachen
Mathias Schneider, Dipl.-Ing.(FH), *1981
2009 Diploma Beuth Hochschule, Berlin
2001 Metal construction apprenticeship
O 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
247

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
guidance. The office assumed all liability and responsibility for the projects. Since
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 mit Dr.-Ing. Olaf Weckner (Mechanics); Dipl.-Ing. Christiane
Straße, FG Prof. Dr. Johannes Cramer (Architectural History); Dr.-Ing. Joachim
Feldmann (Acoustics); Dr.-Ing. Stefan Gräbener, FG Prof. Dr. Mathias Hirche (Visualization);
FG Prof. Rainer Mertes (Construction Economics); Reimund Ross (Fire
Engineering); Dr.-Ing. Eddy Widjaja, Dipl.-Ing. Roland Lippke, FG Prof. Dr.-Ing. Klaus
Rückert (Structure); Prof. Dr. Rudolf Schäfer (Planning Law); Prof. Dr.-Ing. Volker
Schmid mit Dr.-Ing. Jens Tandler MSc (Structure); Dr.-Ing. Paul Schmits (Lighting);
Dipl.-Ing. Katja Pfeiffer, FG Prof. Claus Steffan (Building Services); Mathias Heyden,
FG Prof. Jörg Stollmann (Urban Development); Dipl.-Ing. Jan Bredemeyer, FG Prof.
Dr.-Ing. Frank U. Vogdt (Building Physics); Dipl.-Ing. Astrid Zimmermann (Landscape
Architecture)
DIE Baupiloten STUDENTS
248

DIE Baupiloten TEACHERS
DIE Baupiloten STUDENTS
249