Diversity – “Into the Wild” design studio

Building design
View from the main path into the meadow mosaic, graphic: Anh Thu Pham

View from the main path into the meadow mosaic, graphic: Anh Thu Pham

Berlin’s Volkspark Prenzlauer Berg is home to a special butterfly population. Anh Thu Pham’s design shows how the park can be redesigned to provide new habitats for butterflies and other animals. In the following presentation of her project, Anh Thu Pham explains how the park’s animals should also be given a voice. The work was created as part of the “Into the Wild” design studio at TU Berlin. Anh Thu Pham worked on the “Animal Park” variant from the three pointed scenarios given in the studio.
Berlin’s Volkspark Prenzlauer Berg is home to a special butterfly population. Anh Thu Pham’s design shows how the park can be redesigned to provide new habitats for butterflies and other animals. In the following presentation of her project, Anh Thu Pham explains how the park’s animals should also be given a voice. The work was created as part of the “Into the Wild” design studio at TU Berlin. Anh Thu Pham worked on the “Animal Park” variant from the three pointed scenarios given in the studio.

It’s not just in our September 2023 issue that we make space for student projects. Students also present their own work on our website – for example in this article. You can find all the projects on our “Studies” topic page and the September issue is available in our store.

“Diversity” takes a new look at the relationship between open and closed spaces in Volkspark, focusing on the special butterfly population in the park. The existing open land areas will be further developed and expanded so that they connect to form a corridor. With new meadow areas, this offers a variety of new habitats for different fauna and, above all, butterflies.

The dense forest structure will be preserved on the western and north-eastern edges of the park. It is available to the breeding birds, beetles and other small organisms that occur there. The forest areas to be preserved are based on the occurrence of the animal species and the deadwood stands classified as valuable.

In order to provide a protected habitat for the animals for which the concept is designed, the main part of the existing paths will be removed so that only the north-south axis serves as the main access route. This is supplemented by subordinate cross-connections that incorporate the development of the planned residential quarter. Along the main route, there are various stations such as the meadow oasis, flight station, butterfly garden, wildwatch station and nature meeting point , which provide recreational areas with different atmospheres and qualities of use.

The extended and newly created open land areas create a mosaic of different meadows. This not only creates a varied spatial effect, but also increases the biodiversity of the flora and fauna. The planned meadow species are adapted to the existing relief.

The location factors of the elevated and sun-exposed areas are to be used to form rough grassland areas, which can represent a particularly valuable area as a species-rich habitat. Extensive open land areas represent a threatened and increasingly important habitat not only for protected butterflies, but also for a variety of insects (e.g. wild bees and grasshoppers) and amphibians.

With various side paths, visitors can explore the park in a circular route and experience an alternation of light and shade in the forest away from the butterfly corridor. A restrained steel railing with a wooden handrail runs along the entire meadow mosaic with the main path. By varying the handrail widths, the railing not only guides visitors through the park, but is also intended to protect the fauna and flora or communicate with visitors as an information board, depending on its position.

Wide sections of the handrail signal to visitors that they are in places with special lines of sight or qualities of stay. At the respective nature stations, the railing widens even further and takes on the function of an information and communication board that gives the animals a voice and can be used for further education or information.

The design was created as part of the “Into the Wild” design studio at the TU Berlin. You can read more about the background to the studio and Volkspark Prenzlauer Berg here, and discover more designs by students here.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Women’s power in architecture

Building design
Women in architecture: Grete Schütte-Lihotzky

Grete Schütte-Lihotzky

Around 1900, a group of women in Germany first challenged the social view of the time that the work of an architect was incompatible with femininity. They demanded the right to a university education and by 1909 had succeeded in having all technical universities in Germany admit women to study. Nevertheless, it remained difficult to […]

Around 1900, a group of women in Germany first challenged the social view of the time that the work of an architect was incompatible with femininity. They demanded the right to a university education and by 1909 had succeeded in having all technical universities in Germany admit women to study. Nevertheless, it remained difficult for women to find a job in architecture. Widespread prejudices, such as that women could not handle finances and were unable to supervise workers on a construction site, meant that female architects resorted to strategies to either adapt to or renegotiate social gender expectations. This situation remained dominant throughout the 20th century and to some extent still is today.

It is hardly surprising that the first female architects mainly realized projects in which they themselves or someone from their family was the client. Therese Mogger acquired plots of land in the Gerresheim district of Düsseldorf around 1911, for which she then designed apartment buildings. Elisabeth von Knobelsdorff and Princess Victoria von Bentheim- Steinfurt, both early graduates of the TH Berlin, designed apartments and social facilities that were built on their family’s estates. In the 1920s, it was common for female architects to collaborate with a male partner in order to work on important public projects: A visitor to the Weissenhof Estate in Stuttgart in 1927 would have encountered Lilly Reich and Mies van der Rohe, Marlene Moeschke-Poelzig and Hans Poelzig or Else Oppler-Legband and Peter Behrens. As a rule, these women had studied arts and crafts or fine arts. Their design contributions mainly concerned furniture and interior decoration – areas that were considered less prestigious. Women who had studied also had the opportunity to aspire to a position in the civil service. However, they had to remain unmarried in order not to lose their job. In the 1920s, the Austrian Margarete Lihotzky was employed by Ernst May at the Frankfurt Building Department. When she married her professional colleague Wilhelm Schütte, she had to give up her employment and from then on could only work as a freelancer. Her husband was not subject to such restrictions. The period of German National Socialism brought an abrupt end to the careers of a number of promising Jewish women architects. Among them were the Bauhaus students Friedl Dicker and Zsuzsa Bánki as well as Ilse Bloch (née Cats), who had graduated from the TH Berlin. All three women were murdered in Auschwitz. After the Second World War, women in Germany, regardless of whether they worked in the GDR or the FRG, had greater opportunities if they concentrated on construction projects with a social focus, such as housing construction, facilities for children and young people and interior design. After returning from exile in America, Karola Bloch, for example, designed standard typologies for day-care centers for the Deutsche Bauakademie in the 1950s.

Strategies

Based on the biographies of female architects, strategies for success can be identified that go beyond individual personal circumstances and constellations. As a rule, female architects are very mobile and are prepared to emigrate or travel long distances in order to improve their career opportunities. Gertrud Schille not only traveled to Wolfsburg in western Germany for her planetariums, but also to Baghdad and Tripoli in Libya. Furthermore, successful female architects often benefit from the material and intellectual support of colleagues in the same profession and also offer such support themselves. Marie Frommer gave up a flourishing office in Berlin in 1936 and went into exile in New York. Contacts with professional associations of and for women there helped her to re-establish herself. As a result, she was soon able to open an office specializing in the interior design of apartments and stores – a line of business in which women were rare as owners, but nevertheless more readily accepted than elsewhere. Today, although half of all architecture students in Europe are female, women still lag behind men in terms of professional success. Structurally, the strategies of female architects are therefore still similar, they have merely adapted to today’s circumstances in their concrete forms. Even if this is rarely talked about: Women who have additional material resources at their disposal, be it for taking out a loan when setting up an office or for financing childcare, have significantly higher chances of being successful despite social disadvantage and the double burden of work and family.

Office partnerships

Partnerships with men continue to provide female architects with a framework that is conducive to their professional development – especially as the division of responsibilities and traditional gender boundaries are no longer as clearly marked as they were in the past. Well-known examples include Sauerbruch Hutton, Barkow Leibinger, Grüntuch-Ernst, and Bolles + Wilson in Germany; Helen & Hard in Norway; Lacaton & Vassal in France</a>; O’Donnell + Tuomey in Ireland or Bos and van Berkel from UN Studio in the Netherlands. Women are also among the partners in very large offices – for example the Dutch architect Nathalie de Vries from MVRDV or the Belgian Christine Conix from CONIX RDBM. Women also have leading roles in alternative office forms, such as Paloma Strelitz from the London planning collective Assemble. Last but not least, there are architecture firms – including Grafton Architects (Yvonne Farrell, Shelley McNamara) in Dublin, vPPR (Tatiana von Preussen, Catherine Lease, Jessica Reynolds) in London and Schultz Sievers (Cathrin Schultz, Kathrin Sievers) in Bremen – that are run exclusively by women. Even though women now work as architects in very different fields, an above-average number of them still work on projects in which social commitment is the main focus. Susanne Hofmann with her company Baupiloten and Dorte Mandrup in Copenhagen have made a name for themselves with innovative buildings for children and young people. The willingness to be mobile and adapt to different working contexts continues to be a way for women to secure the opportunity to work independently as designers.

Competitions

The open competition remains the most important way for female architects to secure major public commissions. In 1983, Zaha Hadid caused an international sensation when she submitted a visionary design for the competition for the leisure and recreation park “The Peak Leisure Club” in Hong Kong. In Germany, Gesine Weinmiller realized the new building for the Federal Labour Court in Erfurt in 1999, Ursula Wilms from Heinle, Wischer und Partner the building for the Topography of Terror in Berlin (2010) and Gabriele Glöckner the extension to the German National Library in Leipzig (2011). In all cases, the architects won the respective competition. The first two decades of the 21st century are a time of transition for women in architecture. They are still a long way from full equality with their male colleagues, but there have been significant improvements in terms of the number of female architects employed and the variety of role models available to women in the profession. It will be the task of the many young women studying architecture today and pushing into the relevant professions to develop new strategies that will secure them a place in the world of architecture – strategies, it is to be hoped, that no longer focus on fighting against and circumventing outdated gender concepts, but that allow them to fully develop their creative potential without being hindered by discrimination.

This article appeared in our Baumeisterinnen issue in August 2017. Curious about more exciting women in architecture? Click here for the magazine.

TEFAF has once again awarded 50,000 euros to two selected restoration projects in 2017. TEFAF (The European Fine Art Foundation) will take place in Maastricht from March 10 to 19, 2017. Each year, the TEFAF Museum Restoration Fund donates up to 50,000 euros to museums pursuing a current conservation or restoration project. An independent […]

TEFAF has once again awarded 50,000 euros to two selected restoration projects in 2017.

TEFAF (The European Fine Art Foundation) will take place in Maastricht from March 10 to 19, 2017. Each year, the TEFAF Museum Restoration Fund donates up to 50,000 euros to museums pursuing a current conservation or restoration project. An independent committee of international experts decides on the applications submitted. The support is intended both to promote the restoration of special works of art and to communicate the significance and importance of conservation.

This year, the prize money went to the Musée Rodin in Paris and to the Detroit Institute of Arts, USA. The financial injection will enable the restoration and reconstruction of a work by Auguste Rodin (1840-1917) entitled “Absolution”. It will also enable the conservation of “Judith with the Head of Holofernes” by Titian (1488-1576), a work that has been on display in the exhibition almost continuously since its purchase.

The 25th anniversary of the TEFAF in 2012 was the occasion to establish the restoration fund for the first time. An overview of the restoration projects supported by TEFAF to date:

2016

Reconstruction of the Tower of Nanjing, de Robien Collection at the Musée des Beaux-Arts in Rennes, France;
Restoration of “Girl in White” by James McNeil Whistler, Singer Memorial Foundation in Laren, Netherlands

2015

Restoration of works by Francisco de Zurbarán, Museum Kunstpalast in Düsseldorf, Wadsworth Atheneum Museum of Art in Connecticut

2014

Restoration of three coffin groups and a sarcophagus from the 21st dynasty discovered in 1891, Rijksmuseum van Oudheden in Leiden, Netherlands;
Restoration of the painting “Miss Nelly O’Brien” by Joshua Reynolds, Wallace Collection in London

2013

Restoration of the portraits of William and Elizabeth James by William Hogarth, Worcester Art Museum in Massachusetts, USA;
Restoration of two chandeliers combining elements of classical sculpture and carving by Giovanni Battista Piranesi, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford

2012

Restoration of a Venice painting by Canaletto, Denver Art Museum, USA;
Conservation of the ten bronze statuettes from the 15th century tomb of Isabella of Bourbon, Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam