Designing for digital twins: the meta-scale

Building design
photography-from-the-bird's-eye-view-of-white-buildings-iZsI201-0ls
A bird's eye view of white buildings captured by CHUTTERSNAP - an example of contemporary urban architecture.

Digital twins are transforming the way architects and urban planners design, plan and make decisions. 3D models are becoming living meta-scales that not only depict the city with real-time data, algorithms and simulations, but actively help to shape it. Anyone who only thinks of cool renderings here has long since left the playing field – welcome to the age of digital cities, in which the design itself becomes a data machine.

  • The state of urban digital twins in Germany, Austria and Switzerland: between pioneering spirit and official slumber.
  • The most important technological innovations and global role models – from Singapore to Zurich.
  • How digitalization, AI and big data are transforming the design process and decision-making.
  • Sustainability as a touchstone: what can digital twins really do for climate resilience, resource efficiency and social participation?
  • Technical know-how: What skills and tools will planners need in the future – and what does this mean for training and practice?
  • Why the meta-scale challenges traditional planning – visions, risks and controversies.
  • The role of governance: who owns, controls and is responsible for the digital twin?
  • Classification in the international field of discourse – and which debates Europe is missing out on.

Meta-scale meets reality: the digital twin as a design paradigm

The term “digital twin” sounds like Silicon Valley marketing, but it has long since become a hard tool in urban planning. What once began as a rendering gimmick in architecture studios is now a dynamic, data-driven image of urban reality. The meta-scale is no longer a static model, but a constantly updated simulation platform that bundles a wide variety of data streams: from geoinformation and sensor data to social interactions. Anyone who wants to design can no longer ignore this world of data – at least not if they want to remain fit for the future. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, developments are uneven. While Zurich and Vienna are already digitally mirroring and simulating entire districts, many German municipalities remain in pilot project mode. Although there is a lot of talk about digitalization, the transformation to data-driven planning is stalling due to interfaces, data protection and a good deal of scepticism towards the unknown.

Innovation drivers are usually not public administrations, but collaborations with universities, start-ups and international technology partners. In Vienna, for example, the digital twin provides the basis for climate-resilient urban development by identifying heat islands in real time and simulating the effects of design variants directly. Zurich goes one step further and links traffic management planning with the digital city model – the result: a planning process that not only visualizes but also performs. Switzerland is thus demonstrating how the meta-scale can become an operational control instrument that brings politics, planning and the population together in a new way.

The possibilities go far beyond what classic 3D models can achieve. Digital twins are able to analyze and simulate complex interactions between architecture, infrastructure, climate and social behavior in real time. Anyone who ignores this is planning without reality. The future of design lies in linking spatial design with data-based forecasts. The meta-scale is becoming the new currency – and is fundamentally changing the role of the architect. The designer becomes the data curator, the sketch becomes an algorithm, planning becomes an iterative simulation process.

Of course, there is also resistance. Many planning offices and administrations are reluctant to make the leap into the digital twin because they fear losing control. Who decides which data flows into the simulation? Who is responsible if the algorithm delivers incorrect forecasts? The discussions about governance, transparency and data sovereignty are far from over – and they will shape the debate about the meta-scale in the coming years. One thing is clear: the digital twin is not an end in itself, but an instrument of power. And power wants to be distributed, not monopolized.

In an international comparison, German-speaking countries are lagging behind. While metropolises such as Singapore, Helsinki and Rotterdam have long been relying on urban digital twins and generating concrete added value for urban development, disaster prevention and citizen participation, many cities in Germany are still cautiously experimenting. The meta-scale is here – but has not yet arrived everywhere. It’s time to move out of the lab and into practice.

Digitalization and AI: the algorithm as a design assistant – or as a risk?

The digitalization of urban planning is inextricably linked to the development of artificial intelligence and data-driven methods. Digital twins would simply be inconceivable without the ability to link large quantities of different data sources and evaluate them in real time. The new generation of design tools is fed by sensor technology, satellite data, mobility data, weather models and much more. AI-supported algorithms help to recognize patterns, create forecasts and evaluate design variants. That sounds like a gain in efficiency – and it often is. But the price is high: if you don’t understand the algorithm, you quickly lose control of the design.

The discussion about algorithmic bias is nothing new, but it becomes particularly explosive in the context of digital twins. When AI-based simulations have a say in development plans and infrastructure decisions, the question of traceability arises. Black box models are poison for any democratic planning culture. Architects and urban planners must therefore not only deal with spatial design, but also with data analysis, machine learning and digital ethics issues. Specialist knowledge is expanding – and with it responsibility.

This is also influencing the training of new architects. Anyone entering the profession today needs more than just a knack for proportions and materials. Data competence, programming skills and an understanding of algorithmic processes are becoming mandatory. The classic division between designer and technician is disappearing. In future, it will not only be the form that decides, but also the code. Those who don’t make the leap will remain spectators in the digital city lab.

On the other hand, AI and digitalization open up unimagined possibilities for sustainable and more resilient design. For example, simulations can precisely predict the effects of microclimate, mobility or energy flows on new construction projects. This makes planning errors less frequent and enables targeted optimization in terms of climate protection and resource efficiency. However, the danger lies in over-engineering: if the algorithm becomes the sole yardstick, the city loses its human dimension. The trick is to understand technology as a tool – not as a substitute for creative discourse.

Ultimately, the quality of the data and the openness of the systems will determine the success of the digital twins. Proprietary solutions, a lack of interfaces and non-transparent algorithms are the greatest risk to fair, sustainable urban development. The architecture sector must therefore reposition itself not only technologically, but also politically and ethically. The meta-scale is not just a technical paradigm shift, but also a social one.

Sustainability, climate and resource efficiency: the digital twin as a test bench

Expectations of digital twins are high when it comes to sustainability, climate resilience and resource efficiency. After all, the meta-measure promises not only to measure the ecological footprint of cities, but also to actively manage it. In practice, however, there is a gap between aspiration and reality. Although simulations make it possible to model the impact of buildings on the microclimate, energy consumption or biodiversity, in the end it is still people who decide on the objectives and the quality of the database.

In Austria and Switzerland, digital twins are already being used to develop sustainable neighborhoods and make climate targets measurable. Vienna is focusing on the early detection of heat islands and the integration of renewable energies into urban development. Zurich is simulating the effects of greening measures and mobility concepts. In Germany, on the other hand, much remains in pilot status. There is often a lack of binding standards, interoperable platforms and the political will to actually incorporate simulation results into planning. Sustainability often remains a fig leaf instead of a guiding principle.

The real added value of digital twins lies in being able to run through scenarios quickly and comparably. For example, the impact of a green façade on the urban climate can be tested in different design variants before a stone is laid. Resource consumption, CO₂ balance and degree of sealing can be dynamically simulated and optimized. This reduces planning errors, saves costs – and helps to seriously tackle climate targets. If you use the digital twin correctly, you can turn sustainability from an empty phrase into a measurable factor in the design process.

But there are also critical voices. It is all too easy to forget that technical solutions do not resolve social conflicts of interest. The digital twin can make the social consequences of densification, gentrification or infrastructure measures visible – but it cannot prevent them. The temptation to reduce complex conflicts of objectives to a few KPIs and simulation parameters is great. The responsibility remains with people. Sustainability is not a question of technology, but of attitude.

After all, transparency is crucial. If digital twins are misused to legitimize large-scale projects or to push through political interests, trust is quickly lost. Openly accessible models, participatory processes and comprehensible simulations are the order of the day. The meta-measure will only become a tool for sustainability if it remains open, comprehensible and verifiable. Everything else is greenwashing in digital guise.

Governance, control and participation: who owns the meta benchmark?

The question of who controls the digital twin is far more than a technical nuance. It determines whether the meta-scale becomes a tool for democratic urban development or a plaything of commercial interests. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, the governance of digital twins has not yet been conclusively regulated. These are often pilot projects whose governance oscillates back and forth between the city administration, software providers and research institutions. This creates uncertainty – and slows down the spread of the technology.

One of the biggest challenges is securing data sovereignty. Who has access to the data and simulation results has a decisive influence on the development of the city. Proprietary systems and closed platforms are therefore a problem. Not only do they prevent traceability, they also make cities dependent on external service providers. Open source solutions and open interfaces are the answer – but they are still the exception, not the rule. German-speaking countries urgently need to catch up here.

Participation is the great promise of the digital twin. In theory, it enables unprecedented transparency and citizen participation. Complex planning processes are visualized and alternatives can be played through together. In practice, however, access to the models often remains exclusive – reserved for experts and closed to laypeople. This undermines the democratic potential of the technology and promotes mistrust instead of acceptance.

The debate about control and responsibility is also a question of political culture. Placing decision-making power over urban models in the hands of a few risks technocratic distortions and alienating citizens from the planning process. At the same time, clear responsibilities are needed to ensure the quality and reliability of the simulations. The tension between openness and control remains one of the central challenges of the meta-scale.

Internationally, it is becoming apparent that governance models are decisive for the success or failure of digital twins. Scandinavian cities rely on open platforms and broad participation, while Asian metropolises tend to rely on centralized control – with all the advantages and disadvantages. The German-speaking world is at a crossroads. The course set in the coming years will determine whether the meta-scale becomes a democratic tool or a black box.

Visions, controversies and the global context: where does Europe stand?

The hype surrounding digital twins is global – and so are the expectations. While Europe is still struggling with governance issues, data protection and standardization, cities such as Singapore have long been relying on comprehensive digital city models that combine citizen participation, traffic control and climate management in one system. The markets for urban digital twins are growing rapidly and international competition is not sleeping. The meta-scale is becoming a location factor – those who are too late will be punished by reality.

At the same time, a debate is raging about the risks of digitalization in urban planning. Critics are warning of the commercialization of public data, algorithmic intransparency and a technocratic transformation of the city. The danger of the meta-scale becoming an instrument of power for a few players is real. Openness, traceability and democratic control are therefore not marginal issues, but cornerstones of a sustainable digitalization of the city.

Visionary voices are calling for the potential of the digital twin to be used consistently for social innovation. They see the opportunity to democratize planning, strengthen participation and test new forms of urban coexistence. The biggest challenge here is not the technology, but the political and cultural willingness to relinquish control and allow new forms of cooperation. The architecture sector is facing a paradigm shift – from individual designs to collaborative, data-driven urban laboratories.

Europe could play a leading role if it succeeds in combining technical excellence with social innovation and democratic control. The prerequisites are there: strong research, high data protection standards and a vibrant planning culture. What is missing is the courage to break new ground and see the meta-scale as an opportunity, not a threat. The course set in the coming years will show whether Europe will keep up – or become a bystander in the global competition of urban models.

In the end, it is not the technology that will decide, but the attitude. Digital twins are not a panacea, but they are a powerful tool. Those who use them wisely and responsibly can shape the city of tomorrow – in an open, sustainable and participatory way. Those who shy away from this are leaving the field to others. The meta-scale will not wait.

Conclusion: The meta-scale has come to stay

Designing for digital twins means rethinking urban planning. The meta-scale combines technology, design and social responsibility. It challenges architecture, expands the professional field and opens up unimagined possibilities – but also new risks. The German-speaking world is at a crossroads: those who understand the digital twin as a tool for sustainable, democratic and future-oriented urban development can become pioneers. Those who hesitate will lose out. One thing is certain: the digital city will not wait. Those who do not simulate will be simulated.

POTREBBE INTERESSARTI ANCHE

Mobility data for adaptive road design

Building design
a-city-street-with-cars-parking-at-the-edge-of-the-street-V32TUYynmhg

Central city street in St. Gallen with parked cars, photographed by Albatros Aslan

Imagine streets that react spontaneously to traffic flows, green spaces that grow where they are needed most and cycle paths that are created because mobility data demands them. Adaptive street design with mobility data is not a dream of the future, but the big stage for cities that not only move with the times, but determine them themselves. If you want to know how data can be turned into dynamic spaces, read on – and learn why the mobility data revolution has long since arrived on the asphalt.

  • Definition and relevance of mobility data for adaptive road design
  • Technological basics: sensors, data sources and interfaces
  • Adaptive street design: practical examples from German-speaking cities
  • Data-supported planning processes and their challenges
  • Governance, data protection and the question of data sovereignty
  • Opportunities and risks: From better traffic flows to algorithmic bias
  • Influence on sustainable urban development, climate resilience and social participation
  • Outlook: How mobility data is changing the planning culture and job profile

Mobility data: The backbone of adaptive streetscape design

Anyone talking about streetscape design today can no longer ignore mobility data. This data is far more than just columns of figures from traffic counts; it is the pulse of the city, a highly dynamic image of urban mobility that goes far beyond traditional traffic planning. Mobility data encompasses all movement flows of people and vehicles, whether on foot, by bike, car, public transport or modern sharing services. It is generated from a variety of sources: Traffic light controls, WLAN tracking, GPS from cell phones, camera sensors, induction loops, floating car data from vehicle fleets as well as from apps that record traffic and movement profiles anonymously. The trick is to link and interpret these data sources in order to obtain as complete, up-to-date and reliable a picture as possible of the reality of mobility.

The term adaptive road design describes the ability to adapt road spaces to changing requirements in a flexible and demand-oriented manner. This ranges from the temporary reallocation of lanes and dynamic traffic routing to pop-up cycle paths and flexible pedestrian zones. The basis for this is comprehensive, precise mobility data, preferably available in real time. It shows where bottlenecks occur, which routes are particularly busy or when certain means of transport are preferred. Only with this database is a truly adaptive, i.e. responsive, design even conceivable.

However, the use of such mobility data places high demands on the technical infrastructure and the skills of planners. It is not enough to simply collect data; it must be analyzed, interpreted and translated into concrete options for action. This requires modern geoinformation systems, powerful data platforms and interfaces that link different data sources with one another. Artificial intelligence and machine learning come into play to recognize patterns and create forecasts. Adaptive street design is thus becoming a discipline that combines technical expertise, planning creativity and a deep understanding of urban dynamics.

In many German, Austrian and Swiss cities, mobility data is already part of planning practice. Intelligent traffic guidance systems, dynamic traffic lights and real-time information for local public transport are visible results. But adaptive streetscape design goes further: it asks how the streetscape itself can be changed to respond to new mobility patterns. The goal is a city in which space follows demand – not the other way around.

Overall, mobility data is the backbone of a city that sees itself as a learning, flexible and participatory system. It enables planning to no longer be understood as a rigid corset, but as an open, continuous process. The street space becomes a stage on which data and users jointly determine the choreography.

Technology, sensors and data interfaces: The invisible infrastructure

Behind every adaptive road design is a complex network of sensors, data management and digital infrastructure. The collection of mobility data begins with classic induction loops in the roadway that count vehicles and extends to state-of-the-art camera systems with automatic object recognition. Floating car data, i.e. movement data from vehicle fleets that allow conclusions to be drawn about traffic density and congestion trends in real time, is also becoming increasingly relevant. Mobile devices that provide anonymized position data via GPS complete the picture and make it possible to systematically record pedestrian and bicycle traffic for the first time. Particularly exciting is the use of WLAN and Bluetooth tracking, which makes movement patterns in public spaces visible without storing personal data.

All these sensors and data sources provide raw data that must first be collected and processed. This is where so-called urban data platforms come into play, which act as data hubs. They aggregate, filter and harmonize information from a wide variety of sources and make it available for planning, administration and the public. The interoperability of these platforms is crucial, as mobility data only unfolds its full value when it can be interpreted in the context of other urban data – such as weather, construction sites, events or energy consumption. Open interfaces (APIs) and standardized data formats are therefore essential to enable collaboration between different stakeholders, systems and administrative levels.

Another key element is the real-time capability of the data. Adaptive road design depends on being able to react quickly and flexibly to changes. This requires that data is not only collected, but also processed and visualized in fractions of a second. Modern dashboards, coupled with AI-based evaluation tools, enable planners to see at a glance where action is needed. Automatic alarm systems indicate sudden changes, for example if an accident shifts the flow of traffic or a major event leads to congestion on public transport.

The integration of machine learning opens up new dimensions: Systems learn from past patterns, recognize seasonal fluctuations, recurring bottlenecks or mobility behaviour when the weather changes. Forecasting models simulate how certain measures – such as new cycle lanes, temporary play streets or detour – will affect the overall structure. In this way, planning decisions can be made based on data, scenarios can be run through and measures can be tested in a targeted manner.

All these technological possibilities stand and fall with the acceptance and trust of the population. Data protection and data security are therefore not peripheral issues, but an elementary component of the infrastructure. Only if citizens can be sure that their movement data will be used anonymously and responsibly will the necessary basis for legitimizing adaptive, data-based urban design be created.

Adaptive street design in practice: between pop-up cycle paths and real-time traffic

Numerous projects in German-speaking cities show how mobility data can make adaptive streetscapes a reality. The potential became particularly visible during the coronavirus pandemic, when pop-up cycle paths were created in many places. In Berlin, temporary cycle lanes were set up on the basis of current traffic data to provide short-term space for the increase in bicycle traffic. Sensors and counting stations provided the basis for recording demand and capacity utilization and adapting the measures in a targeted manner. The evaluation of the data enabled continuous optimization: where usage remained particularly high, temporary solutions were converted into permanent infrastructure.

Vienna also relies on mobility data to make street spaces more flexible. The “Digital Twin Vienna” project combines real-time traffic data with information on pedestrian flows, public transport utilization and weather conditions. This allows traffic lights to be adjusted dynamically, temporary meeting zones to be created and bottlenecks to be identified at an early stage. In Zurich, on the other hand, floating car data and anonymized movement profiles are used to identify bottlenecks and temporarily rededicate road space – for events, construction site management or to relieve heavily frequented junctions, for example.

Another example is Hamburg, where the Urban Data Platform integrates traffic flows, roadworks information and environmental data. Adaptive traffic management, flexible loading zones for delivery traffic and dynamic parking space management are directly linked to the evaluation of current mobility data. The effects are immediately noticeable: less congestion, faster response times in the event of incidents and more efficient use of limited road space.

However, adaptive road design is not limited to motorized traffic. The focus is increasingly on pedestrians and cyclists. In Basel, for example, data from counting points and movement analyses are used to create temporary pedestrian zones and safe routes to school – adapted to the time of day, weather and number of events. This creates a public space that is not only efficient, but also people-friendly.

These examples show: Adaptive street design is not a technocratic experiment, but a lived practice. It makes public spaces more flexible, safer and more sustainable – and opens up new possibilities for responding to social and climatic challenges. However, data quality, transparency and participation must always be taken into account.

Governance, data protection and participation: The invisible levers

As impressive as the technological possibilities are, the question of governance is crucial. Who controls, who decides and who monitors the use of mobility data? Adaptive road design requires clear responsibilities and a framework that combines data sovereignty, data protection and participation. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, it is usually the municipalities that retain sovereignty over urban data platforms – often in cooperation with external service providers who provide technical solutions and analysis tools.

Data protection is more than just a bureaucratic obstacle. It is the guarantor of acceptance and trust. Movement data is sensitive, even if it is anonymized. This is why many cities rely on privacy by design: even during the development of the systems, it is ensured that no conclusions can be drawn about individuals. Data is aggregated, pseudonymized and provided with clear deletion deadlines. Regular audits, open documentation and independent control bodies ensure additional transparency.

Transparency is also the key word when it comes to participation. Adaptive street design thrives on the involvement not only of experts but also of the public. Open data portals, interactive visualizations and participatory planning processes make it possible to make measures comprehensible and verifiable. In this way, citizens do not become the object of data-based control, but actors in a joint learning process. Digital participation formats, from online surveys to interactive maps, create new channels for participation and feedback.

But governance does not end with administration. Cooperation between different disciplines – urban planning, traffic planning, IT, law and society – is also key. Adaptive street design is a cross-cutting issue that breaks down silos and requires new forms of cooperation. Interdisciplinary teams, agile working methods and an open error culture are just as important as technical standards and legal clarity.

Ultimately, the question remains: how can adaptive street design be prevented from becoming a playing field for commercial interests? The trend towards the commercialization of urban data models cannot be overlooked. It is therefore essential that municipalities expand their data competence, retain control over critical infrastructure and define clear rules for access to and use of mobility data. Only in this way will the adaptive, data-based city remain a common good – and not a black box of private providers.

Opportunities, risks and the paradigm shift in urban planning

The use of mobility data for adaptive street design opens up enormous opportunities – but also new risks. On the plus side, there are more efficient traffic flows, less congestion, better air quality and more space for active mobility. Cities become more resilient, more flexible and can react more quickly to crises or new trends. The integration of mobility data into planning enables unprecedented precision and dynamism that makes traditional planning tools look old-fashioned. The ability to run through various scenarios, test measures and observe their effects in real time is particularly impressive.

But as the power of data grows, so does the responsibility. Algorithmic distortions, unfair distribution of resources or the disadvantaging of certain groups are real dangers if data is interpreted in an unreflected or one-sided way. Adaptive systems run the risk of reinforcing existing inequalities if they are not consciously counteracted. It is therefore essential that planners, administrators and the public work together to define guidelines that safeguard values such as justice, transparency and sustainability.

Another risk lies in the technocratization of planning. If decisions are only made on the basis of data, there is a danger that local characteristics, social needs or design quality will fade into the background. This is why the role of professional planners remains indispensable: they are the ones who interpret data, place it in a spatial context and harmonize it with other goals – such as climate protection, quality of stay or social participation.

What does all this mean for the profession of urban planning and landscape architecture? It is becoming more digital, more dynamic and more interdisciplinary. Data literacy is becoming a key qualification, and the ability to deal with uncertainties and contradictions is becoming a central challenge. Adaptive street design requires planners who not only use technology, but also critically reflect on and design it.

The end result is a paradigm shift: planning is no longer static, but a process. The street space is not a finished product, but a living organism that is constantly changing. Mobility data makes this dynamic visible and controllable – but it is not an end in itself. It remains the task of planners to turn data into living spaces that function, inspire and connect.

Conclusion: Data-driven urban design – from a technical tool to a new planning culture

The use of mobility data for adaptive street design is far more than just a technical trend. It marks the dawn of a new planning culture in which data, technology and human intuition work hand in hand. Cities that use mobility data intelligently will become more flexible, more sustainable and more liveable. They can control traffic flows, make better use of space, respond to crises and recognize the needs of their residents in real time. But the path is challenging: it requires high-tech and attitude, data protection and dialog, new competencies and clear rules.

Adaptive street design is not a sure-fire success, but a social and planning experiment that requires courage, creativity and a sense of responsibility. It offers enormous opportunities for sustainable urban development, climate resilience and social participation – but also harbours the risk of technocratization and commercialization. It is crucial that mobility data is understood and used as a common good, that transparency and participation are prioritized and that planning remains human even in the digital age.

Planners who now see mobility data as a tool and inspiration are not only designing streetscapes, but also reinventing urban planning. And that’s a good thing – because the city of tomorrow will not only be built, it will be measured, interpreted, adapted and brought to life together. Welcome to data-driven, adaptive urban design – where public space is constantly being created anew.

Gray colossus

Building design

Worth more than a glance: the ceiling painting

Having barely arrived in Rotterdam, Baumeister Academy winner Maxi Graber shares a photo of the Cornucopia painting in the Markthal on the Academy Instagram account. In 2014, Maxi’s internship office MVRDV built the first market hall in the Netherlands. Reason enough for us to take another look at the gray colossus.

Having barely arrived in Rotterdam, Baumeister Academy winner Maxi Graber shares a photo of the Cornucopia painting in the Markthal on the Academy Instagram account. The post literally goes through the roof. In 2014, Maxi’s internship office MVRDV built the first Markthal in the Netherlands and covered it with a large arch and 200 apartments. Reason enough for us to take another look at the gray colossus. Our editor Sabine Schneider traveled to Rotterdam in 2015 and reported on her visit in the Baumeister March issue. Here is an excerpt from her report.

It won’t be easy. I start my journey to Rotterdam with tense anticipation. I know the market hall in Rotterdam well from publications, and my opinion is clear: it’s a monstrous construction that obviously wants to make itself smaller than it is on the outside with its cladding of camouflage gray granite slabs, but screams all the louder on the inside with a kitschy sky of giant fruits. In cross-section, the building forms a half-baked horseshoe, a tunnel that leads nowhere, an oversized fairground stall with apartments on the hump. A new typology, as the architects are promoting the project? Save us from that.

In fact, my criticism of the façade and form is now far less important when I am on site: the ribbon-like square of the Binnenrotte in the center, under which the tracks run and which therefore cannot be built on, appears cheerless, empty, draughty and not well defined on five out of seven days when there is no weekly market. The large, gray market hall has the same problem as the surrounding buildings: it is an island between islands – it lacks urban density. It does not appear permeable, but stands slightly elevated a few steps above the square, its reflective panes closing off the huge gate, sealing it off. It can only be entered through three narrow revolving doors that you have to squeeze through.

MVRDV have set up simple steel scaffolding as market stalls in Hall 96 on an area roughly the size of a soccer pitch. It’s fun to look, try, stroll and buy here. There is everything from currywurst to exclusive steak, from Dutch cheese to Turkish sweets. A good idea is to set up a terrace on the roof of the stalls, creating a “tasting room” on the roof. Something like this is often missing in traditional markets, because you work up an appetite while strolling around. However, it also brings the market closer to one of the usual “food courts” in shopping malls.

Restaurants, cafés, a cookery school, a household goods store and a wine shop have moved into the first two floors of the long sides of the tunnel. The interior façades of the 102 rental apartments and 126 condominiums, all of which have windows overlooking the market and a terrace to the outside, curve above. The higher you climb in the building, the more oblique the view of the market becomes, until at the very top of the 24 penthouses on the eleventh and last floor you can look straight down vertically.

Concept and compromises

But how did this design come about? Rotterdam is planning to renovate the former old town district and held an investor competition in 2004. The developer Provast submitted the design by MVRDV and won first prize, as the architects were able to combine the two specified residential slabs with a market. Priority was given to housing; there was no budget for a market hall. This resulted in the horseshoe shape, as the upper apartments, which close the arch, were too deep for good lighting – so the shape was slanted at the top. Towards the first floor, the storeys widen again in order to enlarge the retail space as required by the developer. In this way, the constraints did not shape the architectural idea, but deformed it like chewing gum.

You can find the full report here!

And you can find out more about Baumeister Academy there!

The Baumeister Academy is supported by GRAPHISOFT, BAU 2019 and Schöck Bauteile GmbH.