SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
 número104La arquitectura de las leyesLoft Geométrico índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


ARQ (Santiago)

versión On-line ISSN 0717-6996

ARQ (Santiago)  no.104 Santiago abr. 2020

http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0717-69962020000100012 

Dialogues

Don’t Follow the Rulles, Create Them!

Arno Brandlhuber1 

Felipe de Ferrari2 

1Brandlhuber+, Berlín, Alemania. www.brandlhuber.com

2Plan Común, París, Francia. fdf@plancomun.com

Abstract:

Laws, codes and regulations usually seem to hinder architectural creativity. Yet, that’s not always the case. In more than twenty years of career, German architect Arno Brandlhuber has sought for ways in which law can be a trigger for architectural design. Through various collaborations, his practice Brandlhuber+ became one of the most forward thinking voices in the contemporary scene. This interview gives an insight into these ideas explaining how restrictions, commonly perceived as obstacles, can be at the basis of architectural strategies.

Keywords: laws; building codes; design; projects; interview

Founded in 2006, Brandlhuber+ has consistently developed an approach towards laws and regulations making this architecture office - also characterized by their collaborations between practices, disciplines, and individuals - a unique case to delve into the links between architecture and legislation.

The following interview consists in two parts from different times and with different interviewees. The first part was held in September 2015, between Felipe De Ferrari (FDF) and Arno Brandlhuber (AB),5 whereas the second part was conducted via email with Dorothee Hahn from the Brandlhuber+ team (DH/B+) exclusively for this issue of ARQ.

FDF: You studied architecture at the Technische Hochschule Darmstadt and at the Università degli Studi di Firenze in Italy. What was the cultural, spatial and social atmosphere during the 80s in Germany? And how was it in Florence, a city in which Radical Architecture appeared back in the 60s? Can you give us some context about these two moments in your education?

AB: There was one main difference between the two countries: in Italy, and especially in Florence, the city was complete and intact, so the practice in Florence was mainly about interiors, about re-adaptation, and re-evaluation of existing material - they didn’t have to reconstruct a destroyed and patchy fabric, as it was the case in Germany.

Of all projects, personally, the most striking was the bank building in Colle Val d’Elsa by Giovanni Michelucci, one of these creative teachers of Tuscany. It’s a red steel construction and he was quite old when he designed it. According to the building law, he should have cladded the steelwork for fire protection. But he didn’t follow the regulations. I heard the story that he was telling: “I will never add it, because this legal system of Italy, well, it would take ten years or more to force me to modify it accordingly, and by then I will be dead anyhow.” To me, this specific situation in Italy at the time, with this extremely slow legal apparatus, opened up a new exciting field to creating architecture: to not just go along with the rules but to use them creatively.

On the other hand, Germany is a real ‘law and order’ state. And this structural condition extends to the technical architecture schools. It is still being taught that if you can calculate something, it will have a certain result; if you can calculate a building in accordance with a structural engineer, you will know how to build it. And maybe this reality was the starting point for our questioning.6 We asked ourselves if we should start experimenting with decision-making processes and try out non-linear alternatives.

FDF: Following that, what arguments or references marked your professional practice in its beginnings? This could be understood as a shortcut to build your own position as an architect, specifically in relation to your strategic approach towards architecture. Can you talk about the people, specific moments, works or discourses that were important for you to define the position of Brandlhuber+?

AB: That’s an important point, for sure. I’ve learned a lot from Lacaton & Vassal. Michelucci was one of the people I really liked for his ‘couldn’t care less’-attitude towards the legal apparatus.

As a student, I used to work in architecture offices during my semester breaks. Accordingly, these work placements were always limited to three months. I was so bored. After my studies, I went to Vienna, and there was only one architect in the German speaking field I was still interested in: Helmut Richter. After working with him for a very short time, I took the decision to quit architecture and, to bring it to a close, I decided to do one last project: One competition with a friend of mine, Zamp Kelp from Haus-Rucker-Co (one of those radical groups from the 60s and 70s with extraordinarily interesting work). Surprisingly we won, so we built the Neanderthal Museum in Mettmann, close to Düsseldorf (1996).

What I learned in that process is that, when you work together and you are not trained in collaboration - let’s say, not skilled in exchanging arguments - you will always choose a very simple narrative that brings you together. In the case of the Neanderthal Museum, it was about evolution of mankind, so we designed a spiral going up as a central feature of the building. But this motif of a spiral leading to the present was actually scientifically wrong because the Neanderthal man died out around 40.000 years ago. I recognized that the image we produced was so successful, that there was no need for an actual accurate dealing with the topic. We had created a very interesting object but nothing more. That was the moment when I thought we should re-think our own field. We started to work with the planning and building code until we were capable of playing chess with it. It was a long road, as we were used to avoid “diving deep” into these regulations. We had simply seen it as a given by the State, that one needed to know only as good to be able to design with. And then we had the idea of really turning that around, from being ruled by the law to actually rule it ourselves. We understood that the law is actually cultural heritage that has been embedded over decades in this text called building code.

In 1996, I started the practice b&k+ with my former partner Bernd Kniess. Since then, I have always worked in different cooperative, collaborative situations involving more and more people. Several times collaborators founded their own offices at some point, so the single authorship dissipated. This is also important for this interview: I might be the person being interviewed here, but not only am I responsible for the projects, but many people.

FDF: In 2006 - the same year when Brandlhuber+ was founded in Berlin - you finished Crystal, the Sports and Cultural Center in Copenhagen, a collaboration with the Danish architecture office Dorte Mandrup. This project is a good representation of your way of thinking and designing architecture, taking advantage of pre-existences and building codes. Can you tell us more about it?

AB: We had done some research on firewalls. If there is an existing firewall, you are allowed to build right against it - that’s the common rule in most European countries. Then there was this competition for the Sports and Cultural Center in Copenhagen, where the other competitors proposed nice singular objects that did not touch the four existing firewalls adjacent to the property line. So we thought “Ok, we need

a 48-meter long space for a soccer field, we need a height of 7 meters so you can play with the ball, and there are four firewalls.” If you connect these three elements, you get an envelope, and that’s the logic of the project. And if you want to get light into these courtyards, in-between these four firewalls, then you have to cut the envelope. This is why we introduced a strategy of correlation where we connected what’s written in the brief, what’s required by the law, and what the existing conditions provided, in that case, the four firewalls.

This envelope was double the size than what was asked for in the brief, but we decided to calculate the volume with the same project budget by reducing the costs for the construction. But then the client argued that a building twice the size would also double the energy use. So Dorte designed an intelligent solution: she put an outer landscape underneath an inner landscape and thereby created two different thermal conditions: in the inner landscape, insulated from the outer landscape, dance studios and the showers were located, while the outer landscape was suited for ball sport and similar activities that can be exercised at lower temperatures. Thanks to our strategy, we gained a lot of extra space that opened up the whole program for other uses.

FDF: Regarding rules, legislations and the conflicts emerging when dealing with neoliberal policies, in 2010 Jesko Fezer wrote: “From being strategic sites for the implementation of neoliberal policy, cities may possibly become a new political arena for experiments in democracy - and, thus, require a new design” (Fezer, 2010). Do you agree with his diagnosis? How does the law of supply and demand prevent us from having a better life quality and thus homogenizes our lifestyles?

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 1 Brunnenstrasse 9. Berlin, Germany. 2007-2010 The external escape stairs were built in the courtyard and at 5 m of distance from each unit for fire protection. By externalizing the stairs, each unit receives its own address. The 5 m long platforms, that connect the building to the stairs, serve as semi-public outdoor space. 

AB: I agree with Jesko Fezer. I grew up in the 60s and 70s in a time when the standards of buildings were much lower. And I don’t see that people at the time have suffered that much that their quality of life decreased significantly. Maybe we have to rethink the idea of standards that are to be constantly upgraded and applied to the entire society equally. This stance was based on the Social Democratic idea that people with a lower income should not be disadvantaged by lower standards of living. I agree with this, but maybe the answer to the problem was wrong. Instead of only raising the standards, we could have agreed on lower standards for everybody.

Further the question emerges, why does it seem to be necessary, to always define a space that is either for living or for work? Working as a freelancer, you have to have two separate spaces according to German law: One for working during daytime and another one for living and sleeping during night-time. As a general rule in Germany, you are not allowed to have your office in your apartment or vice versa. The answer to that waste of resources and space has to be a typological one. Therefore we did a lot of research through design projects considering typologies that combine living and working.

Another important point is that building companies should build more resilient and adaptable volumes not defined by one specific function, where the need for this function often changes over time. In Berlin, fewer and fewer people live in the form of a nuclear family, but when it comes to housing it’s mostly the apartment for one small family that is reproduced again and again.

When it comes to legislation, not only the building code is relevant, but also the tax laws. For example, if we build a house for living, we are obliged to pay the full amount of VAT - Mehrwertsteuer in German - so it’s a value-added-tax. Living is not seen as a productive circuit that has to be rewarded by the State. For buildings or spaces used for production, different rules and regulations are applied. You pay the same VAT, then you rent the offices, then you get the Vat back from the State, because it’s considered as an initial stage in a process of production within an economic cycle. The result is that spaces for production are cheaper than spaces of reproduction. This condition should change, and the private life should be considered as part of the (re)productive realm.

A single building can be cleverly designed, but it won’t have an impact on the urban scale. Nonetheless, if one were able to change a law, then much could change. One of our proposals for a new law, aiming to combat the housing shortage in Berlin (Brandlhuber et al., 2015), was to be implemented in a political electoral program: usually in Germany, but especially in Berlin, there are building restrictions for a maximum building height or floor number. We proposed that an additional floor should be allowed to be built, and rented as a fancy, expensive penthouse for example, on the condition that the developer has to rent a space of equal size in the same building for a social housing price. This would lead to more heterogeneity - above all in areas where social housing doesn’t exist anymore and will likely not be provided in the future, because that’s where property owners might achieve the highest return for penthouses.

FDF: In the conference ARCH+ features 35, you presented “Legislating Architecture,” in which you talk about the power of the text: rules, norms, codes and so on.7 Although I find this a very pragmatic, smart and realistic position, I wonder if you have thought to change some of the current patterns that are defining our cities, since you have become an expert in dealing with the established system.

AB: First you have to learn to project and widen the meaning of laws. Afterwards, just reverse the direction: try to get into that process and legislate architecture. It’s a very different condition from country to country, I have to say. In Germany we have the so-called Rechtssicherheit (legal certainty), which means that the law is really something you can rely on. It’s absolutely worth to spend time understanding the legal circumstances and to change them in the next step, because the transformation that comes with this change is very effective. Our intention is to learn from the different legislative systems and to develop our own manual that helps us to set up new initiatives and projects.

FDF: In relation to the Antivilla (Figure 2), could you contextualize the economic situation of the project in Krampnitz when you decided to transform the ruin of a former factory? Could you also refer to the main decisions which were experimental: no insulation, various warmth zones, and so forth?

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 2 Antivilla. Krampnitz, Germany. 2010-2015 

AB: One part of our decision-making derived from the situation itself. We wanted to address critical reconstruction and to be highly contextual but in a completely unconventional way. At the same time, we were discussing the environmental footprint of a building, questioning the increasing use of insulation. More and more buildings are wrapped by a thick layer of styrofoam, and look increasingly similar. But maybe that’s not the right way to deal with the reduction of energy consumption. If you calculate the grey energy of a building life cycle, an existing building wouldn’t be treated the same way as a new one: maintaining the already existing does not only save the energy from the labor, but also the one that is embedded in the material. So the law shouldn’t force you to comply with the same standards when modifying an existing fabric as if you were building a new house.

On the other hand, the energy footprint should be personalized, and every one of us should have the same upper limit of energy footprint considering housing space. This means that the size of the space you use is included in the calculation of your energy consumption. If you live in a small space, you shouldn’t be forced to adhere to the same energy reduction directives than someone who lives in a 500 m2 apartment and has to compensate their high use of space and embedded energy.

In the case of the Antivilla, the question was what to do with this big 500 m2 space. We thought that we don’t need that much space for a weekend-house, we don’t want to invest that much money, and we don’t want to spend the energy that a 500 m2 space that is entirely insulated would require. So we decided to reduce the heated and well insulated area to one central zone around a core with a wooden sauna as our heat source. The zone is limited by a light curtain, that works at the same time as a translucent insulation. That means that during wintertime we have only around 70 m2 for use, but from spring to autumn we can use the entire 500 m2. Currently, maybe eight or nine people have the key to the house. We try to share it, with the small problems that living together brings - but that’s a different story.

(Here starts the second part of the interview, which was conducted via email with Dorothee Hahn from Brandlhuber+ team in March 2020).

FDF: Coming back to your research on legislation. In ARCH+ special issue: “Legislating Architecture,”8 Arno Brandlhuber stated that “Architecture doesn’t originate according to laws, but with laws.” In your experience at Brandlhuber+, how have buildings allowed you to discuss the form and specific regulations within codes with politicians and decision-makers in Germany?

DH/B+: There are a few cases where a design project directly led to a new law. One example is 2,56 (1997), a building for a narrow gap between two houses in Cologne, where we managed to convince the authorities to allow the floors of the new building to hang like shelves between the neighboring firewalls instead of building our own firewalls, which would have reduced the building width to two meters. We introduced a ‘referred easement,’ which specified that the owner of our new building must cover the costs of provisionally securing his building in the case that the neighboring buildings are torn down. With this easement a precedent in building law was created, which was later adopted and led to the creation of a number of new regulations.

In other cases, we tried to involve the public for certain topics through political action. Here in Berlin, we are fortunate because we have access to the network of an activist scene, which makes it easy to discuss and spread ideas.

In 2011, for example, we initiated the campaign RGB 165/96/36 CMYK 14/40/80/20, an initiative criticising the unclear stance of all major parties towards housing politics, during the election campaign at the time. To visualise this political evenness, we mixed the colors of the political parties - SPD (Social Democratic Party), Bündnis 90 die Grünen (Alliance 90/The Greens), CDU (Christian Democratic Union), Die Linke (The Left) and FDP (Free Democratic Party) - in equal parts. The mix resulted in a brownish tone: RGB 165/96/36 CMYK 14/40/80/20. We printed this color on posters and billposted them in public spaces. We also contacted individuals from our network of collaborations and institutions to spread the project even further on their websites, daily newspapers and public lectures. This network was decisive for spreading our campaign and enabled an intensive public discussion about the undifferentiated programmatic orientation of all political parties.

Bringing our ideas into politics by directly discussing them with politicians is a tool we have been using as well. In our experiences, it then often became complicated to push the idea further, because we suddenly found ourselves in the midst of party politics and job retention mechanisms. In this climate, the idea loses out to power, and radical innovations are left lying idle. We have thought intensively about what has to change to alter this condition, and we are convinced that it is a systemic problem. What we need is an intelligence system that handles the five-year election cycles without allowing politics to drift into a dull populism.

FDF: San Gimignano Lichtenberg in Berlin (Figure 3) is a self-commissioned project in which the legal conditions play a central role. How was it designed, transformed, and occupied since 2012?

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 3 San Gimignano Lichtenberg. Berlin, Germany. 2012-to present. 

DH/B+: The two concrete towers of San Gimignano Lichtenberg were previously used as a silo and circulation tower, and they are the remnants of the VEB Elektrokohle Lichtenberg, a state-owned factory for graphite production.

After the Berlin Wall came down, the site was abandoned until the late 1990s, when the area was privatized to raise money for the city-state. The former production site was demolished; only the two concrete towers remained, due to the high cost of demolition. Today, the two towers of San Gimignano Lichtenberg, ennobled by their new title, a reference to the famous Tuscan towers of the same name, are situated between a Vietnamese wholesale market and typical GDR Plattenbauten (prefabricated high-rise buildings).

The concept foresees reusing the existing fragments with minor effort and interventions, mainly focusing on returning them to a legal status and adapting them to the needs of a new program.

The first hurdle we had to clear, was that there should be a 20-meter set-back in front of every facade if we wanted to introduce a new permit for use. There is a rule in the Berlin building code that says that if outer walls are located directly on the boundary of a plot, there is no requirement for a set-back. We saw this regulation as our chance and redefined the property lines, so that they would coincide with some of the outer edges of the towers. The idea was that these outer walls, now defined as firewalls, could be opened again in a second step, once we have made the application for a 5-meter-wide easement of the property lines.

With their heights reaching 46.85 and 42.60 meters, the towers are legally classified as high-rises and must therefore fulfill more severe regulations regarding fire safety and energy conservation. Due to the lack of zoning, the city wants to protect the area as a production site. Therefore, the first tower will be used as a workshop for different industries, such as 1:1 prototyping of architectural units, including supplementary spaces for archive, storage, and preparation; the second tower will be an unheated storage space up to 22 meters.

To avoid high costs, the silo tower only contains two levels: the ground floor and first floor at 31.82 meters, eliminating the need for extra technical equipment, such as pressure ventilation and exit doors, inside the stairwell. The window apertures are left open, transforming an interior circulation into a semi-outdoor safety staircase. Following this approach, no new openings are added to the structure; instead, the closed ones are re-opened, which allows more light and air circulation.

The legislative situation of the project is quite complex and it took us a long time to get the right permits for our interventions. But we expect our new prototyping workshop to open this year.

FDF: Considering your experience in dealing with law regulation outside Germany, like in the case of Terrassenhaus II in Sicily, Italy (Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7), what kind of problems did you face and what opportunities did you see within this specific legislative frame?

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 4 Terrassenhaus II Sicilia, Italy, 2019-2020. 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 5 Terrassenhaus II Sicilia, Italy, 2019-2020. 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 6 Terrassenhaus II Sicilia, Italy, 2019-2020. 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figura 7 Terrassenhaus II Sicilia, Italy, 2019-2020. 

DH/B+: In Italy, the legal system for building is very complex and differs a lot from municipality to municipality. We interviewed the Swiss architect Luigi Snozzi from Ticino, for the film project Legislating Architecture (2016), a collaboration with the filmmaker Christopher Roth. Snozzi gets the situation in Italy right to the point: “In Italy, the book where you look up what you’re allowed to do as an architect has at least six hundred to a thousand pages. You can look into it for years. That’s ridiculous.”.

The reality for our work in Italy is that for each project we have to find out what the condition is like and what we can make out of it. We have good local contacts that help us a lot to gain the specific know-how we need in order to realize these projects.

The residential building Terrassenhaus II is located on a steep chalky slope in the countryside in Sicily, close to the sea and nearby the hamlet Visicari. Arno discovered the place on one of his trips over the island, on the search for new potential project sites. It’s a difficult terrain to build on, since it is so steep and the permitted volume for a building is extremely low at the same time. At first glance, it didn’t make sense to buy the property - any construction would have been too small to be worth it.

But then we found that rule in the building code which states that only the building volume above the ground level has to be taken into account. This is why we designed a terraced house that is half sunk into the hillside. Thereby, we were able to make double the volume, because 50 % of its volume just didn’t count.

The building itself consists of stepped concrete slabs, which also define different zones of use. The bathroom and kitchen are housed in triangular set cores, so that a maximum view is always possible. The building is a viewing machine, and we understand it as a prototype of a terrace house for Sicily.

FDF: Finally, the Terrassenhaus Berlin / Lobe Block, located in Berlin-Wedding and completed in 2018 (Figure 8), is characterized by flexible open floors offering the possibility to both live and work, taking advantage of a precise reading of law regulation. Can you explain the context in which the building was designed?

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 8 Terrassenhaus Berlin / Lobe Block. Berlin, Germany. 2014-2018. 

DH/B+: First of all, let’s specify the condition of working and living. Currently, no living is allowed and the building is used as a multi-use atelier and gallery, a yoga space and a restaurant. But we are facing a legislative situation that might change in the future, as the area has no binding land-use plan yet. When we started the project, a regulation from 1958 only permitted the construction of commercial buildings. Yet at the same time, an ongoing grandfather clause also ensures that the area remains essentially a residential zone. This special status allowed us to design a building that serves a commercial purpose which could be extended to include residential use in the future.

The specific typology of the Terrassenhaus derived from the direct context and the urban setting: the two neighboring buildings are a typical 1900’s dwelling and a climbing hall. The Terrassenhaus is some sort of typological update of them. Additionally, the site faces a suburban railway track, offering a wide view towards the south - so it was clear that we would open the building towards that direction.

The typology also enabled the maximization of common space: as the building’s levels are staggered, they create 6-meter-deep terraces

on each floor and a big semi public space on the ground floor, which otherwise would have been sealed off. Shifting the lower floors to the south creates a 7.50-meter-deep covered sidewalk that functions as a plaza in front of the gallery space on the ground floor. The depth of the units varies from 26 meters at ground level, to 11 meters at the highest level, which causes different lighting situations, apt for different uses. The typology thus promotes a heterogeneous use into the building.

The circulation is reduced to two cores with elevators in the inside and two external staircases which connect the different floors via the terraces, aiming for a common and public use of the exterior spaces by the users.

The escape routes lead across the terraces, which means that the inhabitants are not allowed to build any partitions on them - we inscribed the common use of the terraces legally in the building, so to say.

Brunnenstrasse 9

Architects: Brandlhuber+ Emde, ERA, Burlon

Team: Thomas Banek, Bruno Ebersbach, SilviaFarris, Christian Geisser, Tobias Hönig, Andrjana Ivanda, Katharina Janowski, Chrissie Muhr, Jan Winterstein; Marc Bain (Kunst am Bau); Jürgen Bernhardt (advisory engineer); Thomas Fellerhoff (structural engineer); Halfkann +Kirchner (fire protection); terraform (landscape planning)

Location: Berlín, Alemania

Client: Arno Brandlhuber

Project period: 2007-2010

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 9 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 10 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 11 

Source: © Brandlhuber+ Team

Figure 12 Section. S. 1: 250. 

Antivilla

Architects: Brandlhuber+ Emde, Burlon

Team: Elsa Beniada, Peter Behrbohm, Klara Bindl, Romina Falk, Victoria Hlubek, Tobias Hönig, Cornelia Müller, Markus Rampl, Paul Reinhardt, Jacob Steinfelder, Caspar Viereckl; Karin Guttmann, Robert

Hartfiel, Andreas Schulz / Pichler Ingenieure (structural engineer).

Location: Krampnitz, Alemania

Client: Arno Brandlhuber

Project period: 2010-2015

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 13 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 14 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 15 

Source: © Brandlhuber+ Team

Figure 16 Concept isometric. N. S. 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 17 

San Gimignano Lichtenberg

Architects:Brandlhuber+ Martin Buchholz, Georg Diez, Nikolai von Rosen, Christopher Roth, Kristof Schlüßler

Team: Lukas Beer, Thomas Burlon, Marta Dyachenko, Jakob Eden, Olaf Grawert, Dorothee Hahn, Hannes Hehemann, Tobias Hönig, Maria Hudl, Marjan Jobke, Roberta Jurcic, Leander Nowak, Janz Omerzu, Markus Rampl, Paul Reinhardt, Peter Richter

Location: Berlín, Alemania

Client: Arno Brandlhuber

Project period: 2012 - al presente

Source: © Brandlhuber+ Team

Figure 18 Isometric. S/ E. 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 19 

Source: © Brandlhuber+ Team

Figure 20 Cross section. S. 1: 250 

Source: © Brandlhuber+ Team

Figure 21 Longitudinal section. E. 1: 250 

Terrassenhaus Berlin / Lobe Block

Architects: Brandlhuber+ Emde, Burlon / Muck Petzet Architekten

Team: Luise Angelmaier, Sarina Arnold, Pierre Alexandre Bardat, Julian Blochberger, Tünde Bognar, Romina Falk, Ilaria Giacomini, Tobias Hönig, Korbinian Luderböck, Callum McGregor, Martha Michalski, Birgit Müller, Markus Rampl, Christian Rapp, Alexine Sammut, Javiera Sanhueza, Eva Sievert Asmussen, Naomi Steinhagen, Tareq Tamimi, Eugenio Thiella, Duy An Tran, Jacopo Vantini, Lukas Vögel, Marco Wagner, Wolfram Winter, Ksenija Zdesar, Natalia Zhukova

Initiator: Olivia Reynolds

Client: Lobe Block / Olivia Reynolds

Operators: Olivia Reynolds & Elke Falat

Location: Berlín, Alemania

Project period: 2014-2018

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 22 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 23 

Source: © Erica Overmeer

Figure 24 

Source: © Brandlhuber+ Team

Figure 25 Longitudinal section. S. 1: 250 

Referencias:

BRANDLHUBER, Arno; HERTWECK, Florian; MAYFRIED, Thomas (eds.), The Dialogic City - Berlin wird Berlin. Cologne: Verlag der Buchhandlung Walther König, 2015. [ Links ]

BRANDLHUBER+; ROTH, Christopher, Legislating Architecture Schweiz.Zurich: Edition Patrick Frey, 2016. [ Links ]

FEZER, Jesko, «Design for a Post-Neoliberal City». E-flux Journal #17 (June, 2010). [ Links ]

KUHNERT, Nikolaus; NGO, Anh-Linh (eds.), “Legislating Architecture”. ARCH+ 225 (May, 2016) [ Links ]

***

Arno Brandlhuber. (1964) Architect and urban planner. In 2006, he founded the collaborative practice Brandlhuber+ in Berlin. His work includes architectural and research projects, exhibitions, publications, and political interventions. His research about the idea of legislation in architecture and urban design resulted in three movies, Legislating Architecture (2016), Property Drama (2017), and Architecting After Politics (2018), produced with the artist and director Christopher Roth. Brandlhuber has been associate professor of Architecture and Design at the EtH Zurich since 2017. Together with Olaf Grawert, Nikolaus Hirsch and Christopher Roth he is curating the German Pavilion for the 17th Venice Architecture Biennale in 2020.

****

Felipe de Ferrari. Architect, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (2010). Co-founder of 0300TV, OnArchitecture and Plan Común Arquitectos. Co-editor of the books ARQ Docs Pier Vittorio Aureli (2014), ARQ Docs Atelier Bow-Wow (2015) and Lugares Comunes: Recoleta-Independencia (2015). Esta entrevista se realizó en Krampnitz, Alemania, el 25 de septiembre de 2015 y se grabó en video. La entrevista completa está disponible en www.onarchitecture.com. Aquí, sólo publicamos algunos extractos.

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons