hochhaus_home





Hochhaus_logo

Picture: Steglitzer Kreisel, Uwe Jonas 2022

Photo: Thomas Bruns

What is possible 2023/24?

“For years, rents and purchase prices for flats (and commercial premises) have been rising to ever more dizzying heights. The supply of (still) affordable accommodation is becoming increasingly scarce and, for some, partly out of reach. Even for those who have a flat, it is becoming more and more difficult to pay the rising rents and to deal with the fear of losing their own flat – for whatever reason. In the face of this problem, we want to look for possibilities that have already been realised somewhere in the world and could show us an exemplary way for a solution, or maybe just utopian to theoretical thoughts on the matter.”

This text, already written in 2021, seems almost unreal, except for the theoretical/utopian. In Berlin, around it and (almost) everywhere, housing is expensive and getting more expensive. However, there are no longer any opportunities to break new ground, for example through building groups, cooperatives, micro-apartments or houses, or classic social housing, because the prices for land and building are rising immeasurably. All those who were not fortunate enough to have sufficient means to acquire property or who simply did not want to do so are increasingly confronted with the question of how they can continue to pay for their (rented) housing. The people who no longer manage to do so quickly find themselves on the outer fringes of society. These are the ones who ask us for money in the underground, camp out on the street or use shopping trolleys to transport their belongings. An exhibition in Munich logically asks: “Who’s next?” (Architekturmuseum der TUM, until 6 February 2022) Beyond that, we ask: “What then?”.

It is true that there are ways in which societies can deal with homelessness by creating alternative housing options, so-called inclusive projects that allow the “normal” and the “failed” lifeworlds to overlap. One example is the Viennese “VinziRast-mittendrin” by gaupenraub+, which accommodates homeless people and students together and also establishes a public café in the building, which points in the right direction. But these are individual measures.
Attention must therefore be paid to individual solutions, i.e. informal housing on the edges of usable areas, which are also becoming fewer and fewer, especially in Berlin. In the agglomeration called “slum”, these irregular buildings can certainly form appealing settlements – and be temporarily liveable, even idyllic.

A search for solutions for people who have become homeless and are exposed to the manifold hardships of this situation is on the agenda. There is a need to think anew and to build anew: How about building on the Tempelhofer Feld? How many people could be accommodated there? And how can building be sensible in the future, also in view of the “climate change”? Here, the project at the former Tegel Airport, the Schumacher Quarter, is certainly grou

After decades of rising real estate prices, the market has “collapsed,” not really, but a good 10 to 20 percent cheaper than a year ago. What sounds good at first continues to weigh on the rental market, and the reasons for the slump, rising interest rates and construction costs, are leading to a sharp decline in residential construction. In the course of discussions about energy prices, types of heating and simultaneously rising construction costs, there has been a lot of talk lately about standards, optimal house construction and necessary renovation measures. Simplified can be said at present: The rent prices in the population centers will continue to rise, too little new building and postponed and/or burst dreams of the home of one’s own, the prices for residential property will rise again, with rising financing costs. Added to this are considerations regarding the energy-efficient refurbishment of buildings, which give rise to fears of further cost increases, quite apart from the sharp fluctuations in energy costs.

Apart from the possibilities of informal building, which run like a thread through the considerations in “Space for Architecture” and for which the new addition of Pakistani architect Yasmeen Labri in particular offers some ideas, the focus is on simple and traditional building. In addition to thematic essays on global architecture, there is a series on architecture in Sub-Saharan Africa (Sub-Saharan Africa. Architectual Guide), which describes the status quo from traditional to modern for this region, and a book on the architecture of Sri Lankan architect Geoffry Bawa. The aim is to learn more about architecture and building in general in order to better reflect the German reality and, above all, to find “different” solutions.

Another example from the world of architecture is the Indian architect Anupama Kundoo, who has lived in Berlin for many years, but like some other well-known architects has not built in Germany, so far only in India. The reason often given for this is that it is difficult to impossible to build innovatively in Germany, as the many regulations do not allow it. “You are not encouraged to experiment and innovate here, not even at universities. (…) ‘The West has created the huge sustainability problem because it uses so much more energy than everyone else. So it has to change,’ Kundoo says. ‘Either he has to keep inventing new things that are even more efficient, he says. But what’s the point of making things more and more perfect if they’re things you might not need? The architect suggests instead to ‘be happy with the half you have’. Coming from India, I can say: a lot of money does not necessarily mean that the party will be good. ” (SZ 22.09.2023)

So where do we go from here? All the discussions are aimed at simplifying construction. On the one hand, this leads to a simplification/reduction in the cost of building in the interests of exploitation, with a simultaneous deterioration in quality (including energy efficiency), which can lead to higher profits on the part of the developers and higher running costs for the users. On the other hand, new possibilities for “simple” building and also for “do-it-yourself” can arise, i.e. partly informal building methods can get a sustainable legal framework. A good example of this is Walter Segal, who planned and implemented “self-building communities” in England in the 1970s.

The buzzword of simple building is gaining ground in the discussion in Germany, especially due to the demand of the Bavarian Chamber of Architects for a new type E building. This initiative goes back to the Chair of Design and Construction of Florian Nagler at the Technical University of Munich, who is practically testing how simple building could work with his research buildings in Bad Aibling. Architects always flinch at this keyword because they usually think of a deterioration in spatial quality and energy efficiency, which is not the case at all with the three building types presented. It is therefore worth taking a closer look at the brochure “Simply Building”.

ndbreaking. More questions than answers remain, but we want to and must continue to consider what the future of housing in Berlin can look like so that everyone can afford it.
*** Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version) ***

hochhaus_home

What is possible?





Hochhaus_logo

What is possible?

This year, the architecture sector will be looking at the possibilities that are still available to us, or at least theoretically available. For years now, the rents and purchase prices for apartments (and businesses) have been rising to dizzying heights and the supply of (still) affordable accommodation is becoming increasingly scarce and in some cases unattainable. Also for those who have an apartment, it is becoming more and more difficult to pay the rising rents and to deal with the fear of losing the apartment, for whatever reason. As a result, the subject of housing is becoming more and more important in everyday life, without which solutions are in sight. We now want to look for possibilities that have already been realized somewhere in the world and could show us an exemplary way, or perhaps only utopian to theoretical considerations could show us the solutions.

Here we come back again and show the idea of Elementa, who in 2010 built a settlement with Villa Verde in Chile, which could be finished by the inhabitants*, which made it possible to realize a living space twice as big. The Villa Verde of Elementa, a terraced house settlement in Chile, shows how it is possible to create a larger space by using self-help. For the architects, the question arose of how to cover the assumed need of approx. 80 sqm for a family with the available funds, which are only sufficient for 40 sqm. The simple and ingenious idea was to finish half of the building, but to create the necessary conditions for the other half (floor, roof, beams for the storey). The earthquake victims, for whom this terraced house settlement was built, could thus complete the other half themselves, depending on how much money they had available, this took different lengths of time.

However, the focus is first of all on “huts”. For current reasons, we will look at the magnificent exhibition “The Growing House” by the city building officer Martin Wagner, which took place in Berlin in 1932. Here, designs for small houses, which look a lot like allotments, were presented, which could be adapted to the changing needs of the inhabitants and could usually be enlarged in three steps. An approach that is currently being strongly discussed, but also the potential of the designs, which, due to their simplicity, offer a great opportunity for self-help, makes a resubmission useful. In addition, there is the possibility to visit one of the houses, since the student replica of Ludwig Hilberseimer’s design, which was later taken up by Mies van der Rohe, will stop over in Lichtenberg in the course of this year.

We will also deal with Balkrishna Doshi, first with the projects that created affordable housing, such as Aranya, and then at the end of the year with the exhibition by Annette Kisling, Jens Franke and Leonard Wertgen and the intensive use of the architectural space with projects by Balkrishna Doshi

360Fotos: Uwe Jonas; Fotos: Thomas Bruns

SiH_2002_370 SiH_2002_371 SiH_2002_373

hochhaus_home

Prototyping in housing construction?





Hochhaus_logo

SiH_1904_255 SiH_1904_256 SiH_1904_257 Fotos: Thomas Bruns

hochhaus_home

Providing affordable housing





Hochhaus_logo

Providing affordable housing by building low-cost homes

This year, we are presenting “normal” building projects with surprisingly modest construction costs and will investigate the issue of what construction should or must cost in the first place. Alongside a number of projects that have been carried out, we will also consider ideas and unrealised planned projects and will take a look at how other parts of the world manage to provide housing and to survive – under conditions that are often a lot more precarious than we can imagine.

The example of “Grundbau und Siedler (approximate translation: Basic Structure plus Residents)”, which was presented in late 2017, covers the spectrum between an experiment with involving residents who are given the opportunity to reduce costs by means of self-help, through to the low-cost “conventional” construction of homes.

This experiment in self-construction – “Grundbau und Siedler” (Hamburg, 2013) by the BeL Society for Architecture from Cologne – will allow users to gradually develop their building in accordance with their life situations and needs. The application of the principle of self-construction in combination with professional guidance helps to achieve significant cost savings that turn the building into a Smart Price building.

The “Grundbau und Siedler” approach operates in two phases. In the first step, the basic structure is built: load-supporting elements (floors, supports), the basic services and installations (utility connections, vertical supply and disposal chutes), the stairwell and lift, and the storage and workshop rooms on the ground floor. In the second step, for which there is no pre-defined timescale, the residents can furnish and equip the interiors of their apartment units themselves. The basic structure places barely any constraints on the residents, meaning that they can chose the room layout that best suits them in a very flexible manner. According to BeL, the self-construction approach can achieve savings of up to 25% on construction costs.

A range of floor plans are presented here. Alongside the historical development of apartment layouts and sizes, the various possibilities are highlighted too and, in this way, are transferred into the somewhat abstract world of floor plan drawings. A hand-held device is available that focuses on floor plans and provides a starting point for a consideration of the issue of: “How do we wish to live?” The primary concern here is the space that we need and are able to afford. Which layouts are desirable for what phases of life, and how flexible should these layouts be? At the present time, working and living are becoming intermingled, life patterns are changing, social structures are breaking down, and isolation is increasingly a feature of urban environments. In these regards too, architecture can be of assistance by striving to achieve open structures and forms of living by means of joint action, for example.

Atelier Kempe shows that conventional construction is very much possible at costs of around 1,000 euros per square metre.

The architect Kempe Thill appears to have achieved something in the Moerwijk district of The Hague that seems almost unthinkable in Germany: a low-cost building in an urban area where the residents feel very much at home.

Thill designed a block with one-storey 95 square metre apartments fronted by a modern aluminium-glass facade. To introduce some variation into the structure and to attract a diverse set of tenants, a number of three-storey maisonette apartments were added that have an open-plan kitchen and living area and three bedrooms. Everything was based on a uniform module with a width of 7.20 metres.

All 88 apartments have underfloor heating and are ventilated and air-conditioned using heat recovery. The building meets the low-energy standard. It is heated using geothermal energy and has a thermal storage system in the ground. Greater consideration has been given to energy generation and storage, and less to providing a thick layer of insulation.

As everything is based on the same standard – even the positions of the sinks in each apartment are the same – it was possible to reduce the construction costs to an impressively low figure: 1,100 euros per square metre.

In addition, a number of examples from the 1990s show how sophisticated architecture can still be built even at low costs. A study carried out in 2007 on behalf of municipal authorities in Austria identified many new-build housing projects that were achieved at cost levels that appear almost unrealistic in comparison with today’s price levels.

arch3 arch2 arch1

bruns10 bruns9 bruns8 Fotos: Thomas Buns

hochhaus_home





Hochhaus_logo

Providing affordable housing by building low-cost homes

This year, we are presenting “normal” building projects with surprisingly modest construction costs and will investigate the issue of what construction should or must cost in the first place. Alongside a number of projects that have been carried out, we will also consider ideas and unrealised planned projects and will take a look at how other parts of the world manage to provide housing and to survive – under conditions that are often a lot more precarious than we can imagine.

The example of “Grundbau und Siedler (approximate translation: Basic Structure plus Residents)”, which was presented in late 2017, covers the spectrum between an experiment with involving residents who are given the opportunity to reduce costs by means of self-help, through to the low-cost “conventional” construction of homes.

This experiment in self-construction – “Grundbau und Siedler” (Hamburg, 2013) by the BeL Society for Architecture from Cologne – will allow users to gradually develop their building in accordance with their life situations and needs. The application of the principle of self-construction in combination with professional guidance helps to achieve significant cost savings that turn the building into a Smart Price building.

The “Grundbau und Siedler” approach operates in two phases. In the first step, the basic structure is built: load-supporting elements (floors, supports), the basic services and installations (utility connections, vertical supply and disposal chutes), the stairwell and lift, and the storage and workshop rooms on the ground floor. In the second step, for which there is no pre-defined timescale, the residents can furnish and equip the interiors of their apartment units themselves. The basic structure places barely any constraints on the residents, meaning that they can chose the room layout that best suits them in a very flexible manner. According to BeL, the self-construction approach can achieve savings of up to 25% on construction costs.

A range of floor plans are presented here. Alongside the historical development of apartment layouts and sizes, the various possibilities are highlighted too and, in this way, are transferred into the somewhat abstract world of floor plan drawings. A hand-held device is available that focuses on floor plans and provides a starting point for a consideration of the issue of: “How do we wish to live?” The primary concern here is the space that we need and are able to afford. Which layouts are desirable for what phases of life, and how flexible should these layouts be? At the present time, working and living are becoming intermingled, life patterns are changing, social structures are breaking down, and isolation is increasingly a feature of urban environments. In these regards too, architecture can be of assistance by striving to achieve open structures and forms of living by means of joint action, for example.

Atelier Kempe shows that conventional construction is very much possible at costs of around 1,000 euros per square metre.

The architect Kempe Thill appears to have achieved something in the Moerwijk district of The Hague that seems almost unthinkable in Germany: a low-cost building in an urban area where the residents feel very much at home.

Thill designed a block with one-storey 95 square metre apartments fronted by a modern aluminium-glass facade. To introduce some variation into the structure and to attract a diverse set of tenants, a number of three-storey maisonette apartments were added that have an open-plan kitchen and living area and three bedrooms. Everything was based on a uniform module with a width of 7.20 metres.

All 88 apartments have underfloor heating and are ventilated and air-conditioned using heat recovery. The building meets the low-energy standard. It is heated using geothermal energy and has a thermal storage system in the ground. Greater consideration has been given to energy generation and storage, and less to providing a thick layer of insulation.

As everything is based on the same standard – even the positions of the sinks in each apartment are the same – it was possible to reduce the construction costs to an impressively low figure: 1,100 euros per square metre.

In addition, a number of examples from the 1990s show how sophisticated architecture can still be built even at low costs. A study carried out in 2007 on behalf of municipal authorities in Austria identified many new-build housing projects that were achieved at cost levels that appear almost unrealistic in comparison with today’s price levels.

hochhaus_home

Affordable living





Hochhaus_logo

Bezahlbares Wohnen durch kostengünstigen Wohnungsbau

In diesem Jahr zeigen wir „normale“ Bauprojekte zu überraschend moderaten Kosten und werden der Frage nachgehen, was das Bauen denn überhaupt kosten muss und soll. Neben einigen realisierten Projekten werden wir uns mit Ideen und unrealisierten Entwürfen beschäftigen und unseren Blick schweifen lassen um zu schauen, wie es in anderen Weltregionen gelingt, zu wohnen und zu überleben – unter Bedingungen, die meist viel prekärer sind als wir es uns vorstellen können.

Das bereits Ende 2017 gezeigte Beispiel „Grundbau und Siedler“ bildet die Klammer vom Experiment einer Einbindung der Bewohner, denen die Möglichkeit der Kostenreduktion durch Selbsthilfe gegeben wird, hin zum kostengünstigen „konventionellen” Wohnungsbau.

Bei diesem Experiment des Selbstbaus, „Grundbau und Siedler“ (Hamburg, 2013) von BeL Sozietät für Architektur aus Köln, wird es den Nutzern ermöglicht, das Gebäude schrittweise, je nach Lebenslage und Bedürfnissen, auszubauen. Durch die Anwendung des Prinzips des Selbstbaus lassen sich in Verbindung mit fachmännischer Anleitung erhebliche Kosten einsparen, die das Gebäude zu einem Smart Price Gebäude werden lassen.

Dabei wird „Grundbau und Siedler“ in zwei Abschnitten realisiert. Im ersten wird der Grundbau hergestellt: Tragende Elemente (Decken, Stützen), die übergeordneten technischen Installationen (Hausanschlüsse, vertikale Ver- und Entsorgungsschächte), Treppenhaus und Aufzug sowie die Abstell- und Arbeitsräume im Erdgeschoss. In einem weiteren, zeitlich nicht festgelegten Abschnitt können die Siedler den Innenausbau ihrer Wohneinheit selbst durchführen. Dabei bietet der Grundbau kaum Beschränkungen für den Siedler, so dass dieser den Grundriss nach eigenen Anforderungen in größter Flexibilität durchführen kann. Durch die Umsetzung in Selbstbauweise lassen sich nach BeL Sozietät für Architektur bis zu einem Viertel der Baukosten einsparen.

Gezeigt wird eine Reihe von Grundrissen. Nicht nur historische Entwicklungen der Wohnungszuschnitte und -größen, sondern vor allem verschiedene Möglichkeiten werden aufgezeigt und so in die etwas abstrakte Welt der Grundrisszeichnungen eingeführt. Es steht ein Handapparat bereit, der einen Schwerpunkt auf Grundrisse legt, um einen Anfang zu setzen, sich mit der Frage zu beschäftigen: „Wie wollen wir wohnen?“. Hier geht es vor allem um den Platz, den wir brauchen und bezahlen können. Welche Zuschnitte wären für welche Lebensphasen wünschenswert, wie flexibel sollen sie sein? Arbeiten und Leben wächst zusammen, Lebensentwürfe verändern sich, soziale Strukturen zerfallen, Vereinsamung nimmt gerade im städtischen Raum zu. Auch hier kann Architektur zum Beispiel durch offene Strukturen und Wohnformen, durch gemeinschaftliches Handeln helfen.

Dass konventionelles Bauen für einen Preis um 1000 Euro/qm heute durchaus möglich ist, zeigt das Atelier Kempe.

Dem Architekten Kempe Thill scheint im Den Haager Stadtteil Moerwijk etwas gelungen zu sein, was in Deutschland fast undenkbar scheint: ein kostengünstiger Bau in einem Ballungsgebiet, in dem sich die Menschen wohlfühlen.

Thill entwarf einen Riegel mit eingeschossigen 95-Quadratmeter-Wohnungen hinter einer modernen Aluminium-Glasfassade. Um die Struktur aufzulockern und auch unterschiedliche Mieter anzuziehen, kamen einige dreigeschossige Maisonettewohnungen hinzu, mit offener Küche, Wohnbereich und drei Schlafzimmern. Alles beruht auf der Grundlage eines einheitlichen Wohnmoduls von 7,20 Meter Breite.

Alle 88 Apartments haben Fußbodenheizung und werden mit Wärmerückgewinnung be- und entlüftet. Das Gebäude entspricht dem Niedrigenergiestandard. Es wird mit Geothermie beheizt und hat einen Wärmespeicher im Boden. Man hat also stärker auf die Energieerzeugung und -speicherung gesetzt und weniger auf eine dicke Dämmschicht.

Da alles dem gleichen Standard entspricht – selbst die Position der Waschbecken ist in jeder Wohnung gleich – konnten die Baukosten auf einen beeindruckenden Wert gesenkt werden: 1100 Euro pro Quadratmeter wurden ausgegeben.

Desweitern werden durch einige Beispiele aus den 1990er Jahren gezeigt, wie mit geringen Kosten anspruchsvolle Architektur realisiert werden kann. In einer Studie von 2007, die im Auftrag der österreichischen Magistratsverwaltung angefertigt wurde, sind eine Vielzahl an Wohnungsbauten verzeichnet, die im Vergleich zu heute zu fast unrealistisch anmutend geringen Kosten realisiert wurden.

arch3 arch2 arch1