reading

ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION

PARTICIPATION AND ARCHITECTURE

THE POTENTIAL OF A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESSPARTICIPATION IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS— P.8

A REVIEW

ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AS A SHARED COGNITIVE PROCESS— P.17

USERS’ KNOWLEDGE AND ARCHITECTS’ KNOWLEDGE

COMMUNICATION BETWEEN ARCHITECTS AND USERS P. 20

PERCEPTION OF SPACE AND ATMOSPHERE AS A MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONATMOSPHERE AS A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN STRATEGY— P. 22P. 26

DIE BAUPILOTEN—METHODS AND PROJECTSARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION—

CONCLUSION

METHODS

METHODS AND INSTRUCTIONSA ATMOSPHERESP.44P. 46

U USERS’ EVERYDAY LIFEW WUNSCHFORSCHUNGF FEEDBACKP PRODUCTION OF GAME SETSP. 58P. 70P. 90

PROJECTS

DEVELOPING PROJECTS WITH USERSP.118

RENOVATING / BUILDING NEW / CONVERTING P. 138

ACHIEVING MAXIMUM EFFECT WITH MINIMAL INTERVENTIONP. 208

DATA & INFO

LIST OF WORKSP. 242

THE ARCHITECTURE OFFICE DIE BAUPILOTEN BDAP. 246

THE STUDY REFORM PROJECT DIE BAUPILOTEN 2003—2014LITERATURE & PUBLICITYP. 248P. 250

IMAGE CREDITSP. 253

FOOT NOTESP. 254

IMPRINTP. 256

PART 1

P.11

P. 40

PART 2

P. 108

PART 3

PART 4

ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION

DIE BAUPILOTEN—METHODS AND PROJECTS

Without the close cooperation between the Technical Universityof Berlin and my architectural ofﬁce for the study reform project Die Baupiloten,many of the design and building projects presentedin this book could not have been realized.Forthis reason,my heartfelt thanks go toProf.Dr. Rudolf Schäfer who contributed signiﬁcantly to the realization of the study reform project.

Thanks also to everyone who contributed to the success of Die Baupiloten projects, particularly Karin Babbe, the former head of Erika Mann Elementary School who helped with the breakthrough of Die Baupiloten’s work in the ﬁrst conversion of her school. From this collaboration,which continues to this day, not only did a further building phase of the Erika Mann Elementary School emerge, it also served as a model for manymore projects of this kind, which strengthened our expertise in educational architecture.

The work of Die Baupiloten provided the spacefor the scholarly analysis and reﬂection of atmosphere as a participativedesign strategy in the context of my thesis,whose topic and completion Prof. Dr.Schäfer also encouraged as well as competently and insightfully supported. For this,he also receives myspecial thanks. My doctoral thesis was the basis for this book.

This book was also inﬂuenced byinsight gained from seminars as part ofmyvisiting professorship at the Technical Universityof Berlin as chair of the Department ofArchitectural Design and Building Construction. My colleagues,Urs Walter and Dr. Andrea Benze,are warmly thanked here. Ina cooperation between mydepartment and Die Baupiloten with the German Universityin Cairo,the “Learn-Move-Play-Ground”project emerged.Forthe intensivecollaboration,I thank Prof. Barbara Pampe and Prof. Vittoria Capresi, as well as mycolleagues Urs Walter and Nils Ruf.

I would especially like to thank the staff of myarchitectural ﬁrm Die Baupiloten BDA who,through the cooperativework with Technical Universityof Berlin, gained a range ofnewknowledge and diverse skills.Participativedesign strategies and integrative communication approaches havebecome an essential partof our daily design work.Here, I would liketo thank all of the “Baupiloten,” who contributed to the success of the study reformproject as students or as professional instructors, and the success of the current architectural ofﬁce Die Baupiloten.My special thanks to Marlen Kärcher, who worked continuously to further develop and deepen the idea of Die Baupiloten.Theyall worked with great commitment on the realization of the projects covered in this book, and thus guided them to success.

A fellowship from the Deutsche Akademie Rom Villa Massimo for a three-month stayin Casa Baldi in Olevano Romano enabled me to develop the conceptfor this book. For the stimulating collaborationduring this phase, I thank Dr. Anne Schmedding and Florencia Young. Thanks also to Dr. Anne Schmedding for her intense and, patient editorial work. Thanks to Florencia Young aboveall for her ﬂexible and strong graphic concept,which masterfully captured and creatively implemented the many changes of the book project.Thanks to Anh Linh Ngo for sparking the initial idea ofoffering our participation methods as a game manual,andto Kristin Feireiss for her valuable conceptual advice. For the translation of the text into English, I thank Susanne Hondl and Inez Templeton, as well as Kirstie Smeaton and Robert Henry for the ﬁne-tuning and adjustment ofthetext into the terms and expressions typical ofDie Baupiloten. Jana Sommer maintained an overviewof the whole book project at all times, was simultaneously up-to-date on every detail, and ensured that it was always on the right track. For this,shedeserves my very special thanks. Thanks to Matthew Grifﬁn for the manifest English title of the book. Thanks to ovis Verlag, particularly Philipp Sperrle and Jutta Bornhold-Cassetti for their patience and the creative adjustment of the schedule.

Last, but not least, my deepest thanksto my partner OlafBartels for the valuable discussions and debates on architectural theory, as well as his patient encouragement to continue with this book project and bring it to a successful conclusion.

Susanne Hofmann

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

DIE BAUPILOTENMETHODSAND PROJECTS

ARCHITECTURE

----

PARTICIPATION

SUSANNE HOFMANN

The spectacular demonstrations held against the renovation project for the StuttgartCentral Station “Stuttgart 21”weren’t the ﬁrst time in Germany it became clear that people not only want to have a sayin the design oftheir built environment,but that they want to participate in it as well. Our democracy is experiencing change.Established political decision-making structures are being questioned,newparticipation processes in the design ofpublic buildings are being tested, and a new design planning culture is being demanded. Whatdoes this mean for city planning, urban development, and architecture?

How should planners and architects respond to these challenges? Whatdo they mean for the architect’s understanding of their professional role? Architects can no longer ignorethese questions without being accused of arrogance. Whether or not they open up toa participatory process has become an existential question,because users’knowledge about the use and experience of spaces offers fundamental insight for architects throughout the design process.

But whatdoes participationmean precisely? Does it waste or save time? Does it costor save money? How does participationwork? Where and when is the user involved? How do the desires of users become builtspaces? What eﬀect does participation have? Does it create user identiﬁcation with the architecture? Does it create social cohesion? Who is afraid of participation?

ARCHITECTURE ISPARTICIPATIONgives possible answers to these questions. The book is divided into three parts: the introduction gives an overview ofhistorical and current participative design strategies. Next,thedesign methods ofDieBaupiloten architectural ofﬁce are explained in the form of method modules presented as a kind of game manual. These modules cover a wide range ofparticipation possibilities, which aboveall consist of communication about and through atmospheres. Finally, the international projects designed and built byDie Baupiloten ofﬁce using these methods arepresented.Theyshow howsophisticated architecture,which is highly regarded by its users, can emerge through participation.

ARCHITECTURE ISPARTICIPATION addresses everyone who is situated in a democratic design and build culture and wants toknow exactlywhat participation in architectural design andplanning is all about.

Prof. Dr.-Ing. Susanne Hofmann,

Berlin, 2014

ARCHITECTURE IS PARTICIPATION

PARTICIPATION

AND

ARCHITECTURE

PARTICIPATION AND ARCHITECTURE

THE POTENTIAL OF A PARTICIPATORY DESIGN PROCESS

Democratic societies, which consist more and more of emancipated people,strongly demand participation in the design of their built environment.Participation is becoming increasingly relevant for the architectural design process, while at the same time, the role of the architect as an expert is being called into question.Architects frequently haveto contend with allegations that their work is toodetached from client and user expectations, and only follows their own principles. Whether architects isolate and thus expose themselves to accusations of arroganceand self-indulgence,or whether they open up tousers in a participatory design process has become an existential question.Forif it is assumed that the quality ofarchitectureis evaluated based on its sustainable usability and the degree oftheuser’s identiﬁcation withthe building, then high priority must be given to users’participation in the design of their environment.Laypeople’s understanding of the use and experienceof space presents the architect with a foundation of knowledge for the architectural design process. Therefore,theprocess should be built upon a viable communication between architect and users.

In the general practice of an architectural ﬁrm, working with users should be considered an essential part ofthedesign investigations,andthus an extension of the architect’s sphere of activity. Because this is not stipulated in the German Fee Structure for Architects and Engineers (HOAI), it is not accordingly remunerated,andmust thereforebe negotiated separately with the client. The German Federal Building Code onlyrequires that people be informed about the project (Building Code § 3.1),but does not stipulate or plan fortheir participation. Asa result,participation as a potential for better and more appropriate architectureis seldom used, or is performed in a casual and poorly planned manner, which only conﬁrms prejudices regarding its ineffectiveness. Token participation, participation as an end in itself, participation not being economically viable—these are just some of the concerns surrounding participation processes. Not only do increasing protests againstconstructionprojects call for early user involvement, but well-planned participation can also contribute signiﬁcantly toa high-qualitybuilt environment and an increased sense of belonging. As a result, the issue of participation plays a central role in wide-ranging discussions among experts about the use of“Stage Zero,” which serves as a pre-HOAI work stage.Forthe building of schools, the MontagStiftungen (Montag Foundations) deﬁne Stage Zero as the “preparation and development stage … for the educational, spatial, economic and urban requirements in each school building project ...[it] includes a thorough assessment of all relevant data,thedevelopment of robust usage scenarios and organizational models for the pending construction project.”[1] Yet, Stage Zero is usually considered in isolation from the rest of the design process, with other architectural ﬁrms or project developers assigned this task, rather than the architect responsible for the project. For instance, the Montag Stiftungen recommend external, separately commissioned school design consultants.

Our particular approach to participation provides close collaboration between user, client, and architectthrough several stages ofthedesign process. For the architect, openness to the users’wishes is a prerequisite for targeted communication and observation of their everyday life. Strategic processes have tobe designed to overcome communication barriers, and put into place user-speciﬁc, low-threshold levels ofinteraction that could potentially be developed by a “translator.” This can be a specially trained staff, or—when working with adolescents—young

people who are in touch with their world, and thus able to mediatebetween them and the architect. Userparticipation should be understood as partof the foundation of a design proposal, not as an irritation or “dilution” of the “pure” idea. It provides a robust foundationleading to a design that is highly relevant in terms ofuse, and to an increased sense of belonging. Signiﬁcant conﬂicts that otherwise wouldn’t arise until construction or after completion of the building can be identiﬁed during the designstage. A keyelement is the established trust between user, client, and architect—whose relationships with each other should be evenly balanced,as in an equilateral triangle. A basic requirement here is the willingness oftheclient, the responsible body, or simply the investor toengage in participatorymethods and consider userparticipation worthwhile. At the same time, users also need to believe in their own self-efﬁcacy. Only when these conditions are met can the collaboration between the architect, user, and client be productive.

The precise exploration of users’needs and ideas regarding the use of buildings, as well as effectual communication between laypeople andarchitects are important foundations for the design qualityand sustainable use of buildings, which is expressed by the satisfaction oftheir users. The increased identiﬁcation with the building contributes to a sense of well-being,which in the example of schools and kindergartens, results in an added pedagogical value. Identifying with the building can also improve socialrelations—for example, in housing. Through the increased user satisfaction with a building that responds to their demands,it can potentially lead to a more careful use of the space and thereby reducerepair and renovation costs. Hence,participation also has an economically relevant added value. While participation maybe a challenge for societyin general, in the manageable group ofpeople involved in a building project,agreement that minimizes the potential for conﬂict and the associated costs and time can be reached.

The extent to which users are involvedin the design and building process, how and which processes they participate in, and who is actually deﬁned as a user determines the intensity and quality oftheparticipation process. Several groups mayuse a public building in different ways,but they should all have a saywhen it comes tothe future of their built environment.People’s often implicit knowledge about spatial qualities and their demands on the use and the experienceof space is a social potential that must be taken into account in architecture. Participation is also a challenge for architects and their designs,because potential conﬂicts between stakeholders and their differing needs entail risk and uncertainty.Therefore, consensus—and the question of whether it is achievable or desirable—is a key issue in participation theories. The role the architectplays in a participatorydesign process is at issue,like that of the future user, because participation is still perceived bymany architectsand clients to be disruptive as well as too time-consuming and costly.

Consequently, participation is notleast a challenge to the self-image of architects, because a participatory design and building process may demand new production methods and new building aesthetics. In return,we can expect an architecturecorresponding more tousage requirements than conventional approaches based frequently on assumptions of usage. Evenif the intention of the latter mayseem considerate, the problem withthis approach—apart from the danger of not considering the actual users’interests—is that to the users it is always somewhat overbearing and conﬁning, sometimes even aggressive.Essential here is a transparent and well-mediated designapproach thatmakes the importance of the “people”(in the sense of the Austrian sociologist Helga Nowotny) visible in the design process.[2]

In the current German debate,theparticipation ofarchitectural laypeople in shaping their built environment is still limited to citizen participation in urban regeneration and development processes,such as public hearings.[3] Participation in the architectural designof their immediate environment often remains ignored. Architects barely participate in these debates,frequently retreating with their design expertise and limiting themselves to the moderation or organization of architectural processes and related decisions. Hence,design is often considered a ﬁeld of subordinate aesthetic choices.But how can we designand build architecture that fulﬁlls the Vitruvian principles of durability, utility, and beauty? Autility that is not only measured in terms of functionality, but also in terms ofenhancing atmospheric qualities that support the use and give users the opportunity to identify with the architecture?

All of these issues raise speciﬁc questions for the design process:

1. How can the insights gained from user participation be integrated proﬁtably in the architectural design process?

2. What form should the communication takebetween users, clients, and architects, so that this process is a productive one and architecturelaypeople feel they can participate on equal terms?

3. And how can the design be realized so that the users’ wishes are really fulﬁlled—without substantial curtailments and despite otherparameters,such as low construction budgets, building regulations, and mandatory standards?

YONA FRIEDMAN, 1974 MY GUIDE: HOW CITY DWELLERS CAN PLAN THEIR BUILDINGS AND CITIES THEMSELVES

A. ANOTHERSTORY OF THE RESIDENTS OF ANOTHER NEWDISTRICT. B.EACH OF US HAD AN IDEA OF OUR OWN HOME. C. BUT OUR ARCHITECT DIDN’T EVEN LISTEN TO US. HE HAD STUDIED HOW THE “AVERAGE MAN” BEHAVES

Todiscuss this in more detail,a glimpse into the historyof participation and its potential is presented below,andthe question of speciﬁc user and architectural knowledge and what successful communication in a participatory process looks likeis examined more closely. In addition, the potential of a successful participatory process is presented in reference to Die Baupiloten’s method and realized projects,which works byemploying communication aboutand through atmospheres.

PARTICIPATION IN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN PROCESS —A REVIEW

“The authority and the elitist status of the architect” are not going to last any longer. Already in the nineteen-sixties,this statement attested to a mindset that vehemently abandoned “aesthetic expert knowledge”and, among other things, led sociologist Lucius Burkhardt to call for the inclusion of the user in the planning processes.[4] In this context, some forty years later,British architect and author Jeremy Till talks about users’ desires encroaching upon the comfort zone ofarchitects.[5] That they would adhereto an idealized—one might even saynarrowed—idea of the principles ofdurability, utility, and beauty established by Vitruvius, which would be challenged in its purityby a participatory process. The principle ofusefulness, at any rate, is undermined when the communication process between architect and client or users is dysfunctional,andarchitects believe they know what users need better than the users themselves. Therefore,Till calls for a credible integration of users’ requirements and their concerns.[6]

DESIGN TRANSPARENCY

The “Design Methods Movement”represents an important attempt tointegrate participation in a systematic planning process. Founded in the US during the early nineteen-sixties in Berkeley, California—by the British and US-American architects Christopher Alexander, Bruce Archer,John Chris Jones, and German design theorist Horst Rittel, among others—the Design Methods Movement embraced the desireto integrate users’needs in the design, and to makethem transparent in a participatory process. Generally, the British—but also the German debate in the latenineteen-sixties and the early nineteen-seventies—was driven by the question of how a design methodology could bemade accessible to laypeople through a process of systematization.The aim of a design striving for objectivity and high rationality of thought presented an opportunity to defy subjective, emotional, and intuitivefactors in order to make the design process comprehensible to outsiders—in other words, the users. The representatives of the Design Methods Movement agreed that the opacity ofthedesign process prevented participation. It was thought that using computers could give a larger group ofparticipants direct inﬂuence on the design of their environment, or even enable them to design entire buildings.Till criticizes the approach of the Design Methods Movement,because he sees a fundamental contradiction between the seemingly authoritarian aesthetics and high economic and technical expense on the one hand, and the social reality on the other.[7] A transparent design process alone was not enough to enable laypeople or users to participate, since the drawings and technical information produced in a streamlined planning process are ultimately

only comprehensible to the experts, who furthermorealso specify the framework.Theactual integration of the users or laypeople instead demands a reformulation of expert knowledge and new ways toapply it, otherwise the architectural discourse risks further alienation from the everyday desires and needs of society.[8]

In summary, the architectural design process indeed includes rationalized and thus objectiﬁed ﬁndings and decision-making structures, but it cannot entirely bedeﬁned by this.Thesystematic decision-making structures favored by the Design Methods Movement can certainly be made more transparent than an “intuitive” design process, but they hardly represent the entire design process and are an over-complicated organizational framework, which under certain circumstances can be just as difﬁcult to communicate and barely understandable for laypeople.

AESTHETICS OF USE

Nonetheless, Christopher Alexander—one of the protagonists of the Design Methods Movement—continued tosearch for a way out of what he considered the arbitrary formalism of architectural design. Others, such as the Austrian architect Ottokar Uhl,connect this planning approach with a concept of architecture and interior design highlyoriented toward use,which should primarily offer possibilities for layout and appropriation, as well as communication. In this context, the architectural theorist Christa Kamleithner speaks of an aesthetics of use.[9] The French architect Yona Friedman called for a radical change in the professional view ofarchitects. He thought they should become “interpreters” of users’ requirements. He contended that this role had already been determined in the classic relationship between architect and client, and he wanted to transfer it to an anonymous group of users. This is also where Alexander begins his efforts, with his development of “Pattern Language”(1977). In Pattern Language,users ﬁnd the architect’s deliberations condensed and pre-formulated; Alexander suggested that, in its consistent application, it might render the future role of the architect as a designer redundant.TheBelgian architect Lucien Krollalso grants users wide-ranging powers in the design of buildings they use or inhabit.Early on, he developed a modular building system using computer-aided design (CAD), which anticipates the essential technical decisions,and—based on the system—still leaves the ﬁnal design to the users.Kroll claims that he doesn’t just let the residents takepart in the design process, but that he sees the whole project as a collective work of art. Like Alexander, Kroll also leaves room during constructionfor the unpredictable,theindeterminable, and even the uncontrollable.

The projects byAlexander, Uhl, Kroll,andthe Dutch architect John Habraken Nikolaas all have incommon the use of a design and build system.With this preliminaryplanning, some complex issues in construction—such as the support structure or the supply and disposal of water, electricity, et cetera—are dealt with in advance. The decisions made in this manner leave room for the development of spatial ideas by the users.As a result,thearchitects’ tasks are redeﬁned, for now they onlydevelop a viable support system—the constructionand ﬁnish of the interior are no longer their role unless the residents/users call on them for advice. However, a critical evaluationof Kroll or Alexander’s projects demonstrates that users areoften unable to cope with the creative freedom they have been granted, and often lack the architect’s design expertise.This suggests that a trustful cooperation and continual monitoring of projects bythe architects through to completion, and possibly beyond, is still necessary.

Therefore, the creative freedom created for users has to be qualiﬁed in two ways:

1.Signiﬁcant architectural decisions have been shifted to the development of the constructionsystem, about which only the architect and building specialists can decide.

2.To beneﬁt from the creativefreedom,theuser is reliant upon the architects’ expertise,without which they can only partially realize their architectural and aesthetic desires.

For the critics Geoffrey Broadbent and Reyner Banham, the extensive creative freedom granted to users by participation-oriented architects, simultaneously signiﬁes too great a retreat from the profession’s responsibility for the built environment,for a creatively worthwhile and functional architecture. Moreover,users may be overwhelmedwith the task assigned to them. A furthermodel of the practical participation of users—in this case involving “residents”of ahousing project—has been developed byLondon-based architect Walter Segal. His small-scale system, constructed of prefabricated elements and a largely preconceived design, can be implemented by the users themselves as a modular building system on the construction site.

SELF BUILDINSTRUCTIONS

Similar to Alexander, Segal also sawthe aesthetics of architecture emerge casually from the design and construction process, and he morally banished the architects’“desire to shape.” Segal saw himself as an “enabler”of self-built housing.[10] Heaccepted, even welcomed, the complex and sometimes conﬂicting desires of his clients, and turned explicitly against the authoritarian, stereotypical interpretation ofsociety by modern architecture and the experts closely associated with it. Jon Broome, a British architect who worked for Segal, points out that the families of self-builders were always fully involved in the work; the constructionof the houses became a “true family enterprise.”[11] In an article for the British journal Architectural Review, the author Charlotte Ellis emphasizes that Segal not only responded to the physical,but also the psychological needs of users in his participatory process.[12] Segal himselfpointed out that the form should be derived from the psychological and physiological effects ofarchitecture. This could only be achieved through user contribution; a “meaningless form” would emerge without their participation.[13] The cooperation of all parties onthe site also generated a high degree of identiﬁcation with the houses,andawakened a strong sense of community that, as reported by Broome,lasts to this dayin a robust neighborhood celebrating annual street festivals.[14] According to Segal,building is not so much about the built structure itself,but about a way of life. The British architect and theorist Peter Blundell Jones concludes: “Instead of a monologue from the designer at the drawing table there was dialogue,unpredictable and untidy, but alive and fascinating, socially rewarding.”[15]

The German architect Peter Hübner models his participation approach on Segal’s example. The schools built by Hübner reﬂect his conviction that schools ought to be lively and stimulating, small-scale, sophisticated,andindividuallyusable places.In this respect,theimage of the evolving city represents an important role model for him.[16] Hübner, Segal, and German architect Peter Sulzer—well known for his selfbuild construction systems—rank the aesthetic appearance of their buildings as secondary. The processof planning and building is paramount. In their view, the result does not have to be “beautiful,” as long as there is user satisfaction, identiﬁcation with the building, and pride in the self-created building.This perception of aesthetics has its roots in

the functionalist design ideas that were developed in the ﬁrst half of the last century: the shape of the building is not determined by the architect, but by the production process. The function has a higher priority than the architect’s“will to form”: form follows function. However,Segal, Sulzer, and Hübner replacefunction with theprocess of building in collaboration with the users. Hübner, in particular, developedhis own participation process: in cooperation with the users, he focuses on a collective design, which is developed by the architect from the results of a workshop.Thearchitectresolves any practical constraints by using his planning expertise. Thus, Hübner has left his academic position as an architect without abandoning the essential skills that put him in a position to responsibly represent the interests of the client or the user. Yet, despite their restraint during the process, all of the buildings by these architects areeasily recognizable due to their distinctive appearance. Segal, for instance,overlooked the fact that the choice of construction method already constitutes aesthetic parameters. Hübner’s schools—even those developedwith pupils—feature a uniformarchitectural signature due tothe framework set by the architect: they have generally been designed and built as timber-frame constructions. Furthermore, it has been observed in his workshops that he often explains to the children how architecture works, rather than discuss their spatial ideas and needs.

In all three cases, the architect is not only available to the users during the design process, but also as a consultant duringconstruction. Blundell Jones sees the architect here as “a kind of midwife at the building’s birth.”[17] Nevertheless,their role remains dominant in the design ofthebuilding, because they are appointed to assume designresponsibility onbehalf of the users. The architects, in turn, take on the role of satisfying users’needs and increasing their sense of belonging. However, Hübner emphasizes—likeAlexander, Segal, and Sulzer—the necessity to subordinate his own aesthetic demands on the architecture in favor of the creativity of future users.

WALTER SEGAL, 197OS SKETCHES FOR SELF BUILD INSTRUCTIONS

DESIGNING WITH THE USER

All of the participatory approaches described so far maintain a formof participation in which the users only involve themselves within the system speciﬁed by the architect, thus accepting his speciﬁcations. Further support from architects is usually needed in areas that are left tothe users’autonomy. In the following, therefore,participatoryapproaches are presented in which architects involve laypeople and their corecompetencies more intensively. Italian architect Giancarlo De Carlo acted on the assumptionthat academic architecture was too far removed from everyday life, and thus the architect’s role in society had changed. According to De Carlo, there had traditionally always been close contact between people and their builders.As businessmen and professionals,however, modern architects aligned with the economic and political powers, and distanced themselves from the general public.[18] This leaves them in closerproximity to the client, rather than the residents and users. If architects were to change sides, so to speak,andno longer aligned themselves with the ﬁnancial backers, but turned to the “subdued and excluded,” then this could mean a radical renewal of architecture. Nevertheless,it should not be forgotten that the “inherent aggression” of architecture and the “forced passivity of the users”would have to giveway to the creativity and decision-making power consideredequally important by both architectsand users.[19] That is, the user’s wishes and ideas should feed unﬁltered and on equal terms into the design process. It is essential in this process that the consensus once found should not be stipulated,theprocess must always be kept open. Mandatory“collectiveparticipation” should enable the architect to recognize the users’ needs and to identify with them.[20] Thus, for De Carlo, participation does not mean planning for the users, but with them.

For better analysis of the users’interests,De Carlo also proposes a scientiﬁc method. A varietyof complex variables should be included in the observations, suggestions, and reviews, and subsequently reassessed and further developed in a procedural system. According to his ideas,the analysis of users’needs should be followed by the formulation of hypotheses, and then by the evaluation ofuse. The participatory process runs through De Carlo’s three stages not just once,but is repeated cyclically in a continuous sequence of control,feedback, and reformulation.This also means that the building objectives are determined only during the process,andare not introduced by the architect in advance.In his approach,thedevelopmentof the architecture does not end with the completion of the building—instead,thearchitectactually accompanies the users once they have moved into thebuilding, and modiﬁes it accordingto their needs.A conventional, authoritarian, predeﬁned architectureis thus replaced by a procedural, participatorily developed built environment[21]—an aim onwhich De Carlo and Till both agree.

In the nineteen-nineties, Dutch architect Raoul Bunschoten—practicing in London and teaching in Berlin—developed a new planning tool that the architect and theorist MeikeSchalk subsumed under the term “urban curation”:as an urban curator,thearchitectdiscerns the longings, desires, and imaginings ofthe“urban stakeholders”—the municipal institutions, the clients, and users—and places them intoa new urban context.[22] According to architect and theorist Doina Petrescu, this method challenges a participatoryapproach that relies on conventional means,and augments the participatoryprocess with more heterogeneous methods and greater forms of exchange for creative practice.[23] For Petrescu,participatorydesigning is a “collectivebricolage,” where everyone involved—client, users, and architect—works together on a project and develops it further, whereupon the process seems more