Room visions 2030

SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030 /// 1

ROOM VISIONS 2030THE ROOM COMFORT OF THE FUTURE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EXPERTS FROMTHE WORLDS OF ARCHITECTURE AND SCIENCE.A COMPREHENSIBLE VISION.

2 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030

THE QUESTION IS WHETHER OR NOT THE ROOM

WILL REALLY CHANGE IN TERMS OF TECHNOLOGY.

A ROBUST, LARGE WINDOW WITH

GOOD TECHNICAL STABILITY AND FUNCTION –

I CAN PRODUCE THIS TODAY EXACTLY AS I COULD

30 YEARS AGO. AND I IMAGINE THIS WILL

STILL BE THE CASE IN 100 YEARS’ TIME.

ROOM VISIONS 2030

THE ROOM COMFORT OF THE FUTURE

FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EXPERTS.

A VISION.

OLIVER ELSER, SEITE 9

»

«


Wieland Frank

What will we have left when the room changes?

Oliver Elser

Architects have to think about comfort

and cosiness again

Prof. Johannes Kister

Technology is not the thing we are actually longing for

Hadi Teherani

The room is the greatest luxury we have

Kaspar Kraemer

We’ve lost our appreciation of values

Prof. Dr. Stephan Günzel

Luxury is retreating into a room

Fazit

The future of the room involves a desire for old values

About SIEGENIA

Imprint

01

08

18

28

42

54

65

66

69


A vision of room comfort? Scenes from Stanley Kubrick’s

“2001: A Space Odyssey” from the year 1968


Just ten years ago, who would have thought that we would carry a camera,

a photo album, a calendar, a barometer, a world atlas with a navigation sys-

tem, our entire music collection, an ultra-high-performance computer and the

whole Internet, as well as a telephone, in our trouser pocket? Back then, who

would have thought that we would communicate around the world in real time,

wherever we happen to be? Or that our cars would drive themselves? That we

would be able to order products online and track their shipping online, that we

would have a video rental shop, a bank and a train timetable, including a ticket

service, on our computers? Who would have thought that we would now even

be able to print out products like jewellery or toys ourselves at home?

Over the past 20 years, our everyday lives have changed gradually, and yet

dramatically. Our lives and our work are interconnected, our use of the Internet

is a matter of course, which we would not be able to – or would not want to – get

by without in many areas. The utopias depicted in the 60s and 70s by science

fiction writers like Phillip K. Dick or William Gibson have become reality for the

What will we have left when the

room changes?

Working together with experts from the worlds of architecture and science, in this publication we create a vision

of the room, its utilisation and its comfort, in the year 2030.


most part. We have robots doing our work for us, we connect our knowledge world-

wide, we are reachable everywhere and at all times, and we pay for this reachability

with the time that we spend in front of screens large and small.

With the “Internet of Things”, which has been frequently cited recently, the continuous

interconnecting of our lives is finding its way into an area that has so far escaped

– ironically speaking – technological evolution. In addition to the computer, laptop,

tablet and smartphone, smart IT is now pushing its way into our lives and into our liv-

ing environments. Be it interconnected television via smart TVs, interconnected driving

via car IT or interconnected home automation technology via smart homes, sooner or

later we will also experience the entirely interconnected smart room.

Whether this is a welcome development, or rather a worrying one, is a matter of

opinion. At the very latest when we think about room comfort, in other words about

the sense of well-being that a room can create through its function, we have to ask

ourselves the question of whether technological evolution actually is something that

supports this sense of well-being or not. After all, there is a reason why people in cities

tend to prefer classic period buildings if they want to live in high-quality surroundings.

It is the longing for old values, for stability, for continuity, that drives them. We long

for a refuge, for homeliness, for a withdrawal from the entirely technologised and

interconnected world.

So what will room comfort mean in the near future? Is it the possibility to control the

temperature and air humidity of our living rooms at home by smartphone from our

workplace? Is it the house door that opens automatically when it locates the Bluetooth

signal from our mobile phone? Or is it perhaps the classic large and heavy living

room window that we can open with our hands to enjoy the fresh air and take a deep

breath in between all the online stress?

Admittedly, you could argue that this publication does not look far enough into the

future. After all, what major changes could possibly occur in the next 15 years in

our lives, in architecture, in our rooms, in building technology, in window and door

technology? On the other hand: what if you consider everything that has happened

in the past 15 years? If you take a step back for a moment and look at how many

things that still seemed entirely utopian in the year 2000 are a matter of course today,

Wieland Frank is managing partner at

SIEGENIA.


then you soon realise that a great deal can happen in 15 years. The imaginable, the

unimaginable, the logical and the entirely far-fetched.

“SIEGENIA Room Visions – Room Comfort 2030” does not aim to present a dys-

topia, nor a utopia. Rather, it is an insight and an outlook. An insight into what

is currently occupying architects, scientists and futurologists when they think about

architecture, and, in particular, rooms. And an outlook on what could, will, and,

above all, should change in our living and working rooms in the next 15 years. And

somehow also an outlook on what will remain in place, when we think about the

room comfort of yesterday and today.

As a specialist in the field of room comfort, we are indeed very interested in not

only presenting the technological status quo for windows, doors and rooms. With

products that have been tried-and-tested over decades and are constantly evolving.

However, we too need to work already on products and solutions that will be a

matter of course in the near future, just as window hardware has been for the past

50 years. And just as the smartphone has been for the past five years. The opinions,

statements and visions we have collected here for you cannot predict the future. But

they are a review of the current situation by experts in the field, who, in providing

these, help you and us to understand the development towards the future a little better.

To understand what is important to all of us when it comes to the topic “room”. And

what will be important to all of us in the future.

Whatever room you find yourself in while you’re reading this publication: I hope you

enjoy reading it and may it inspire you on your search for the room comfort of the

future.

Kind regards,

Wieland Frank

P.S. If you have any suggestions or questions, or would like to continue this discussion

with us, please don’t hesitate to write to us: [email protected]


ARCHITECTS HAVE TO RELEARN HOW TO SEE ROOM COMFORT AND TO UNDERSTAND THE RELEVANCE BEHIND IT.

OLIVER ELSER


Architects have to think about comfort and cosiness again!

Room comfort means: returning to old values in the future. SIEGENIA Room Visions interviews Oliver Elser, curator of the German Architecture Museum in Frankfurt am Main.

If anyone knows precisely how architecture has developed, and which values are

important for the room, then it’s Oliver Elser. As curator of the German Architec-

ture Museum in Frankfurt, every year he has to tackle the question of which form

of architecture is unusually or timelessly valuable enough to be exhibited there.

The passionate architecture critic publishes anything too bizarre on Facebook,

under the label “The scary sides of our cities”. We spoke to Mr Elser about the

future of the room, his idea of room comfort and his vision of architecture.


Mr Elser, as curator of the Architecture Museum, you have a very good insight into the history of the room. Looking back over the past: how has the room devel-oped and how is it going to develop?

In terms of office rooms, an amalgamation of working and living has been evident

since the 1960s. The workplace is increasingly becoming a location with the quali-

ties of a living space. Although this is currently being sold as a trend, it actually dates

back to that time. In the Netherlands, for example, there was an insurance building

designed by the architect Herman Hertzberger, the “Centraal Beheer”, in which

people could arrange their work stations entirely as they wished, however they found

it most comfortable. That was pure chaos. The offices resembled home-made tree-

houses in a concrete structure, which was reminiscent of a forest. It inspired and

shook up the field of architecture for a long time that there was a company who

would dare to do something like this. We also had a very innovative project in

Frankfurt in the 1970s by Dresdner Bank, which attempted to shape a new corporate

culture by having an office tower that combined the principle of office and living en-

vironment – including a swimming pool for employees on the top floor! The architects

were ABB, Heinz Scheid was the partner responsible. These examples show that

what companies like Apple, Facebook or Google are currently selling as a trend is

actually old hat.

Has the architectural industry pushed forward such developments itself, or does such momentum tend to come more from the companies?

It often goes hand in hand. The things demanded by the world of work generally

create a very vague picture first of all. Architects are needed to develop a coherent

concept. In the 1960s, this was furthered by the fact that many architects were

interested in what was known as “anonymous architecture” – where architects, like

ethnologists, travelled to Africa to look at the settlements and study the fundamental

structures of living and working together, and to then incorporate this into their ar-

chitecture. They researched in “uncivilised” regions to learn how people live there

– with regard to both structural and social aspects. And the structuralist architects then

incorporated these findings into their European projects. Architects back then were

incredibly creative at finding new paths – Aldo van Eyck is an excellent example of

this. Architects today who have repeated these Africa experiences one generation

Herman Hertzberger (* 6th July 1932

in Amsterdam) is a Dutch architect.

He is a proponent of structuralism in

architecture. With his buildings and the-

ories, he has made a significant con-

tribution to this architectural movement.

Hertzberger’s most important buildings

include the administration building

of the insurance company Centraal

Beheer in Apeldoorn (1968-1972), in

which he created “polyvalent rooms”,

which received different meanings and

interpretations, depending on the rela-

tionships between the people working

in them. His building activity focused

mainly on the Netherlands, but he also

designed buildings in Germany, Italy

and Japan.


later, such as the architecture firm Lacaton & Vasall, have also designed fascinating

buildings against this backdrop.

Is the creativity of architects different today?

No, not at all. One way to picture it is like a wave movement. In the 1920s, archi-

tecture was no doubt more courageous. Everything was challenged. After the Second

World War, there was a somewhat more conservative, but by no means worse phase

of reconciliation between avant-garde and tradition. Today, it is luckily the case that

many are turning their attentions outwards. To continents like Asia and Africa. But the

re-importing of ideas has yet to reach the degree that it did during the structuralism

movement I described. I’m waiting for a new wave.

You talked about the change in architecture, in other words the outer shell. What about the room itself?

Architecture cannot be broken down into shell and interior space. But let’s talk about

living. This has changed considerably. The apartments in highest demand today are

those in period buildings. These have the advantage that the rooms are of equal value.

There is utilisation neutrality. Specialisation according to supposed needs (tiny children’s

rooms, large bedrooms, etc.), this has not caught on. The way in which we think about

apartments today is shaped by utilisation neutrality, away from specialisation. This is

also because of our society: families are changing, the classic models are decreas-

ing, and, for all kinds of more open “patchwork” families, we have to make sure that

there are solutions available in the housing market. These are completely pragmatic

questions: what happens when the children are grown up, can we use the rooms for

something different then? Essentially, we need apartments that breathe, that answer such

questions from the very beginning.

Is the architectural industry providing answers to such questions?

The strongest trend is that people in cities are no longer relying on what the market has

to offer. The trend is towards “building groups” – instead of squandering money on a

real estate investor, people are preferring to do it themselves. People are forming build-

ing groups with friends to build homes. Berlin is playing a pioneering role here – this


is the major residential trend in cities. Many of these buildings also offer communal

areas that are available as “breathing” areas.

So this is similar to carsharing? People share the rooms?

Yes, the idea is that you don’t have to own everything yourself anymore. For exam-

ple, I live in Frankfurt am Main, we don’t have a car, I take the underground to the

museum, my wife and my two children also use the underground or ride bicycles.

We make the most of living in a big city. This is why we don’t need a car. Essentially,

this is a modern idea which gave rise to carsharing, and I would also like to see this

in the housing segment – people simply redistributing space variably, as they need

it. For instance, we no longer have a living room, but instead we have two children’s

bedrooms. Of course, we would have liked more variability, for instance an addition-

al room in the house. These are thoughts that the architectural industry must act on.

If rooms are as flexible in the future as you describe, what will happen to the technology in rooms? Won’t this have to be just as variable?

At the International Building Exhibition in Hamburg, the architecture firm “BeL, Sozi-

etät für Architektur” from Cologne attempted to develop a neutral floor plan. They set

up a “floor slab” architecture that the residents could change themselves. This is very

appealing, but the question is whether this can be built so simply. After all, architects

have been dreaming of relocating a wall with two hands for a very long time.

But isn’t this ultimately just a question of the technology?

Anything is possible. But something has to change in our minds. Initiatives such as

this unfortunately don’t come from the established real estate developers who hire the

architects. Rather, they come from the architects themselves. And the technology is

there. All that is missing is the assignment.

You say the technology does exist. So what are the technological trends for rooms? What is going to shape our future here?

The major theme in the next few years will be conversion, rather than building. In

The self-build experiment by architec-

ture firm BeL Sozietät für Architektur,

based in Cologne, allows users to

develop their building gradually,

according to their life circumstances

and needs. By applying the self-build

principle, in conjunction with expert

guidance, significant cost savings can

be made, making the building a “smart

price building”.


recent years, our “German Architecture Museum – Yearbook for Architecture in Ger-

many” has become a trend barometer of sorts. If you look at the projects that are pub-

lished in this, you can see that we are moving more and more towards conversion.

The idea of how to convert an existing structure is becoming increasingly significant.

Especially in the city. After all, there are hardly any new spaces on the outskirts of our

cities at all. Which means that we can only grow by compaction. Empty office spac-

es are also being converted into homes. This is a very important trend: the question

of how to activate existing buildings. But the most important issue is sustainability: the

most exciting examples are those that don’t require much technology. In other words,

houses that achieve fantastic energy values in an entirely conventional way: with

thick walls with lots of storage capacity and traditional windows. This is something

different to the German fondness for over-the-top insulation or highly complex control

technology – I don’t think much at all of these trends. I don’t even believe that this

control can work. Everything being interconnected is not an attractive prospect – as

we saw in the whole Edward Snowden story. We have to make sure that we don’t

get caught up in some kind of bizarre technology euphoria. Architecture is about

stability and security.

What will the room look like in 15 years then, with these aspects in mind?

The question is whether or not the room will really change in terms of technology. A

robust, large window with good technical stability and function – I can produce this

today exactly as I could 30 years ago. And I imagine this will still be the case in 100

years’ time. The architect Adolf Loos once said: “The house is conservative. Art is

avant-garde”, or words to that effect. You could also say: living is more conservative

than almost anything else. If you take a look at what is being built in cities most of all

at the moment, it tends to be a kind of strange neo-conservatism. Housing complexes

that look like they come from the 19th century, but are made from Styrofoam and plas-

terboard. Everyone wants to live in period buildings, but there simply aren’t enough of

them. So these make-believe worlds are being thrown together. Of course, you could

now argue that post-war architecture is also in high demand in the market, for instance

the Hansa district or what used to be the Stalin-Allee in Berlin, both from the 1950s.

The apartments here are first class, for their locations if nothing else. However, the

turning towards special residential forms such as these is not a major trend, but merely

a peripheral phenomenon of the zeitgeist. This is how a few hipsters live.


So what about the windows in these rooms? If we think in classical terms, the trend should be going towards large windows, shouldn’t it?

Yes, but not towards façades entirely made of glass. Office architecture has gone in

the completely wrong direction in recent years. But there are some good examples

now of how not to succumb to the insulation and control technology craze. There are

good examples of energy efficiency in office architecture, too. The zero-energy Eberle

building, for instance, which completely eschews the technology and insulation insanity.

What about workplaces? You talked about a longing for old values, isn’t that contradicted by modern office buildings?

Luckily, there are few companies that house themselves in such neo-conservative

fakes. It is essentially the same when it comes to homes. An ultra-modern workplace

increases the longing for more stability at home. Precisely this is the phenomenon.

You cannot accommodate huge corporations in lofts, but of course there is a desire

for the tangible stability of old walls. Creative people like to work in old buildings

with history, agencies are drawn to old factory buildings. I myself work from a factory

that was converted in the 1980s. You can see from the rooms that it used to be a

type-foundry. Max Dudler converted the building and this combination of history and

the present creates a wonderful, unique working atmosphere. I didn’t want to work in

one of those soulless 08/15 offices.

Let’s take a look into the future again: what type of architecture will be on display in the Architecture Museum in 50 years’ time?

It will be a type of architecture that doesn’t need any fancy tricks, one that is much

more normal. We will see a more scaled-down, robust and resilient type of architec-

ture. We can no longer afford to build offices in glass boxes. It’s illogical, in terms of

cooling if nothing else. We will be very interested in how the climate affects archi-

tecture in other parts of the world. And how we live in metropolises. The interesting

thing is that our sustainability concepts do not serve metropolises at all – although this

is where most living space is needed and used. But we can’t build cities with millions

of inhabitants out of wood. The exciting question will be how we can get a global

perspective of architecture.

Less energy with less technology –

that was the declared objective of

the architects at baumschlager eberle

when they built the mixed-use build-

ing “2226” in Lustenau, in Vorarl-

berg. Before now, reducing the ener-

gy consumption of a building meant

higher maintenance and upkeep

costs. This building, however, does

not have any heating, ventilation or

cooling systems. Instead of reacting

to building technology, the building

responds to input from humans: to

their body heat, their humidity, their

conversion of oxygen into CO2.


THE INTERESTING THING IS THAT

OUR SUSTAINABILITY CONCEPTS

DO NOT SERVE METROPOLISES AT ALL –

ALTHOUGH THIS IS WHERE MOST

LIVING SPACE IS NEEDED AND USED.

FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT ARE PEOPLE IN

BEIJING DOING ABOUT THE SMOG?

HERE, CONSTRUCTION, ARCHITECTURE AND,

NOT LEAST, WINDOW AND VENTILATION

TECHNOLOGY ARE THE PARAMETERS

TO BE FINE-TUNED.

»

«


And I am certain that we will be amazed at how people abroad are solving the

problems. For example, what are people in Beijing doing about the smog? Here,

construction, architecture and, not least, window and ventilation technology are the

parameters to be fine-tuned. Here in Europe, we are on an island of good fortune,

as we do not have this acute pressure to change. Everything works – still. We are

focusing more on affordable living spaces, that’s our issue. So the question regarding

our living environment here in Europe isn’t how we should be imagining the room in

2030 in visual terms, but rather in organisational terms. What will the distribution of

logistics and utilisation be like? We will use architecture differently, I’m certain of this.

Our vision is also about the topic of room comfort. In our research for this pub-lication, we asked ourselves why architecture has hardly addressed this topic at all. We talk about living comfort, but never about a sense of well-being in the room. Why do you think this is? And what is room comfort in the first place, in your opinion?

Car manufacturers certainly use the term “comfort”. But by this they mean nicely

crafted seat upholstery. Or the fact that nothing in the interior rattles and that the air-

conditioning doesn’t cause a draught. Architects don’t have this way of thinking.

They have to relearn how to see room comfort and to understand the relevance

behind it. This concerns a large number of terms relating to the quality of living and

room comfort. The word cosiness, for instance. This is a key parameter as far as

room comfort goes, which needs to be thought about again. Architects don’t think

about it, because it’s too individual for them. Karl Kraus put this manner of thinking

in a nutshell very well: “From a city I am to live in, I demand: paved roads, street

ROOM COMFORT MEANS MATERIALS THAT I ENJOY TOUCHING, PROPORTIONS THAT

PLEASE ME. ROOM COMFORT MEANS EXCELLENT QUALITY AS A MATTER OF COURSE.

»

«


cleaning, a key to the door, air heating, hot water pipes. I provide the cosiness my-

self.” The paradox is, however, that we feel more comfortable in Italian cities than

in German ones. Architects have to think about such things again, beauty, cosiness,

comfort! When we talk about pubs and restaurants, we soon agree what’s good:

never the latest design, but instead the traditional, unspoilt. As soon as we talk about

living and working rooms, there is a block, no-one wants to talk about it, no-one

wants to lay down comparable quality criteria. We are not thinking about the param-

eters that give us the feeling that a room has character. Character that doesn’t have

to be added afterwards. This closes the circle with regard to our longing for period

buildings. Many people like to be in these old buildings because they don’t have to

put their own stamp on them, since the room itself is already strong enough, because

of its history and the craftsmanship that has gone into it. This is a good feeling, to

be a part of a history that is bigger than us. We have to address such issues more

effectively, they are valuable and enduring.

With this in mind, what does room comfort mean for you?

Room comfort means the really simple things – things that might sound stuffy initially,

but aren’t. Room comfort means materials that I enjoy touching, proportions that

please me. Room comfort means excellent quality as a matter of course. It can even

be something silly like a flower window, despite poor insulation and cold gaps. A

certain quirkiness that can’t be suppressed by technology. A type of character in the

room. A disused fireplace. Travertine windowsills. Weird and wonderful bathroom

tiles. History and things that have the potential to become a piece of history them-

selves one day. This is where we have to return!

18 /// SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS 2030The vision of the working room according to Franklyn Lloyd Wright:

Johnson Wax Corporation Building in 1969.

THE ARGUMENT CANNOT BE THAT WE WILL NOT NEED WINDOWS ANYMORE BECAUSE EVERYONE WILL ONLY BE LOOKING AT MONITORS ANYWAY. JOHANNES KISTER


In addition to his role as a partner and architect in the Cologne-

based architecture firm Kister Scheinhauer Gross, Professor

Johannes Kister is one thing above all: dedicated. In his professorial

chair at Anhalt University of Applied Sciences in the “Bauhaus” in

Dessau, he lectures on design, building construction, spatial rela-

tionships and spatial perception – and was also dean in this field.

Reason enough to ask the civic art expert about his vision for the

room and technology.

Technology is not the thing we are actually longing for.

Room comfort means: striking a balance between function and a positive feeling. SIEGENIA Room Visions interviews Professor Johannes Kister, architect and lecturer on building design.


Professor Kister, please tell us what your field of research “spatial relationships” is all about. What does this entail?

Design essentially means spatial composition. It is not about the allocation of areas.

Design is three-dimensional, we design volumes and composition. As opposed to the

functional planner, the architect designs inside the room – he creates the relationship.

He works with room typologies, which are always three-dimensional. The hollow

space in a volume is an archaic image, you can see this, for example, in the theatre.

These images are essentially typological, and repeat themselves again and again.

This means that the room is only evolving in small steps. In this regard, we will not in-

vent anything in terms of rooms that had not already been invented 2000 years ago.

There are many constants in architecture. We have to curb the expectation that we

are constantly inventing new sensations, since there are no new innovations here. The

last development was the term “flowing space” according to Mies van der Rohe. This

is a momentum that did not exist before the 19th century. At the moment, it is difficult

to imagine something fundamentally, typologically new.

Taking a look at the world of work, has the relationship between people and the room changed?

As in all disciplines of design, there are cycles. Every year there are fashionable

colours. The double-breasted suit was en vogue 20 years ago, then it was out, and

now it’s back in again. There are such cycles when it comes to office construction as

Originally, the Mies van der Rohe

Pavilion was an exhibition pavilion

and the face of the Weimar Republic

at the 1929 International Exposition

in Barcelona. The building stands

out for its unrestricted floor plan and

sparing use of simple construction

elements made from a variety of

materials, which together create

a flowing space.


well. Franklin Lloyd Wright built one of the first open-plan offices circa 1900. This

was a major invention. Then there was the one-man office, then the one-room office,

the cubicle, then in the 70s the open-plan concept again. In the past two years,

people are returning to small office units because of the noise, the temperature, the

atmosphere. This means that there are only three possibilities. Scientists, for example,

want the peace and quiet of the one-room office, and a separate kitchen where they

can meet each other. They want quiet, because, after all, they don’t want to see their

neighbours picking their noses. If we look at other sectors, in advertising, in architec-

ture and in start-ups, then it’s a different picture. Creative workers love scenery, we

can see this at Google and Apple. Whether this leads to better or worse job perfor-

mance at the end of the day is relative. The fact that the workplace now has a greater

individual significance is certainly something that has changed. The significance of

the individual has increased.

In the world of work, it’s not about a certain room typology, but an individual work-

place atmosphere. What is perhaps different today: employees are not disregarded

in the planning process. Now, we talk to people.

Has this change in the world of work made architecture more democratic somehow?

Design is not a democracy. I would say rather that it has become more diverse. Let’s

take, for example, the Gerling building in Cologne. When you see this office struc-

ture, the room dramaturgy of the entrance, secretary’s office, manager’s office, this

kind of closeness to the manager, and compare this with a modern office, you can

see that something very democratic has happened. This type of hierarchical thinking

is gone, this “importance slope” is no longer dramatized as strategically as it was

30 years ago. No board of a company listed on the DAX index can afford to think

like this anymore. Today, we want to reflect our flat hierarchies in our architecture as

well.

You mentioned individuality: to what extent is the trend towards the home office influencing modern architecture?

In normal office construction, we are not reflecting a certain office concept.

Frank Lloyd Wright (* 8th June 1867

in Richland Center, Wisconsin;

† 9th April 1959 in Phoenix, Arizo-

na) was an American architect who

played a crucial role in technological

development in architecture. Wright

believed that buildings should have

qualities similar to human qualities.

He believed that buildings should be

lovable and bring people joy, and

that this was more important than the

development of a particular style.

Furthermore, Wright stressed that

the integrity of human values in the

modern age could only be achieved

by using machines, “the normal tool

of our civilisation” would have to

be created for the new “industrial

ideal”, Wright explained in a lecture

in 1901.


WHEN BUILDING PHYSICISTS

CALCULATE A ROOM, AT THE END

WE ACTUALLY ONLY HAVE

A TOILET WINDOW LEFT.

THE SMALLEST WINDOW

HAS THE BEST VALUE.

BUT THAT MAKES LITTLE SENSE,

IF PEOPLE LONG

FOR SPACIOUS ROOMS.

»

«


That makes no sense. When we plan an open-plan office, we always ask ourselves

the question of whether or not the room can also be divided up. Variability is an eco-

nomic parameter for building owners. For the modern world, this means that we don’t

have to build as many workplaces anymore and can work more effectively with open

concepts. It must be possible to occupy workplaces flexibly, today and in the future.

Space management and functions are not as hierarchical. But this does not change

the design to any great degree, it affects the utilisation more.

Does that mean that rooms will be flexible in 2030?

Flexibility will be an important parameter in 2030, because the world of work is more

flexible and is constantly changing. Department sizes have a shorter half-life. This may

not be the case among traditional public authorities, but is very pronounced in, for

example, the publishing business.

What about technological evolution, how do architects take new technologies into consideration in room design?

In architecture, we have to take building certification into account. Part of a building’s

certification is the obligation to define the standard and the technological level in

terms of its utilisation. This means that, even before the room is designed, we have

to say what it is going to become one day. There are two trends here: firstly, the

low-tech strategy, in other words keeping the technological standard low. And the

second method is to push the standard very high. These are the two basic strategies

that we are seeing at the moment. Of course, there are not supposed to be any more

changes in the planning process. The basic objective of where we want to put the

technology in the room is defined at the beginning, as we can only really control this

at the beginning.

What are the factors involved when choosing this standard? What criteria are used to decide which level of technological quality a building has?

Ultimately, it is the investment costs and the maintenance costs. In reality, owner-

occupiers tend to lean towards low-tech, because they want to keep maintenance

costs low. The investor tends to invest more in high-tech at the beginning, because


they want to sell the product for a higher price. This means that the comfort of a room

does not depend so much on its utilisation, but more on the economic direction.

Technically logical, centrally controlled coordination does of course take place, for

example everything that can be achieved with operations management or general

facility management, with which we can indeed optimise comfort. But the limit is soon

reached, as we are working with the human factor. If I have 500 residents in a build-

ing, the human aspect plays a large role, and I can’t think of the technology merely

in terms of marketing advantages. At the end of the day, this is a very intensive field

of discussion that is continuously renegotiated. As architects, we are always dealing

with the integration of technology in architecture. In this regard, we do of course

make recommendations based on our experience. But this sometimes has a negative

impact on costs. And then the discussion starts.

If cost considerations determine room quality, how will this affect room comfort in 2030?

At the moment, I cannot imagine that people will want to give up their scope to

manoeuvre in offices – even when costs dictate this. Everyone wants to be able to

open the window whenever they want. When control technology takes this decision

away from us, this is not psychologically good. We must have this decision-making

potential, otherwise we become machines. We must have individual controllability.

We can see this now in our cars: self-driving cars – this is amazing technology,

but every person who loves cars probably thinks that they would rather drive their

car themselves! On the other hand, I am certain that there will be more and more

technological integrations and systems in the future which, although controllable

centrally, still take the individuality I mentioned into consideration. I can imagine

that, for example, central building technology will control the ventilation, but I will

be able to adjust this individually at my workstation or in my home, because I want

the room to be 18 degrees rather than 20. This type of control technology will

increase and play a greater role, for the purpose of management. But on the other

hand, the individual must not be underestimated – this is the main danger in the

technology of the future, in all fields. It is our own responsibility to make sure that

we don’t become machines.

While we’re on the subject of the

control technology of the future:

SIEGENIA iWindow is a smart home

solution which allows users to mon-

itor, open and close windows and

doors by smartphone or tablet – from

wherever they are.


With this development in mind: what does this mean for the workplace of 2030?

I don’t think that 2030 is far enough ahead in the future for this type of observation.

It will be upon us soon. I hope that I myself am still knocking around in 2030. We

will still have desks, which will still have computers on them. Certainly, workplace

furnishings will continue to change. I believe that, as regards flexible workplaces, the

workplace will be a tool. Not in all sectors, but at least for knowledge workers. The

workplace will become a figurative cockpit, where I will control more than just my

Excel charts. Perhaps I will work with the building. Whether the coffee machine will

still be here in ten years, I don’t know. But I don’t believe that we won’t be running

to the photocopier anymore in 15 years. There are studies that have shown that it’s

important for people where things are positioned in the office – nowadays we know

that the kitchen and photocopier are creative spots. These are islands of communica-

tion, they satisfy a human need.

Humans are driven by a lust for rationalisation and a desire for technological pres-

tige. But our rituals remain in place, despite all of the technological evolution. Today,

for example, our office was sent a giant “Weckmann”, a type of bun, by a supplier

– everyone gathered around it and ate it. These are rituals that will linger. I hope

so, at least. In our idea of the future world of work, we always oscillate between a

nightmare and a utopia. We humans need some free moments, the coffee machine,

the photocopier, the “Weckmann”, to distract us from the complete technological

captivity we are actually caught in, to experience moments that are unforeseen.

What about rooms in our personal lives? Will we experience a similar develop-ment there?

At the moment, we have one trend that is grabbing up apparently unlimited space

because our society is developing in this direction. The trend towards singularity. The

living space as a former family and communal space is becoming singularised; firstly

in the senior segment, and secondly in terms of young singles. One- or two-room

apartments in the city are the focal point today. The public side of our private lives

has a greater significance.


Also in terms of room variety – we accept a small kitchen and a small bathroom,

and in exchange get as large a living room as possible. Because the living room is

supposed to be for interacting with friends. I build a social environment into my pri-

vate home because I want to invite my friends round for a Prosecco. The living room

is gaining social importance, so I content myself when it comes to my basic needs.

Instead, I can sit with seven friends around the table. Traditional room functionality

will decrease even more, it is breaking up. We will work with all-room elements.

This is interesting as it involves a social component – a positive development in these

technologised times.

What influence will these social components and the need for company have on technology in the room?

Interestingly, at the moment, we have opposite, conflicting trends. When building

physicists calculate a room, at the end we actually only have a toilet window left.

Not what we are actually longing for. The smallest window has the best value. But

that makes little sense, when people long for spacious rooms.

I don’t build a terrace with a depth of 2.5 metres, and then plan a narrow door to

connect the living room to the terrace to save energy – I want a high quality of living,

after all. From the point of view of a building physicist, the quality of living space is

not compatible with efficiency. The ongoing trend is towards closed buildings – we

are under pressure here at the moment because we conversely want to create an

excess of transparency through beautiful windows. Windows, not holes or glass

façades, mind you. The pressure stems from the idea of an overall climate balance

for a building – and the goal of having to achieve certain values for this. The window

has always been the major weakness. We have to improve the windows, but this

WE ARE UNDER PRESSURE BECAUSE WE WANT TO CREATE AN EXCESS OF

TRANSPARENCY THROUGH BEAUTIFUL WINDOWS. WINDOWS, NOT HOLES, MIND YOU.

»

«


would cost money. Glass architecture is therefore on the decline. From an economic

point of view, we want a window-opening percentage of less than 40%. In other

words 60% wall, 40% glass. The trend is increasing – negatively. So this means even

fewer windows. This is the point where we generally have to raise a warning finger

and say that this is not the way it should be. But the argument cannot be that we will

not need windows anymore because everyone will only be looking at monitors any-

way. For me, there is a crucial point here that has yet to be taken into consideration in

building. The “physical-social” components of technological development. The ques-

tion of what technology in a room means for the individual. These are soft arguments

that we don’t hear, or don’t want to hear, in the discussion about building. It’s too soft,

it can’t be calculated. But it is something that we have to pay more attention to, at the

same time as technological development.

We do not realise what these advertising worlds of technology mean for our lives

in reality. This is a very difficult moment: in the production of architecture this “phys-

ical-social” topic is not represented by any of the players. By architects or building

owners at the most. Often, there is then the accusation of being too aesthetic. But

with regard to the comfort of a room: what does the freedom to look out of a window

mean to people? How important is it? There is almost certainly a study that proves

that people become unwell when they don’t have a window. So we must also discuss

the principles of spatial perception and building psychology when we talk about the

technological aspect. Living is something biological, something psychological, some-

thing sociological – something instinctively human.

With this interdisciplinary approach in mind, how would you define room comfort?

Room comfort for me has two levels. On the one hand, it covers the physical things:

temperature, sounds, odours – these are physiological perceptions, and are not

always objective. Essentially, room comfort is the positive satisfaction of sensory per-

ceptions in a room. The other level is the optical perceptions, light, for example, in

other words the visual quality characteristics of a room. Therefore, room comfort is

about balancing these sensory perceptions. Harmony between the senses in a room.

I would call this the formula for room comfort.


“Crane Houses” in Cologne. Based on the designs of the workshop of the consortium

“First Prize Winner Rheinauhafen Cologne: Bothe Richter Teherani,

Busmann und Haberer, Linster, Schneider-Wessling und Abbing” of April 1993.

THE CONVERGENCE OF THE

LIVING AND WORKING

ROOM SHOWS VERY

CLEARLY HOW STRONGLY

HUMAN NEEDS SHAPE THE

ARCHITECTURE OF THE ROOM.

HADI TEHERANI


The room is the greatest luxury we have.

Room comfort means: integrating technology wisely. SIEGENIA Room Visions interviews star architect and designer Hadi Teherani

Not for nothing is he among the highest profile names in his trade. When Hadi

Teherani tackles room design, most of the time he creates more than just archi-

tecture. The “Crane Houses” in Cologne, the train station at Frankfurt Airport

and the “Dancing Towers” in Hamburg are much more than just extraordinary

landmarks. Teherani’s influential impact is not limited to the outer shell. He strives

to make rooms come alive for the senses, going beyond form and function – with

his own, often prize-winning ideas for furnishings and surfaces. We asked the

star architect with the integrated, interdisciplinary approach about his vision of

room comfort.


Mr Teherani, what do you think rooms will look like in the year 2030?

We are people, and we will always be people. We will not suddenly get taller or

shorter. So in 20 to 30 years we won’t have a different feel for proportions to that

which we have today. The only thing that will be different in 2030 is the value that

society will attach to technological and ecological parameters. These are parameters

that also influence the room.

In the last 20 years, we have developed an ever-greater longing for an “all-encom-

passing room”. We want a kitchen that is connected communicatively with the living

room, as well as a bathroom offering the highest level of comfort possible, with a

view. Of course, with state-of-the-art technology, which we need, but do not really

want to see in the foreground. Technology will become integrated into our living envi-

ronment. We will place our smartphones on furniture and here they will connect and

charge themselves autonomously. The central factor in this area is the need to interact

quickly. This is the principle behind the “Internet of Things”, an element of the room

and the furniture which is a matter of course, but invisible. In my opinion, these are the

main comfort features that we will continue to build on. We will think bigger again.

Architecturally, this was not always the case, unfortunately. There have been devel-

opments in the past that forced us to limit ourselves to the smallest of spaces – for

example because of the economic situation after the Second World War. Before

this, large rooms predominated. If you think about the magnificent room proportions

people treated themselves to around 150 years ago, how they worked with the ceil-

ing height, with plaster ceiling features, with the possibility of connecting rooms and

combining them into something larger. Many of the features used back then are en

vogue again today. People were very advanced in terms of the quality of architecture

and the room. Unfortunately, this was forgotten as a result of the war, and rooms were

minimised afterwards. Today, we are doing better, so the post-war rooms are not

enough for us anymore. Fortunately, we are thinking further and more openly again.


Does this explain the longing for period buildings and art nouveau houses that we are currently experiencing in the cities?

Indeed it does. In these old rooms you can feel the life, the breath, the values. Around

40 years ago, these wonderfully high ceilings in apartments in period buildings were

lowered, because our society tacitly agreed to restrict itself, to act modestly, by show-

ing less. Which was a real shame, as the floor plans from back then were much more

intelligent than those of today.

Does that mean that today’s architecture is no longer designed as intelligently as it used to be, that architects used to be more creative?

The quality of architecture depends largely on the tasks it has to fulfil. Just like the

abilities of architects. The old art nouveau buildings, for example, were appropriate

for their time. As I mentioned before, it was about people wanting to show what they

had. People wanted to represent. Rooms could be opened up and connected.

Architecture displayed a high level of flexibility – when you pushed open the double

doors to the living room that were typical for back then, you suddenly had an entirely

different spatial perception, a spacious view, a feeling of vastness. This sense of value

has unfortunately been lost these days. But, luckily, we are rediscovering it at the mo-

ment. We are breaking away from this functional “small room thinking”, between the

hallway, kitchen, bathroom and living room. Only, we have yet to achieve this fully.

For example, we are still building hallways – people used to have entrance halls.

THE QUALITY OF ARCHITECTURE DEPENDS LARGELY ON THE TASKS

IT HAS TO FULFIL.

»

«


WHEN REGULATIONS DEMAND

THAT WINDOWS NEED TO

BE SMALLER AND I CAN

THEN ONLY LIGHT UP OPEN-PLAN

OFFICES USING ARTIFICIAL LIGHT – THIS

CAN’T BE A GOOD WAY OF LIVING.

THIS CONSTRICTS THE ORIGINAL

IDEA BEHIND THE OPEN FLOOR

PLAN AGAIN –

FREEDOM, FLEXIBILTY.

»

«


These are a sought-after statement again today. You can see this, for example, in the

newer worlds of work – especially those of creative professionals. These are people

who feel more comfortable in a loft or converted industrial buildings. Here, you won’t

find constrictive hallways, but instead roomy, free spaces, rooms that allow the very

flexibility that a creative individual desires. That they need. This is a trend that will

continue. And not only for creative people and intellectuals anymore.

When I designed the first offices of this kind, which were spacious, flexible and,

above all, communicative, around 20 years ago, this idea was still rejected. People

preferred to have individual rooms, to isolate themselves, to close the door, to not

be disturbed. Offices broken up by glass were unimaginable at that time, because

people were always fearful of being watched while they worked. People preferred

to work alone, silently, reclusively.

Fortunately, this kind of thing is not being built anymore today. There are still individual

rooms no doubt, but offices have become much more flexible, sometimes so flexible

that employees simply find a space, set up their laptops and start working. What is

interesting is that this development in the world of work is spreading to all other fields.

Corporations are adapting this new openness and flexibility for their office worlds.

Hallways and canteens are suddenly becoming working rooms. And this develop-

ment is even noticeable in everyday life far away from the office. We no longer only

live at home, we live in restaurants, on streets, in squares and in parks. This is where

our rooms are. You can see this especially in the development of outdoor dining in

the cities. In certain neighbourhoods, it used to be problematic to set up chairs and

tables on the streets. When I look at the street “Lange Reihe” or the Schanzenviertel

district today, it’s like a single restaurant in which we communicate, enjoy some food,

and work. In which we live together. This is what people want today, this is what

shapes our urban space.

Ultimately, it’s all to do with communication, with our society’s strong desire to take

an active part in life. This is far less pronounced in other countries than it is here in

Germany. In Russia, for instance, people still work in one-room offices, where they

can hide away. This office style is declining much more slowly than it is in Germany.

The modern office and working world

according to Hadi Teherani: the Dock-

land in Hamburg-Altona on the Elbe.

The six-storey building has a distinctive

cross-section in the shape of a paral-

lelogram and leans out over the water

like the bow of a ship. As a matter of

fact, parts of the structure were actually

produced in a shipyard.


Does this mean that architecture drives culture? Or is it the other way around?

They are mutually dependent. Architecture frequently plays a pioneering role in room

design. And it must. But if society is not ready for it yet, this will be a futile endeavour.

Conversely, architects are also driven of course by society’s trends and needs – after

all, we live how we live. As architects, we have to respond to this. The convergence

of the living and working room shows very clearly how strongly human needs shape

the architecture of the room. We used to work for eight hours in our offices and then

drive home, where it was comfortable. Most of the time it was about passing the

eight hours effectively, concentrating solely on work. The working room was a purely

functional room. That doesn’t work anymore, we don’t only want to start living after

our day’s work is done. Even back then, I believed that this separation of working and

living could not be right. Because we spend the best time of the day, as well as the

most time, in the office. For me, there is no good reason why the office should be any

less comfortable or look any less attractive than the home. We had living elements

in the office long before Google, and even “beaches” – because we knew that the

quality of the room ultimately influences well-being and therefore also the effectiveness

of work.

Doesn’t this pursuit of spacious, flexible rooms contradict the requirements placed on rooms today by building physics? Or, to put it another way: how does the current discussion about absolute energy efficiency fit in with our need for larger rooms?

In some fields, this is indeed a point of disagreement. In turn, this is essentially a cul-

tural phenomenon. In Germany, we strive for perfection. There is no other country that

regulates building so strictly, because everything has to be perfect here. Naturally, this

concerns in particular the matter of buildings’ energy efficiency. The industry produces

solutions to help us make energy savings. Associations lay down rules accordingly,

which sometimes make sense. And sometimes don’t. But they are regulations that

have to be complied with. The classic one is the “passive house”, which I believe

makes no sense at all. Do I really want to live in a house where the windows don’t

open? Nevertheless, people are demanding the passive house standard, recently

even for office buildings. This is absurd. Until people comprehend that there are some

completely senseless developments being driven forward here, lots of mistakes will


still have to be made. We architects will keep having our spatial creativity restricted

by this regulation.

This regulation mania means that I can tell you today exactly how the façade will

look, how large the windows will be, which type of ventilation will be installed –

without even producing a design. Because I have to comply with standards. I have

to ask myself whether we even need architects anymore, if everything is so strictly

regulated. If all houses have to look the same, engineers may as well take over the

design work as well.

But I don’t want to say that development is fundamentally bad. It just depends entirely

on what it’s about. Unfortunately, we are presently experiencing a predominance of

the negative side of energy advancement. If you renovate a period building in accord-

ance with the energy standards today, and have to hide the brick with heat-insulation

plaster to achieve the energy values demanded, lengthy discussions with the historic

buildings protection authority are inevitable. That’s absurd. Imagine, for instance,

the Speicherstadt (warehouse district) here in Hamburg under today’s heat-insulation

regulations. It wouldn’t have been possible. Examples such as these show that we

are far from finding perfect solutions that meet the legislator’s requirements. And that,

in this whole building physics discussion, one fundamental thing is being forgotten:

buildings are always prototypes! They are individual. And, nonetheless, legislators

are attempting to lump everything together with standards and regulations. That can’t

work. We need individual solutions.

IN GERMANY, WE STRIVE FOR PERFECTION. THERE IS NO OTHER COUNTRY THAT

REGULATES BUILDING SO STRICTLY – BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PERFECT HERE.

»

«


The manufacturing industry is equally interested in standards because it has to think in economic terms. But if standards don’t work, shouldn’t the architectural industry dovetail more closely with the manufacturing industry, for instance to develop “individual” standards?

We actually do dovetail with the manufacturing industry. We’ve challenged the manu-

facturing industry often enough in the past, for example when we on the architect side

brought action against windows with certain standards. However, the legislator at-

tributes greater importance to the manufacturing industry. And when the legislator de-

mands something, the entire manufacturing industry agrees to it. Which is completely

understandable, but not always good. It is this very regulation mania that is forcing

us as architects to move forward ourselves and drive innovation independently. How-

ever, we can only do this in cooperation with a building owner who is prepared to

invest time and money in these innovations. This too is decreasing. When business

investors buy buildings today, they attach importance to a “certificate”. These certi-

fications are demanded from us architects, so that the buildings sell better. This is a

purely commercial perspective of architecture, there is a lack of passion for the values

that architecture should actually be about.

So architecture is becoming more and more of a standardised product that is designed taking predominantly economic aspects into consideration?

That’s the problem we have at the moment, and it also includes the manufacturing

industry, which ultimately only banks on things that can be marketed quickly. This

rapidity is harmful. We used to take the time to think long term, to re-plan, to try out

new things and to check for suitability. More value was attached to the quality of

innovations, even from the industrial side. That doesn’t happen anymore.


THE ROOM IS THE GREATEST LUXURY

WE HAVE. THAT DOESN’T

NECESSARILY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO

WITH THE SIZE OF A ROOM, BUT

WITH ITS COMFORT.

»

«


But, on the other hand, this means that the new worlds of work allow more scope to experiment today than the residential worlds of the large building investors.

Yes. One very good example of this is the furniture industry, which is trying out many

more new things in the world of work. For instance, the typical modern office setups

with their communication islands. This is an exciting development. What is important,

however, is that architecture allows such developments and provides the platform for

these trends. The space for communicative furniture on the office floor, in the lounge

or the communication island needs to be planned for. What is interesting is that this

space is almost a matter of course nowadays. Most offices designed and built today

are geared towards these spatial requirements from the outset.

So would you say that room comfort in the world of work is more advanced today and has a higher value than in the residential segment?

Absolutely. It has simply developed faster from the industrial side. Of course, this is

also because new working rooms are not individual rooms that have to satisfy subjec-

tive needs. Living space is more expensive than working space per se, so it is easier

to make an investment in innovative working rooms. The rooms are planned and built

for lots of people, rather than just for individuals. And also because investment in a

pleasant working room is also an investment in employee efficiency. But there is an-

other observation with regard to the development of room comfort. A purely cultural

one. In my home city of Tehran, rooms are much more spacious, more lavish and

more inviting than those here in Germany. People treat themselves to an entrance hall,

a large staircase, a dining room, a visitor room, in other words a room in which peo-

ple receive guests – because that is part of room comfort, an element of social culture

even. This generosity has little space in Germany, because we pay a great deal of

attention to profitability. In Germany, we try to tweak almost everything down to the

minimum. When we have a plot of land, the first question is how many floors need to

be built. Every square metre counts. Stairways and entrances have to be as small as

possible, because these spaces don’t sell. Whether spacious or cost-effective, both

cases are about a value, simply interpreted differently.

Interpretation of the modern world of

work: Developer Conference at the

Google office in Zurich. No rooms or

traditional furniture are used; instead,

people communicate with one another

on beanbag chairs.


Are these cultural differences in ideals also noticeable when it comes to the use of building technology?

To a certain degree, yes. First of all, in countries like India or Iran we don’t necessarily

need the standards they have here, because the climate is different. Although there

are, of course, prestigious buildings, such as hotels, that are geared towards our

technical standards. In addition to this, there are far fewer suppliers in these countries.

We can compare this more or less to the types of bread on offer. If you go into a

bakery in Tehran, there are three types of bread. Here in Germany, countless bakeries

have what feels like a thousand different types of bread on sale. This reflects the situ-

ation in building technology. In these cultural spaces, I don’t have to choose between

countless different manufacturers when I want to integrate technology. When I walk

around the BAU trade fair in Munich, I see a vast number of manufacturers all offering

entirely comparable products. The fact that we are so innovative here is certainly a

blessing, but equally a curse. Because these innovations do not always make sense.

Take the passive house again, for instance. With all the hunger for innovation – what

good is it to me if I open a window and the system crashes right away?

INNOVATIONS DON’T ALWAYS MAKE SENSE. TAKE THE PASSIVE HOUSE, FOR INSTANCE: WITH ALL THE HUNGER FOR INNOVATION –

WHAT GOOD IS IT TO ME IF I OPEN A WINDOW AND THE SYSTEM CRASHES?

»

«


Don’t we also have to question the extent to which the legal and economic regulation mania minimises the quality of life in a room?

This is a long-overdue discussion.

While we’re on the subject of the room and quality: how do you rate develop-ments in the field of connectivity? Smart homes are already more than just a trend. Will this be the standard in 2030?

Certainly. And to some degree this is a welcome development. Because all of the

cables that we used to have to allow for in buildings could sooner or later disappear.

Because everything will be controlled by smartphone and wireless connections. This

is the good thing about connectivity. However, I also believe that traditional things like

locking an outer door will stay the same. It gives us an almost archaic feeling of se-

curity when we manually use the door key and not only hear the lock, but also feel it.

While we’re talking about the comfort features of the future: how would you define the term room comfort?

For me, room quality is the aura of a room. Its complex emotional energy. The partial

aspect of room comfort is largely determined by two characteristics: by the materials

used, which should be as natural as possible, and the hygienic and climatic condi-

tions. I feel comfortable in a room when it’s not too hot, not too cold, when it has

a pleasant temperature. These are not only the physical, but also the psychological

comfort features of a room. Of course, noise and light also play a large role, but I

believe that room comfort in the narrower sense is essentially determined by the ma-

terials used and the climatic conditions.

So it is more the technical features that ensure that we feel comfortable in a room?

No, the foundations and conditions for everything is still the architecture.


To what degree is this atmospheric value, in a figurative sense, taken into consideration in the building industry?

This depends on many factors, among them the economic factor. The room is the

greatest luxury we have. That doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the size of

a room, but with its comfort and with all the other details of the overall composition.

In the right proportions, with the right materials, attractive furnishings, but also the right

window and ventilation technology, every room becomes aesthetically fascinating

and comfortable. You feel comfortable in the room with all of your senses. This objec-

tive, however, calls for very complex, farsighted architectural planning and control,

lots of coordination with the building owner and, last but not least, intelligent products

from the manufacturing industry.


Dystopia or already reality?

Will the smartphone change the quality of our rooms?

I BELIEVE THAT OUR LIVES

WILL RETURN TO MUCH

GREATER SIMPLICITY,

ALSO IN THE ROOM.

THAT TECHNOLOGY WILL

BE CUT DOWN TO ITS

NATURAL SIZE.

KASPAR KRAEMER


We’ve lost our appreciation of values.

Room comfort means: Designing progress sensibly. SIEGENIA Room Visions interviews Kaspar Kraemer, long-time President of the Bund Deutscher Architekten [Association of German Architects] (BDA).

Kaspar Kraemer spent three terms in office as President of the BDA. And that‘s not

the only reason why what he says carries weight in the industry. Kraemer, who is

often engaged on a voluntary basis and has impressively shaped the cityscape

with designs such as the access tunnel to the South Tower of Cologne Cathedral

or the pumping station on the south bank of the Rhine River in Cologne, which is

illuminated differently according to the water level, is one of the few working in

the field who actively campaigns for the preservation of old architectural values

and qualities. In a world in which room comfort is primarily dominated by techno-

logy, he urges moderation and a greater sense of responsibility. Especially when

it comes to the future.


Mr. Kraemer, how would you explain the term room comfort?

For me, comfort has something negative about it. It‘s a loaded term that very much

centres around the idea of cosiness. Comfort involves it being warm and cosy, and

these are terms that are not particularly constructive for me as an architect. The goal

of an architect is to give interior spaces a certain quality. That is, architecture is con-

cerned with aesthetic comfort. It‘s less about functionality - it goes without saying that

a space should be warm and well ventilated. A good comparison can be made with

a car - the comfort features come as standard. But the atmosphere it exudes, the feel-

ing that one gets from a car has more to do with aesthetics and less with cosiness. So

for me, room comfort is a term that only becomes relevant after the initial design has

been drafted - at the level of materials, where building physics plays a role.

How do you think building physics influences room comfort? Is the technology finding its way into architecture today influencing our perception of cosiness and room comfort?

I find the direction things are going in the field of building physics questionable.

The energy efficiency craze, which is being pushed by lobbyists of various interest

groups, is a delusion. This obsession with insulation that‘s currently being discussed is

completely insane - because it‘s trying to solve an existential problem without taking

into account far more important criteria. The issue of insulation seems almost ludicrous

when one considers that just 10% of the energy lost by a house is through its walls.

There are simply more important aspects - ventilation habits, for example. They play

a more decisive role that the walls.

The technologisation and digitisation of our world is having a rather dubious effect on

the architecture and technology content of buildings. This can be clearly seen at Berlin

Brandenburg airport, where the fire prevention measures have reached proportions

that are no longer rational. The side-effect of these supposed safety features, or rath-

er safety mania, is ballooning construction costs and nonsensical requirements that

excessively limit the freedom of the architect when it comes to designing the interior

spaces. And this isn‘t just something that affects major projects.

It even touches on our private lives. To put it bluntly, a new building today is a techno-

logical system around which the architect merely builds a decorative shell. The actual


essence of architecture is being steadily pushed into the background in the wake of

this technologisation. And this is neither helpful for the technology nor for the architec-

ture. And most certainly not for the people - they tend to get annoyed when this mass

of technology doesn‘t work properly, which it often doesn‘t.

With regard to this technology craze you describe: What will interior spaces look like in the year 2030? Will we still be living comfortably and conveniently when everything is wired and networked together?

I don‘t want to paint a disturbing dystopic picture, but to exaggerate somewhat, the

way things are going, we could end up with people living in capsules. That we end

up using our homes like a shelf that we slide ourselves into for storage, so to speak.

If you take a look at cities today, people are living in bachelor pads, everyone sepa-

rately. The things I need for a sense of wellbeing are no longer in my apartment; I look

for them in the Internet, on the computer screen. Nowadays, even coffee is ordered

„to go“ - coffee isn‘t made at home any more, you get it elsewhere and drink it on

the go. While staring at your iPhone. One can‘t help wondering what implications

this has for urban spaces when people today just spend their time gazing at small

screens in order to feel better.

How then is this dystopia consistent with the Renaissance of the older buildings that we are currently experiencing in the cities?

Every development has its countermovement. People realise that all the technology

and industrialisation still leaves them wanting. There is a discernible trend: the de-

mand for aesthetics and values is playing a role once again, albeit a small one. The

period buildings are admonishers from a time gone by, and play a major role in our

overly technologised society. All of a sudden you realise that architecture is far from

being just an ancillary technical service. This has much to do with common sense. A

sensible life isn‘t one that‘s suffused with technology, but reduced. A sensible way of

living means focusing on the essentials. It‘s a form of smart simplicity that distinguishes

the sensible lifestyle. And the fact that we need to be more modest in many respects

can be discerned not least from the ever dwindling resources we have available.

And by this I mean not only energy, but time also.


WE‘RE DESPARATELY SEARCHING FOR WAYS TO ACHIEVE A NEGLI-GIBLE OUTCOME FROM INSANE AMOUNTS OF EFFORT. THE FACT

THAT I CAN CONTROL MY CENTRAL HEATING OR

WINDOWS VIA A SMARTPHONE THANKS TO

THE EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE BUILDING

IS SURELY NOT THE SOLUTION TO OUR PROBLEMS.

»

«


But is the technology that affords comfort not a way to save time too?

That depends entirely on how one adapts oneself to it, how one interacts with it, what

the overarching benefit is. I myself perceive buildings that use excessive amounts of

technology as unfamiliar. As hostile. The thought that in a new building packed with

technology I‘m able to do practically nothing myself, am powerless within my own

four walls, scares me. You can see it in the architecture - the parts are preassembled,

pre-manufactured cladding installed in whole pieces. I can‘t do anything for myself,

can‘t repair the window myself, can‘t control the technology myself, I‘m pretty much

at the mercy of the products and comfort features. The technology is denying me free-

dom. It may still be OK in an office for the facility manager to take care of everything

and the modern control system to regulate everything for me. After all, I want to work

there, not live. But to be at the mercy of the system in one‘s own home is a horrifying

prospect.

This is a trend against which there‘s fortunately a counter-movement. There are people

who don‘t want this insanity, who consider being able to control the domestic heating

system from the car abnormal. Even if this attitude seems somewhat medieval - it‘s

right. Because all this networking only results in us losing the ability to focus on the

essential, on the moment.

Do you think that home automation will develop further in this respect, that things will become even easier? Or will things tend to just get more complicated?

I don‘t really keep up with the developments to be frank. Nowadays, you can have

your automated sun blinds, your technology for controlling ventilation and temper-

ature. That‘s just how it is. These are the standard convenience features that make

your life easier and that no one wants to give up. But despite all this technology, the

building process itself is admittedly still rather archaic. It still involves things being

assembled and put together. I don‘t believe that we‘ll ever have complete houses pro-

duced by a 3D printer. That‘s no alternative for classic architecture, for construction.

I do, however, believe that sooner or later our way of life will rediscover far greater

simplicity, including when it comes to interior spaces. That the technology will come

up against its natural limits. At some point we recognise that Orwellian moment.

When that happens, technology will be governed by reason and we will know how


to precisely differentiate between the service rendered, the comfort and the excessive

and oppressive aspects of the technology.

Are architects not under an obligation to petition for this reason? At least when it comes to living in the space.

Of course, the architect also plays a role as admonisher. I don‘t see us as the high priests of the future, though. Particularly since there are certain things we can‘t really influence. The high level of dynamism in the industry, for example, that continually develops new products and solutions as a result of pressure to generate growth. An architect didn‘t invent the concept of the „smart home“; that was something the industry came up with. And one should consider whether this networking is good or bad for us.

Naturally, this doesn‘t mean that we architects are backward-looking preventers of

progress - if that were the case, we wouldn‘t have electric lighting in our rooms today.

But we need to distinguish between real progress and simply using technology for the

sake of it. If we consider engineering and technology in a reasonable manner, then

it‘s manageable and beneficial for us. The problem is that industrial developments are

not always driven by reason. But mostly by fear. You can see that happening today.

Take the smoke detector, for example, which is now mandatory in all apartments - this

is a product that‘s currently being forced on the market, even though it‘s not really nec-

essary. But a fire could break out, and this is of course a scary prospect that you don‘t

wish for. It‘s these scare tactics that are behind the structural insulated panel too. The

PEOPLE ARE BEING LED TO BELIEVE THAT A POLAR BEAR COULD SLIP OFF AN ICE FLOE IF THEY DON‘T INSTALL

INSULATION IMMEDIATELY.

»

«


issue is being turned into a bone fide ideology and people are being led to believe

that a polar bear could slip off an ice floe if they don‘t install insulation immediately.

But this is neither reasonable nor the solution to the problem. The causes of climatic

change are not poorly insulated walls, but our fundamental attitude towards energy

consumption. In many respects, we‘re far too unreasonable, too wasteful with energy.

Take the coffee in its paper cup with plastic cover that the city dweller treats himself to

each morning when he drives to work in his car - this is far more wasteful of energy

than the non-insulated walls of a period building. But no-one from industry talks about

how much energy we actually consume. There‘s no money to be made by doing that.

Are you saying you wouldn‘t want to renovate period buildings to make them more energy efficient?

Only to an extent that makes sense. One has to bear in mind that the Gründerzeit

buildings, the much sought-after period buildings, have in part been around for over

150 years. This is true architectural sustainability. You would have to calculate how

much energy such a building actually saves - and by this I don‘t just mean when in

use, but also relating to its construction, maintenance and life cycle. As a general

rule: If I don‘t have to demolish something because it‘s good just the way it is, that‘s

already more sustainable that the technical excesses being used to sell us sustainabil-

ity. And in terms of architecture and construction, there‘s hardly anything that can top

these period buildings.

When I look at the new houses in the city suburbs built using structural insulated

panels, which can hardly be considered durable and will have to be demolished at

some point in time, I wonder what the eventual consequences will be. After all, it‘s

hazardous waste that must be disposed of in something like a nuclear waste repos-

itory. We architects will have to again assume the role of admonisher and insofar

as possible restrain this undesirable development. We can‘t do much to prevent it,

however, because we‘re now bound by the provisions of the „EnEv“ (Energy Efficien-

cy Ordinance). But that doesn‘t mean we have to push the issue. I consider it the

responsibility of independent architects in particular to counter this engineering trend.

Because it‘s above all the independent architects that have a duty to build something

that meets all expectations - primarily the technical ones nowadays. But a building

doesn‘t survive due to technology, but good planning.

Symbol of a wasteful society: Accord-

ing to the Aral Coffee Survey 2013,

around 3 out of 4 Germans prefer

their coffee on the go. The irony is that

nearly one-third of the coffee drinkers

attach especially high value to the cof-

fee having a sustainability certificate.

Hardly anyone reflects on the ecologi-

cal footprint associated with this type of

coffee consumption, however.


A well-planned building is the ultimate manifestation of sustainability - this has nothing

to do with thermal insulation, but the ability and stance of the architect. This doesn‘t

mean that the architect always has to play a leading role in construction - but that we

have to again and again allow our hands to be tied and our efforts frustrated when

it comes to the good, sensible and sustainable design of spaces just because a sup-

posedly technical solution is able to satisfy scarcely comprehensible demands is unac-

ceptable. In this respect, we‘ve forgotten that our duty as architects is to meaningfully

integrate solutions without destroying the essence of the architecture in the process.

The consequences of waving through every regulatory requirement can be seen, for

instance, in barrier-free construction. If you build something suitable for wheelchair

access today, you have no more staircases or steps, but ramps and elevators instead.

I‘m not saying that we shouldn‘t design wheelchair-accessible buildings; we need to

do that. But if we were to design many of the most important architectural highlights

from our history according to today‘s requirements, they wouldn‘t be highlights any

more. They would be missing staircases, for example. You could no longer build a

Greek temple today. What remains of aesthetic quality, of intangible value?

THAT WE HAVE TO AGAIN AND AGAIN ALLOW OUR HANDS TO BE TIED WHEN IT COMES

TO THE GOOD, SENSIBLE AND SUSTAINABLE DESIGN OF SPACES IS UNACCEPTABLE.

»

«


Does this mean that the reverse applies, i.e. that we sacrifice quality and a sense of value in favour of comfort?

From a philosophical point of view, absolutely. If you look at new buildings today,

they usually only consists of a concrete structure into which an elevator has been inte-

grated. A standardised façade is put around it and the building is finished. Basically,

the architect just chooses a colour and the engineers take care of everything else. I‘m

exaggerating, of course, but it‘s not that far removed from reality.

In principle, I‘d have nothing against a reasonable and well-thought-out basic struc-

ture on which to build. This is where I see the superior quality of the BDA architects

who are able to control such processes and still produce aesthetically excellent de-

signs despite all the regulations. Such a structure could have been used to salvage a

thing or two in our suburbs - particularly with regard to the cladding on the buildings

there. But we‘ve somehow lost the instinct, the eye for sound aesthetics, for something

essential like quality and value in architecture. Worse still, the sense of responsibility

that one should have when it comes to building seems to no longer be present. While

there are some small-scale movements that involve themselves with the development

of energetically sound solutions, these are generally rather minor things that don‘t

accomplish much. I see the responsibility when it comes to such issues resting more

with the universities - it‘s the duty of the educational system to advance the topic of

responsible building. But instead of teaching something as important as this, we

spend our time desperately searching for ways to achieve a negligible outcome from

insane amounts of effort. The fact that I can control my central heating or windows via

a smartphone thanks to the excessive amount of technology used in its construction is

surely not the solution to our present and future problems.

What duty does the window and ventilation industry have in the debate on en-ergy efficiency? After all, the window is commonly regarded as the weak spot when it comes to energy loss. Won‘t it require developments that meet both the architectural quality demands and building physics standards?

IcI find the term „weak spot“ already rather telling. The challenge of sensible plan-

ning is always to balance out weak spots. I have to get to grips with the weak spots

during the planning phase in order to reach the best possible compromise in the end.


Windows have a particularly tricky role to fill. They are the eyes of the building; they

let light and air into the space. So they really can‘t be large enough. But instead

of trying to find a solution that‘s compatible with the key function a window has for

the quality of the space, they get reduced in size. Or they‘re built so they can‘t be

opened any more. It‘s ridiculous. Window technology has admittedly made leaps

and bounds with regard to energy efficiency, but windows are now so well insulated

thanks to all the regulations that they no longer allow for air to be exchanged. While

this does indeed lead to cost savings, it also results in mould and mildew - and it‘s

absurd when what is in fact a well-intended solution results in people getting sick. As

with all solutions, innovations and technologies, and with regulatory provisions too,

it‘s the extent or degree that‘s important. Weak spots can likewise only be compen-

sated for to a sensible degree. After all, what good does it do me to have the best

insulated house, which always remains at a constant temperature, if it ends up making

me sick because I catch a cold when I go outside?

Is there even such a thing as the ideal room in view of all these obstacles and problems? What would it look like?

There‘s no standardised ideal - the perfect room depends on the assignment the

architect is given. And each assignment is different. Designing rooms is a quest:

I‘m searching for the optimum structural, functional and aesthetic design. As such, it

involves compromise as with weak spots - this also applies when it comes to the topic

of windows and ventilation. The important thing is to develop a sense of perspective

and as mentioned, to take a sensible approach to the matter at hand. In this regard,

I can only repeat my appeal to my colleagues: that they educate themselves further,

keep learning and draw on the best of what they‘ve learned - to find the optimum

solution for the task they‘re presented with. That‘s actually what makes our profession

exciting too. I don‘t mean to sound conceited, but we play an indispensible role in the

construction industry. The architect is a generalist and provides a sense of balance;

he‘s responsible for achieving a balance between the individual trades on site, the

needs of the stakeholders and the individual standpoints.

Mildew caused by external thermal

insulation composite systems. Critics

accuse the development of being

senseless, since the harm caused to

the building, the residents and the

environment is usually greater than

the short-term benefit provided by

the insulation. These systems are still

prescribed nevertheless.


If the architect is tasked with building responsibly, keeping a sense of balance and allowing reason to prevail: wouldn‘t you also have to approach the manu-facturing industry to discuss the relevance of certain products?

It‘s difficult to approach the manufacturing industry. How would you go about it? It

would result in conflicts of interest developing. I can‘t issue a ban on the industry‘s

products. We mustn‘t overlook the fact that insulation is not in and of itself unreasona-

ble. The issue here is the overstated manner, the excessive degree to which it is being

pushed. The architect is obliged to bear the issue in mind and implement measures as

appropriate. Or put another way, only push undesirable developments to the extent

required. He must, however, abide by the laws and regulations. Ultimately, it‘s down

to society and the market itself to boycott certain developments. This doesn‘t mean

that architects couldn‘t approach the industry with constructive suggestions, though.

Just that their dialogue with industry tends to be limited to discussions on how to

implement designs, on aesthetic proportions, on the design of door handles - not on

the major technical characteristics of a space, on quality or on function. We could

provide more input here.

What is your relationship to the room?

I feel at ease in rooms. Rooms are something positive. I take delight in beautiful

rooms. Rooms have an elemental quality for me. Man has been reliant on the room

since time immemorial. In the beginning, he used the room to offer protection against

the dangers of the outside world. Eventually we discovered the enhancing, enriching

effect of the room - similar to clothing that originally served only to protect us against

the cold and harsh weather, and later through design became an outward expression

of our personality. Rooms have gone through a similar evolution - that‘s why I consider

it the job of the architect to become involved in this development. Especially now-

adays, when we‘re increasingly seeing mediocrity and a reduction in the potential

the room has. I think that many people are being deprived of experiencing the true

beauty and power of a room. Architects have this wonderful responsibility of showing

people what is conceivable and possible in a room. To get the most out of a room.

They must, however, remain reasonable and modest in the process. This is the function

of the architect.


Virtual room in the computer game Second Life.

WE WANT THE ABILITY TO CLOSE A DOOR BEHIND US. BECAUSE WE DON‘T WANT TO ALLOW EVERYONE IN. THE TRADITIONAL DOOR OFFERS AN ELEMENT OF PRIVACY THAT ELECTRONIC SYSTEMS DO NOT. STEPHAN GÜNZEL


Luxury is retreating into a room.

Room comfort means: Cosiness despite technology.SIEGENIA Room Visions in conversation with Prof. Dr. Stephan Günzel, media theorist and expert on spatial theory

Stephan Günzel has a doctorate in philosophy and qualified as a lecturer for me-

dia and cultural studies in 2011. Since then, he has been working as professor for

media theory at the Berliner Technischen Kunsthochschule [Berlin Technical Univer-

sity of the Arts]. Günzel is an expert in the field of spatial theory. He has held visit-

ing professorships in spatial science (Humboldt University of Berlin) and the history

of spatial science (University of Trier) and has published anthologies and reference

books on the subjects. One of his specialist areas is the room in computer games.

Whether this differs greatly from our living spaces and how the media expert

assesses the future of room comfort are the subjects covered in our conversation.


Prof. Günzel, given your area of expertise: what is your relationship to the room?

My relationship to the room is largely a philosophical one. It‘s based on spatial terms

and concepts and the questions they give rise to: is a room restricted or extended,

how does the person relate to this room, is it being seen in a new light or was it

always there? To be precise, I‘m most interested in the design and creation of spaces

as it happens in the design fi eld. Especially the design of computer games - this is

where one has the greatest possible freedom for room design since the laws of phys-

ics governing physical spaces don‘t apply. In addition to this, I work together with

designers on real spaces too, because I‘m interested in outdoor spaces and facades.

How do you explain the fact that the rooms in computer games and virtual worlds are not so different from the rooms we live in - despite the fact that one has every conceivable freedom in the virtual world?

The reason is that, for many years, designers found it desirable to make duplicates of

the real world. For a long time, the virtual world was a replica of the real one - the

same is true for the room. It‘s only recently that people also started to design „impos-

sible“ rooms. This virtual representation of reality is still what one most often sees in

computer games though. This is due, amongst other things, to the fact that, for us as

humans, the subjective aspects of the room are set. We have the ability from birth

to orient ourselves in whatever space we fi nd ourselves in - it doesn‘t matter whether

we‘re moving in the game or in real space, we always orient ourselves the same way,

namely as we‘ve learned to. We often project this personal perception of reality that

we naturally possess onto the virtual space.

Keyword reality: In many science fi ction movies, such as Alien, Kubrick‘s 2001 or Star Trek, the doors in the living space open and close completely automatically. The same is true for computer games. How do you explain the fact that this vision has not been realised in our homes?

That‘s pretty easy to explain: we don‘t want it. We want the ability to close a door

behind us. Because we don‘t want to allow everyone to get in. Of course, develop-

ments such as the automatic door are available for use in private homes, controlled

for instance by an eye scanner or chip in the smartphone - but this is a disconcerting

Second Life is an online 3D

infrastructure for virtual worlds and

habitats designed by users, where

humans are able to interact, play, do

business and otherwise communicate

using avatars. Since going live in

2003, the system now has around

36 million registered user accounts

and there are usually between

30,000 and 65,000 users online

at any given time.


idea that conjures up thoughts of a big brother state that we don‘t really want. The

traditional door offers an element of privacy that electronic systems don‘t.

Is this element of privacy decreasing noticeably in light of the smart home developments? Considering the speed with which this trend is becoming established, everything has to be automatic.

A traditional door isn‘t necessarily counter to an increase in room comfort. One could,

of course, imagine having voice-controlled doors - these are innovations that already

exist in part. But the development of the smart-home is really less about technical

facilitation and more about making it easier to manage information sources. Devices

will nevertheless keep getting smarter and more automated. They‘re becoming mini

computers.

There will nevertheless still be a great number of objects in the living environment

of the future that are not connected to the Internet, but rather refl ect the traditional

concept of living. It wouldn‘t make any sense to equip a sofa with a chip in the fi rst

place. Unless it were for the kind of therapeutic purposes we‘re familiar with from the

car - such as the sofa storing the seating position. Or if the bed automatically adjusts

itself to how I need it. The sofa and bed, as well as the window and the door will

nevertheless still be valued as durable objects in the future - and not as technological

elements.

THERE WILL STILL BE A GREAT NUMBER OF OBJECTS IN THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT OF THE

FUTURE THAT ARE NOT CONNECTED TO THE INTERNET, BUT RATHER REFLECT THE

TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF LIVING.

»

«


So we won‘t live to see automated, fully networked period buildings in 15 to 30 years time then?

Certain science fiction scenarios, such as in Stanley Kubrick‘s film 2001, already

became a reality long ago. But on a different level than you‘re talking about. Using

video phones to communicate at long distance while still having a sense of closeness

has already become a reality. It hasn‘t found its way into the room, however, but is

on computers and smartphones. And even this is just one possibility, one element - the

devices are universal tools with which I can do a whole lot more. I can well imagine

that although we won‘t necessarily end up with a fully networked living space, we‘ll

still have more screens than today. But only where it involves functionality that is

actually good for something. Where it concerns tools. A touch screen for the cooker

or refrigerator that shows me what‘s in it and what I still need to buy is quite conceiv-

able - and indeed has already been developed to some extent.

So, there‘s no vision of touch screens on doors or windows?

As a rule, the application of technology is determined not by its feasibility, but through

our affinity with the computer. And that will increase, because the younger genera-

tions, the „digital natives“, have grown up with computers. For them, it‘s completely

natural. Another aspect is the fact that in the wake of increasing gentrification in the

cities, new housing will be unaffordable for all but a very few of us. So your fallback

position is the period building, because you can‘t afford the high-tech apartment

you‘d actually prefer to live in as a digital person. Then again, I see a causal connec-

tion here for why in the future we‘ll be surrounded by more and more screens even

in existing building stock. That may eventually even find its way into windows and

doors.


How, in your opinion, has the room evolved in light of this technical evolution?

The interesting thing is that although the room hasn‘t evolved in the immediate living

environment, it has in our life. When you observe people today, you notice that the

pace we live our lives has increased dramatically. People want to get from a to b

much faster, and are no longer conscious of spatial distance in terms of a kilometres,

but rather in time. The minutes and hours they need are more important than the

kilometres driven. This acceleration has made it increasingly natural for us to move

through time in different spatial structures. Our communication media have played

a big part in this. There‘s nothing magical or frightening about making a telephone

call nowadays - that is, to form a relationship with one another even though we‘re

actually very far apart. This is something we now take for granted. The same applies

to what we experience on the computer too. Consider the social networks - while they

may still be being touted as something novel, in essence they‘re just the technological

recognition of the fact that we delegate the social environment we already live in in

reality to a medium. The interesting thing about this development is that through these

media we create new space - and it‘s growing. This may also be a consequence of

the pressure arising from our shrinking living environment.

But isn‘t that a very urban way of looking at things? This room substitute isn‘t needed in rural areas.

I don‘t think that the kind of rurality that you refer to even exists in rural areas any more.

I suspect that even in the countryside we live in urban structures. Or at least attempt

to create them there. This idyll of rural tranquillity is in conflict with the demand for

networking and broadband connections. The rural tranquillity is probably a rather

unwelcome development that‘s found in places where demographic change sets in

and the space is no longer inhabited.


MAYBE IT‘S A SIGN OF THE TIMES TOO:

THAT NOWADAYS THE LUXURY OF A ROOM IS

DEFINED BY THE ABILITY TO WITHDRAW

FROM THE WORLD OF REACHABILITY.

»

«


Based on your extensive grasp of the topic of space: how would you define room comfort?

Put simply, I‘d say having enough space for me to spread out, to expand into the

space, to put things there. And that the space fulfils my social needs, enables me

to invite people round. For me, another factor would be accessibility - a space

that‘s difficult to access is not necessarily convenient. Another essential factor is the

atmosphere, what we commonly refer to as cosiness. It‘s a highly subjective thing, of

course, since everyone has his own personal preferences, and it makes a difference

for everyone whether the room is light or dark, empty or packed with objects, hot or

pleasantly cool.

But perhaps comfort is not determined by these preferences, but rather the ability to

set up the space as one wishes. That is doubtless an unconscious aspect, but this

freedom is also an element of room comfort. And how easy a space is to use also

contributes to room comfort, of course.

Is there a distinction to be made between the real room and the room in the com-puter? Do rooms in computer games have other comfort characteristics?

Experience with virtual worlds, such as Second Life, has shown that players like to

implement the preferences they have in the so-called „meatspace“, i.e. in the real

world, in our real space, in the computer too. And most of all, being able to furnish

rooms there in a way that might not even be feasible in reality due to lack of resources

or opportunities. It‘s a kind of fulfilment substitute. There are also people who really

do feel very comfortable in absolutely awful-looking rooms, and they live the same

way in the virtual world.

COMFORT IS A PRODUCT OF BEING ABLE TO CONFIGURE THE SPACE

AS ONE WISHES.

»

«


Games such as The Sims, Second Life and Sim City make a great deal of the fact that you can set up the space as you desire - and it‘s precisely for this reason that they hold such a great fascination for us. Where does that come from? Why do we get so much pleasure from furnishing virtual rooms?

Arranging one‘s living space is part of our fundamental human nature. This is not

just a cultural habit, but an evolutionary, a biological one. It‘s quite possible that it‘s

something we‘ve inherited from our animal ancestors - they set up home too; they look

for a place where they can settle down, make the space snug and cosy, and from

there, mark out a territory in which they can hunt. This is not dissimilar to what humans

do, and it‘s a behaviour we can‘t divest ourselves of. As a result, man has a natural

need to design interior space.

If the urge to design interior space is natural: How does that fit in with the techni-cal developments affecting architecture and the construction industry? Are the two concepts even compatible if we have a biologically-driven yearning for cosiness?

There are indeed a few areas of conflict. Time and again there are fortuitous periods

in architecture when architects try to build for the people. But it often remains just an

attempt, because it‘s difficult to realise such projects today under the countless and

sometimes contradictory standards and regulations. It‘s very rare for architecture to

concern itself with the well-being of people completely irrespective of technical devel-

opments. They would either be experiments or the result of a dogmatic background,

as can be seen with Hundertwasser‘s buildings. But this happens less and less, be-

cause the regulations, and above all the money, take precedent. But this doesn‘t

mean that there aren‘t any counter-movements. Luckily, the humanistic tradition, which

architecture knows very well, is not just about functionality, but places for people,

occasionally raises its head. Although I believe that it will decline further in future, not

least because of the pressure that architects are under.

Humanistic architecture in the style

of Hundertwasser: For the artists

and architects, the priority was the

well-being of the people, not the

function.


What would have to change?

I think we need to increase the prominence of the room. A crucial word in the process

is „deceleration“. We‘re subject to immense time pressure when it comes to realising

construction projects today. The pace ought to be reduced somewhat, particularly

with a view to sustainability, with a view to the housing shortage in the cities, with

a view to the development of society. And allow oneself some time to reflect before-

hand on what one is actually building. Some citizen‘s action groups, which end

up delaying construction projects, could have been obviated if one had sat down

together with the local residents beforehand and jointly considered what implications

the project would have in terms of room comfort. What impact it has on parameters

such as reachability and quality of living itself.

What would your ideal room look like?

My ideal room would be at a very comfortable temperature, have a huge terrace and

lots of outdoor space that‘s in relation to the interior. It would give me the freedom to

choose who I make contact with, both in the virtual and real world. Those would be

the comfort parameters of the space that I‘d feel comfortable in. I wouldn‘t have a

phone or computer in my ideal room, however. But maybe that‘s a sign of the times

too: that the luxury of a space today is defined by the ability to withdraw from the

world of reachability.


ROOM COMFORT IN THE FUTURE IS NOT CHARACTERISED BY OVERLY TECHNOLOGICAL VISIONS, BUT RATHER BY THE FUNDAMENTAL NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE.


Admittedly: The time horizon that we‘ve set for developing a vision of the room

in the year 2030 is short. 15 years go by quickly. And despite this, we can see

that the speed with which technology evolves and enters our everyday lives is

leading to a return to old values. Whether media theorist or famous architect:

throughout the conversations we conducted in the course of this publication,

it was clear that people yearn for stability, for quality of life, for cosiness, for

rationality, for the old, traditional values. And that this yearning will grow in the

future.

What was abundantly clear is the call for more restraint on the part of industry

when it comes to the development of new technologies. And that the technology

must learn to take into account the fundamental needs of the people. It follows

that room comfort in the future will not be characterised by overly technological

visions, but rather the fundamental needs of the people. The need for security,

for company, for closeness, for light, for air, for peace and quiet, for living.

These are needs that will grow thanks primarily to the increasing application of

technology. And satisfying them is becoming more difficult under the regulatory

mania of legislators and associations - something else that was made clear on

a number of occasions.

The development of a heightened appreciation for values is nothing new; this

can be seen most clearly in the discussions on sustainability and values in recent

years. Yet what has to a certain extent already been acknowledged and incor-

porated into everyday items, such as products and consumer goods, still seems

to be of little consequence in the fields of architecture, construction and building

services. As such, one can only hope that over the next 15 years, those working

in these industries come to realise that the value of a space can no longer be

just a quantitative parameter. It must also be a qualitative parameter. One that is

ultimately influenced by the technology and room comfort too.

Conclusion: The future of the room involves a desire for old values.


You might rightly wonder why we, as a manufacturer of windows, doors and

room comfort system, suddenly come up with the idea of discussing the future of

the living and work space with architects and academics. For us, it‘s obvious: in

our over 100-year history, we‘ve never thought of ourselves simply as a supplier

of technical products. But more a developer of solutions.

Every solution is a response to a problem. Whether at the present time we really

have problems when it comes to the design, construction and ultimately the use

of living and work space that need to be solved is a matter of opinion. In light

of the discussions being held on the energy efficiency and sustainability of build-

ings and the technology incorporated into them, on the impact of demographic

change, on the increasing digitisation of our daily lives, we most certainly do

believe that many solutions are still required in order to improve our living space

in the future.

A window fitting cannot, of course, counteract the ageing population and iso-

lation in our society, and a ventilation system alone cannot, of course, slow

climate change. But by intelligently combining them with window, door and

control systems, these products evolve into solutions that can make a contribution

to improving people‘s lives.

The central concept behind SIEGENIA ROOM VISIONS is founded on the

question of what determines the comfort of a room. In answering it, we make

a conscious distinction between living comfort and room comfort. Because it‘s

fairly easy to furnish an apartment or an office comfortably using furniture, floor

About SIEGENIA and the vision of room comfort


coverings, paint and electronic devices. But that doesn‘t mean that the space

itself is comfortable. And that one would feel content being in it in the long term.

The products for which we supply solutions make a contribution to room comfort.

Being able to easily and safely operate windows and doors to allow fresh air

to get in and keep distracting noises out, may at first glance seem to be banal

physical activities that nobody consciously thinks about. But for us, they are

essential functions of a room. They give rooms life. And the easier, more effec-

tive and obvious these functions are, the more comfortable and liveable the

room seems to us. The more at ease we feel in it.

The size of a window, the correct ventilation in a room, the ease with which

large window and door elements can be operated, the precision with which the

building services systems can be controlled - these are all ostensibly technical

comfort features that can make our lives easier. But the products that allow this

kind of comfort are much more in our opinion. They are the adjustment screws

that can help in mastering the current and future challenges associated with

the construction of buildings, with living, with reducing energy consumption

and with the preservation of values. Challenges we tackle each day anew in

partnership with developers, architects, planners and engineers. To sustainably

increase not only the comfort of a space, but quality of life too.



CONTACT

Contact for press relations and publications:SIEGENIA-AUBI KGKatja SchreiberHead of marketing communicationsTel.: +49 271 3931-353Email: [email protected]

Contact for architects:SIEGENIA-AUBI KGStephan StollTel.: +49 271 3931-184Email: [email protected]

PHOTO CREDITS

Page 1, photocase.com / soundboy, page 4, 2001: A Space Odysee ©1968 MGM, page 8, Blinkideluxe / photocase.de, page

18, Johnson Wax Corporation Building Interior from second floor balcony, at 1525 Howe Street, Racine, Racine County, WI.,

Jack Boucher 1969, page 28, Kranhäuser Köln, Wo st 01/Wikipedia, under creative commons license (http://creativecommons.

org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.de), page 42, Flickr.com, Stig Nygaard Copenhagen Metro “street shot” under creative commons

license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.de), page 54, screenshot from Second Live / Quan Lavender,

page 64, Pudelek (Marcin Szala), Velna ala (Devil‘s Cave) - inside, under creative commons license (http://creativecommons.

org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.de), page 6, SIEGENIA-AUBI KG, page 9, Oliver Elser, page 10, Dutch National Archives, The

Hague, Fotocollectie Algemeen Nederlands Persbureau (ANeFo), 1945-1989, under creative commons license, page 12, Smart

Price House, Bel. Sozietät für Architektur, page 14 2226, be baumschlauer eberle, page 19, Photographer Bernd Möller, page

20, Mies van der Rohe Pavillon under creative commons license, page 21, Frank Lloyd Wright under creative commons license,

page 24, SIEGENIA-AUBI KG, page 29, Hadi Teherani, Roger Mandt, Hamburg, page 33, Dockland Hamburg, creative com-

mons license, page 38, flickr.com, Bean bags at Google Developer Day 2007, kentbrew, under creative commons license, page

43, Kaspar Kraemer, page 49, Coffee Cup, Justin, under creative commons license, page 52, under creative commons license,

page 55, Stephan Günzel, page 56, screenshot from Second Life under creative commons license, page 62, Hundertwasser

Village, stregatta75, under creative commons license.

EDITORSMarco Petracca, Andreas Franke

COPYRIGHT© SIEGENIA 2014

All of the strategies, concepts and conclusions contained in this PDF are the exclusive intellectual property of SIEGENIA

and the respective interviewees (except as stated in the references) and protected by copyright. We would like to thank

Prof. Johannes Kister, Oliver Elser, Hadi Teherani, Kapsar Krämer, and Prof. Dr. Stephan Günzel for their support.

IMPRINTSIEGENIA-AUBI KG, Industriestraße 1 - 3, 57234 Wilnsdorf-Niederdielfen

Limited partnership, personally liable partner: Wieland Frank,

Registered office: Wilnsdorf, Court of registration: Amtsgericht Siegen, HRA 3741

ROOM VISIONS 2030

THE ROOM COMFORT OF THE FUTURE

FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF EXPERTS. A VISION.

© SIEGENIA 2014

Documents

Room visions 2030