30.06.2026

In the City Forest: Concept, Function, and Practice

Building design

A man is sitting on a concrete bench outdoors—a common sight in urban spaces. Photo: ling_gigi/Unsplash

An urban forest is not simply a forest within a city. It is a distinct category of open space with specific ecological, social, and planning requirements that differ from those of commercial forests as well as from those of city parks. Anyone who plans, manages, or conducts research in an urban forest navigates a complex interplay of nature conservation, recreational use, climate adaptation, and municipal public services—a field that demands both precise expertise and an integrative mindset.

What defines an urban forest as a planning category and how it differs from other types of forests
What are the historical roots of municipal urban forests and how have they developed?
What ecological services urban forests provide for the urban climate, biodiversity, and the water cycle
How recreational use and nature conservation are reconciled in urban forest planning
Which forestry and open-space planning tools are relevant for management
Which tree species and forest communities are particularly suitable in an urban context
How trail systems, access, and infrastructure are designed in urban forests
What mistakes frequently occur in planning and operations, and how they can be avoided

What Is an Urban Forest? Definition, Delimitation, and Planning Classification

The term “urban forest” refers to forested areas that are owned by a municipality or city, or that—due to their location in the immediate vicinity of residential areas—are primarily accessible to and usable by the urban population. In urban forests, forestry law, nature conservation law, and municipal open-space planning intersect in a way that no other category of open space exhibits to a comparable degree. The Federal Forest Act (BWaldG) and state forest laws apply to urban forests just as they do to any other forest; at the same time, they are subject to municipal planning interests that extend far beyond mere timber production.

From a technical perspective, three types can be distinguished: the municipal urban forest in the narrower sense, which is owned by the municipality and managed by it or by a contracted forestry operation; the forest near the city, which, although privately or publicly owned, de facto fulfills urban recreational functions due to its location and accessibility; and the forest park, which is more heavily landscaped and is generally classified as a green space rather than a forest area. For many city dwellers, being in the urban forest is an everyday experience; from a planning perspective, however, it requires considerable technical expertise.

The distinction from commercial forests is functional, not always legally clear-cut. A municipal urban forest may certainly produce timber; however, timber harvesting is generally secondary to conservation and recreational objectives. Forest management planning—that is, the medium-term operational planning of the forest—must reflect this shift in priorities. An urban forest is thus a multipurpose forest in the true sense of the term, in which the emphasis on forest functions is shifted compared to a purely commercial forest.

Historical Development: From Community Forest to Municipal Green Infrastructure

The history of municipal urban forests dates back to the Middle Ages. Many of the urban forests that still exist today trace their origins to common-use forests—that is, collectively used forest areas that served a city’s citizens for firewood production, forest grazing, and forage harvesting. Cities such as Frankfurt am Main, Nuremberg, and Freiburg im Breisgau have urban forests whose history of municipal ownership spans centuries. The Frankfurt City Forest, covering an area of over five thousand hectares, is considered one of the largest municipal city forests in Europe and is a prime example of the historical continuity of this type of open space.

In the 19th century, the function of the city forest underwent a fundamental change. With industrialization and the rapid growth of cities, the forest gained importance as a recreational space for the urban population. Urban planning reform movements that emerged around the turn of the century recognized the forest as a hygienic and social counterbalance to the dense, noisy, polluted city. Urban planners and landscape architects of the Gründerzeit and early modern periods, including representatives of the German city park movement, advocated for the preservation and development of forests near cities.

The postwar period brought another shift in focus. Mass motorization, the rise of the leisure society, and increased environmental awareness led to more intensive use of the urban forest by walkers, joggers, horseback riders, and later, mountain bikers. At the same time, knowledge of the forest’s ecological services grew, bringing nature conservation concerns more strongly into management planning. Today, the urban forest is a place where societal negotiation processes regarding the understanding of nature, leisure culture, and resource use become visible.

Ecological Services: Urban Climate, Biodiversity, and Water Balance

The city forest provides a wide range of ecological benefits, referred to in technical terminology as ecosystem services. Of particular relevance to urban planning are the climatic effects: Forests cool their surroundings through evapotranspiration—that is, the combined evaporation of soil moisture and transpiration from the trees. On hot summer days, temperatures in the urban forest can be several degrees Celsius lower than those in the impervious downtown area. This cooling effect is a key argument for the preservation and expansion of urban forest areas as part of cities’ climate adaptation strategies.

Biodiversity in urban forests is complex and depends heavily on the forest’s management history, tree species composition, and the proportion of deadwood. Near-natural urban forests with a high proportion of native deciduous tree species, structurally rich forest edges, and left-in-place deadwood provide habitat for a wide variety of animal species, including cavity nesters, xylobiont beetles (i.e., wood-dwelling insects), and bats. However, fragmentation caused by trails, roads, and the edges of residential areas poses a persistent challenge: Many animal species require undisturbed core areas or migration corridors, which are difficult to ensure in urban forests.

The water cycle of the urban forest differs significantly from that of impervious urban areas. Forest soils, with their organic layer and dense root systems, slowly absorb precipitation, store it, and release it gradually into the groundwater. This infiltration capacity is crucial for urban stormwater management, especially in times of increasing heavy rainfall events. At the same time, forest soil is sensitive to compaction caused by foot traffic and vehicle use: heavily used trails and informal footpaths can cause lasting damage to the soil structure and significantly reduce its infiltration capacity.

In terms of air quality, forests filter fine particulate matter and other particles from the air, although the filtering effect depends on the leaf surface area, stand structure, and wind exposure. Conifers, with their evergreen needle-covered surface, tend to filter more effectively than deciduous trees, but are often less stress-resistant in urban environments. For planning purposes, this means that the selection of tree species in urban forests must always take multiple functional objectives into account simultaneously.

Recreation and Use: Planning Guidance for Urban Forests

The recreational function is the most socially visible role for most municipal urban forests. Millions of city residents use the urban forest daily for walking, jogging, biking, playing, and nature-based recreation. This intensity of use requires well-thought-out access planning that directs visitor flows, protects sensitive areas, and simultaneously enables a high-quality experience.

The trail system is the most important planning tool for managing recreational use in urban forests. A well-designed trail network provides sufficient capacity for expected visitor numbers, prevents the fragmentation of ecologically valuable areas, and guides users through diverse forest landscapes. Paths in the urban forest should be adapted to the level of use in terms of their dimensions, surfacing, and alignment: Main paths with high traffic volumes can be paved with a water-bound surface or a hard surface, while secondary paths are intentionally kept narrow and close to nature to preserve the forest’s character.

Competition for use among different visitor groups is an ongoing planning issue. Pedestrians, joggers, cyclists, horseback riders, and dog owners have different spatial needs and give rise to different conflicts. Mountain bikers pose a particular challenge because they operate off paved trails and can cause soil erosion and disturbances to wildlife. In recent years, many municipalities have established their own bike parks or designated trails in urban forests to channel this activity without displacing it.

Quiet zones and core areas without trail access are an important tool in nature-conservation-oriented urban forest management. They serve not only to protect species but also to enhance the quality of recreation: Those seeking true silence and undisturbed peace in the urban forest need areas that are not crisscrossed by trails. The designation of such quiet zones requires careful consideration of the public’s recreational needs and is often politically controversial.

Forest Management and Near-Natural Silviculture in an Urban Context

Forest management in urban forests follows different guiding principles than those of commercial forests. Near-natural silviculture—that is, a management philosophy that relies on natural forest development processes, favors native tree species, and avoids clear-cutting—is now largely the standard in urban forests. The concept of the permanent forest—in which the goal is not a uniform stand age but rather a sustainable, structurally diverse stand—is particularly well-suited to both the ecological and aesthetic requirements of the urban forest.

The choice of tree species is one of the most far-reaching planning decisions in the city forest. In light of climate change—with increasing drought stress, heat waves, and new pests—many traditionally planted tree species are coming under pressure. The Norway spruce (Picea abies), which was dominant in many urban forests in low mountain ranges just a few decades ago, has declined sharply across large parts of Central Europe due to bark beetle infestations and drought damage. Forestry experts now recommend a mix of climate-resilient native species such as sessile oak (Quercus petraea), hornbeam (Carpinus betulus), and wild service tree (Sorbus torminalis), as well as tested non-native species such as Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) or Turkey oak (Quercus cerris), whose suitability for drier sites is well documented.

Deadwood is a quality feature in near-natural urban forests that is deliberately promoted. Standing and fallen deadwood provides habitat for a variety of organisms that depend on decomposing wood. At the same time, deadwood in publicly accessible urban forests poses a public safety obligation: Dead trees near trails, playgrounds, or parking lots must be regularly inspected for stability. This safety obligation is one of the greatest legal and practical challenges in urban forest management and requires a systematic tree inspection program.

The forest management plan—that is, the operational plan for the urban forest—is typically revised every ten years. It specifies harvest rates (the annual amount of timber that can be harvested), regeneration goals, maintenance measures, and the designation of protected areas. In urban forests, this planning process takes into account not only forestry considerations but also open-space planning, nature conservation, and social concerns. Involving the urban community in this process—for example, through citizen participation or urban forest advisory boards—has become standard practice in many municipalities.

Infrastructure, Facilities, and Design in the Urban Forest

In addition to the trail system, the urban forest’s infrastructure includes parking lots, information boards, rest areas, play areas, shelters, restroom facilities, and, in some cases, food and beverage establishments. The design of these elements should be in keeping with the forest’s character: Materials such as wood, natural stone, and Corten steel blend more seamlessly into the forest landscape than concrete or garish plastic. At the same time, these elements must be robust, low-maintenance, and vandal-resistant, as the urban forest is used around the clock and intensive supervision is often not guaranteed.

Signage and wayfinding systems in urban forests are an underestimated planning consideration. A coherent wayfinding system that communicates trail lengths, difficulty levels, nature conservation guidelines, and emergency points significantly improves the user experience and reduces the likelihood of people getting lost in sensitive areas. Digital additions such as QR codes on information boards or official city forest apps can usefully supplement the analog system, but they do not replace it, because not all user groups are digitally savvy.

Play areas in urban forests differ conceptually from playgrounds in city parks. Nature-oriented forest playgrounds rely on natural materials, freedom of movement, and the experience of natural processes—that is, tree trunks for balancing, sandy areas, water features, and open spaces for self-directed play. Such facilities enhance children’s experience of nature and are also easier to maintain than technically complex playground equipment.

Common Planning Mistakes and Misconceptions Regarding the Management of Urban Forests

A common mistake in municipal practice is the underfunding of urban forests. Because urban forests do not generate significant direct revenue from timber sales and their ecological and social benefits are not directly monetized, they easily come under pressure during budget debates. The result is postponed maintenance measures, outdated infrastructure, and a backlog in safety compliance obligations. Yet the economic costs of a neglected urban forest—measured in terms of lost cooling benefits, higher healthcare costs, and biodiversity loss—are significantly higher than the costs of proper management.

Another misconception concerns the idea that urban forests can be left to their own devices. Near-natural silviculture does not mean doing nothing. Especially during the recovery phase following calamities (i.e., after damaging events such as storms, droughts, or bark beetle infestations), active forest management is necessary to promote forest regeneration and prevent undesirable developments such as the spread of invasive neophytes. Species such as the late-blooming wild cherry (Prunus serotina) or Japanese knotweed (Reynoutria japonica) can spread rapidly in disturbed forest areas and hinder the regeneration of native tree species.

Finally, the importance of the forest floor is often underestimated in planning. Soil compaction caused by construction activities, vehicle traffic, and heavy foot traffic reduces infiltration capacity, damages the mycorrhizal network (the network of fungal threads that supplies tree roots with nutrients), and weakens the vitality of trees in the long term. Soil protection measures—such as keeping construction areas clear of tree roots, installing soil protection mats during construction, and designating no-entry zones—should be integrated into all urban forest planning.

Urban Forests as a Building Block of Green Infrastructure: Perspectives and Conclusion

The urban forest is not a relic of a pre-industrial land-use model, but rather a sustainable building block of cities’ green infrastructure. Green infrastructure refers to the strategically planned network of natural and near-natural areas that provide ecosystem services to urban society. In urban forests, these services are concentrated in a unique way: climate regulation, biodiversity promotion, water retention, air quality improvement, recreation, and nature education are all combined in a single area—a combination not found in any other category of open space.

The planning challenge lies in securing and further developing these services in the long term without overburdening the urban forest. Growing cities, rising visitor numbers, climate change, and new demands for land use are increasing the pressure on forested areas. At the same time, the urban forest offers an opportunity to strengthen the urban population’s connection to nature and to foster an awareness of ecological interdependencies—an awareness that is urgently needed in the political debate on environmental protection and climate adaptation.

For landscape architects, urban planners, and forestry experts, working in the urban forest is an ongoing task that requires a broad range of expertise. Those who plan and manage urban forests must combine basic forestry knowledge with an open-space planning mindset, expertise in nature conservation, and strong communication skills. The quality of tomorrow’s urban forests depends on whether these professionals make the right decisions today and whether local governments are willing to support these decisions with sufficient funding.

18.01.2026

Resilience and sustainability

Permaculture as a Principle for Urban Open Space Planning

Building design

concrete-house-on-calm-water-on-the-day-HsNLzllzW58 — Modern, sustainable concrete house on a still body of water in Switzerland, photographed by Aswathy N

Permaculture in urban planning? To many, that sounds like a self-sufficient idyll or a romanticized vision of the wilderness. But behind the term lies a highly relevant, systemic principle that has long since found its way into urban open-space planning—and has the potential to make cities more sustainable, climate-resilient, and socially inclusive. It’s high time to take permaculture seriously as a toolkit and conceptual framework for the city of tomorrow.

Definition and Origins of Permaculture—More Than Just Gardening for Advanced Practitioners
Permaculture Principles and Their Applicability to Urban Open-Space Planning
Practical examples from Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: From community gardens to urban sponge areas
Systemic Thinking: How Permaculture Creates Synergies Between Ecology, Society, and Urban Development
Planning tools, participation, and governance—what professionals need to know
Challenges and Limitations in Integrating Permaculture into Municipal Planning Practice
How Permaculture Can Help Make Cities Climate-Resilient and Livable
Innovative Approaches to Land Management, Biodiversity, and Social Participation
Conclusion: Permaculture as a Source of Inspiration for a New Generation of Urban Planners and Landscape Architects

What Is Permaculture? From Agriculture to Urban System Innovation

The term “permaculture” is a portmanteau derived from the English phrases “permanent agriculture” and “permanent culture.” Originally developed in the 1970s by Bill Mollison and David Holmgren in Australia, the focus was on creating permanently functional and sustainable agricultural systems. But it soon became clear that the principles of permaculture could be applied far beyond the farm—to gardens, neighborhoods, cities, and even entire societies.

Permaculture is based on the recognition that natural ecosystems are highly complex, resilient, and efficient because they rely on diversity, circular thinking, and cooperation. Instead of working against nature, human settlements and open spaces should be designed to work in harmony with natural processes. The goal: to create living spaces that conserve resources, prevent waste, save energy, and promote social cohesion.

In practice, this means much more than just a few raised beds or wildflower meadows. Permaculture is a methodological toolkit that encompasses design principles such as “Observe and interact,” “Use edges,” and “Design from patterns to details.” These principles are remarkably universal—and can be applied to open-space planning, urban development, and landscape architecture.

More and more cities around the world are discovering permaculture as a source of innovation. In New York and San Francisco, public parks are being created based on permaculture concepts; in Copenhagen and Zurich, entire neighborhoods are being developed using permaculture designs. But interest is also growing rapidly in German-speaking countries, and the first pilot projects show that permaculture and the city are not a contradiction, but rather a productive alliance.

Perhaps the most important difference from traditional planning is that permaculture does not think in terms of individual measures, but rather in terms of relationships, interactions, and processes. It asks: How can a space store water, promote biodiversity, facilitate social interaction, and at the same time be climate-resilient? This makes permaculture a systemic innovation strategy that playfully transcends traditional disciplinary boundaries.

For professionals in urban and open-space planning, this means that those who understand the principles of permaculture expand their methodological repertoire and can design urban spaces that are resilient, multifunctional, and sustainable. It is therefore worth taking a closer look at how permaculture works in practice in the city—and what opportunities and challenges this presents.

Permaculture Principles for Urban Open Space Planning—Systems Thinking Meets Urban Space

Applying permaculture principles to the city is anything but trivial—but it’s also anything but impossible. The first step is to understand the essential design principles and adapt them to the urban context. Permaculture traditionally operates on a set of fundamental principles, such as observation, circular economy, multifunctionality, the use of synergies, and the principle that “every part serves multiple functions.”

In the context of urban open spaces, this means, for example, that a rainwater garden can not only retain water and promote evaporation but also serve as a place to gather, a learning space, and a habitat for insects. A green strip is not merely seen as a divider between traffic areas, but as a productive edge zone that promotes biodiversity, produces food, and facilitates social interaction. Multifunctionality is the magic word here—and a clear counterpoint to traditional, monofunctional land-use zoning.

Another key principle is thinking in terms of cycles. Instead of consuming resources linearly and producing waste, permaculture focuses on closing material cycles. In urban practice, this means: on-site composting of organic waste, rainwater harvesting in parks, the integration of urban vegetable gardening, and the use of “waste” such as leaves, pruning clippings, or graywater as a resource. Urban open-space planning can thus become not only more sustainable but also significantly more efficient.

Creating synergies between different systems is another central concern. For example, an urban community garden can be designed not only to produce vegetables but also to serve as a learning space for schools, promote social integration, and increase biodiversity in the neighborhood. This is where the strength of permaculture thinking lies: space is designed not as the sum of individual functions, but as a network of complementary relationships.

Finally, permaculture relies on participatory processes. The involvement of the urban community is not a decorative afterthought but an integral part of the planning process. Users become co-creators, local knowledge is incorporated into the design, and responsibility is shared. For planners, this means that participation is not merely relegated to the “participation table,” but is part of the entire planning process—from analysis and design through to maintenance and further development.

The challenge lies in applying these principles within the context of existing planning routines, regulations, and administrative structures. This requires a pioneering spirit, creativity, and sometimes even a dash of civil disobedience. Yet the experiences of recent years show that where permaculture succeeds in the city, it creates not only a new quality in public spaces but also in social interaction.

Practical Examples: Permaculture in German, Austrian, and Swiss Cities

The theory sounds convincing—but what does permaculture in the city actually look like? A look at selected projects in German-speaking countries shows just how diverse the approaches are and what innovations become possible when permaculture principles are specifically integrated into open-space planning.

One flagship project is the “Prinzessinnengarten” in Berlin. On a former brownfield site, an urban garden was developed here in cooperation with residents, initiatives, and planners—a space that not only produces vegetables but also serves as an educational, social, and cultural hub. Composting, rainwater harvesting, biodiversity, and social integration are its cornerstones—and make the site an exemplary testing ground for permaculture in the big city.

In Vienna, too, permaculture-inspired open spaces are increasingly emerging. For example, a public park was developed in the Sonnwendviertel neighborhood based on the principles of the circular economy and biodiversity. Rainwater is collected and used for irrigation; there are community garden beds, insect-friendly plantings, and thoughtfully designed border areas. Maintenance is partly carried out by cooperating neighborhood initiatives, thereby strengthening social participation and responsibility.

In Basel, Switzerland, the “Urban Agriculture Basel” project focuses on integrating permaculture principles into neighborhood management. Here, rooftops, courtyards, and open spaces are systematically designed as productive, multifunctional areas. The goal: to develop food sovereignty, climate adaptation, and social innovation hand in hand. Particularly exciting is the close collaboration with local stakeholders and the integration of urban development, education, and open-space design.

In medium-sized German cities such as Göttingen and Freiburg, more and more “edible cities” are emerging. Here, urban green spaces are systematically enriched with edible plants that citizens are allowed to harvest. The land-use management strategy is based on permaculture principles: utilizing peripheral areas, promoting diversity, and linking ecological, social, and cultural goals. Even traditional parks and recreation departments are increasingly discovering the potential of permaculture interventions, such as “sponge city” elements, species-rich wildflower meadows, or multifunctional rainwater gardens.

These examples show that permaculture is not a niche phenomenon for alternative gardening groups, but rather an innovation strategy that has taken center stage in urban development. It is crucial that these projects be integrated into overall planning not just as isolated initiatives, but as systemic building blocks. Where permaculture becomes a planning principle, resilient, vibrant, and socially just urban spaces emerge that go far beyond ecological benefits.

Strategies, Tools, and Governance: Permaculture in Planning Practice

Integrating permaculture into urban open-space planning requires new planning strategies, tools, and governance models. First and foremost, a fundamental understanding of systems thinking is needed. Traditional instruments such as land-use plans or zoning plans reach their limits when the goal is to create multifunctional, adaptive, and participatory spaces. This calls for flexible planning tools that are oriented toward dynamic processes—such as adaptive master plans, cooperative maintenance agreements, or temporary land-use models.

A key tool is participatory analysis and planning. Methods such as mapping, future workshops, or co-creative design processes help to identify local knowledge and needs. Permaculture design processes often rely on intensive observation and site analysis to identify and strategically harness a location’s potential. Digital tools such as GIS can help visualize spatial synergies and model interactions between land use, the water cycle, and biodiversity.

Governance plays a key role. Traditional top-down management quickly reaches its limits in permaculture projects. Instead, cooperative models are needed in which government, civil society, and local stakeholders share responsibility. Contracting models, public sponsorships, or cooperatives can help ensure the long-term maintenance and further development of permaculture spaces. Transparency is crucial here: Who makes the decisions, who benefits, and who bears responsibility?

Integrating permaculture approaches into existing planning and funding structures remains a challenge. Many funding programs are tailored to traditional green spaces or “investment measures”; securing funding for participatory processes, maintenance, or educational work is often difficult. This calls for a shift in political thinking and new funding instruments that recognize and support the long-term social and ecological benefits of permaculture projects.

Finally, permaculture also presents a communication challenge. Its principles are complex and often require explanation. Professional public relations, transparent communication, and educational programs are therefore essential for gaining acceptance among administrative bodies, policymakers, and the urban community. Anyone who wants to successfully establish permaculture in the city must be persuasive not only in technical terms but also in terms of communication and politics.

For planners, landscape architects, and urban developers, permaculture offers a rich treasure trove of methods—but also the challenge of questioning routines and daring to try something new. The reward: open spaces that set new standards not only ecologically but also socially and culturally.

Perspectives: Opportunities and Limits of Permaculture in the City of Tomorrow

Permaculture is not a panacea, but it is a powerful tool for 21st-century urban development. Its greatest strength lies in its systemic approach: rather than promoting isolated projects, it integrates ecology, economy, and social aspects into a holistic development model. In this way, cities can become not only more climate-resilient, but also more livable, equitable, and innovative.

The opportunities are enormous: Permaculture can help reduce urban heat islands, increase biodiversity, strengthen local food sovereignty, and promote social participation. Cities become more resilient to extreme weather, resources are used more efficiently, and new spaces for education, social interaction, and innovation emerge. Last but not least, permaculture can help optimize land management and design open spaces to be multifunctional.

But there are also limitations. Not every area is suitable for permaculture; conflicts with other land-use demands—such as transportation or housing development—are inevitable. Integrating permaculture into existing legal and planning structures requires patience, creativity, and often political support. Furthermore, there is a risk that permaculture will be misused as a “fig leaf” for greenwashing rather than actually driving systemic change.

The greatest challenge remains the cultural shift in planning and administration. Permaculture demands a new understanding of roles: planners become facilitators, administrative bodies become enablers, and citizens become co-creators. This is unfamiliar, but it also presents an enormous opportunity for innovation and social cohesion. Those who embrace this change will be rewarded with resilient, vibrant, and sustainable cities.

The future of permaculture in the city depends on whether we succeed in permanently integrating its principles into planning and decision-making structures. This requires courage, openness, and a willingness to experiment—but also clear political frameworks and innovative funding models. Permaculture is not an end in itself, but a tool for transforming the city in the Anthropocene. Those who start today can make a difference tomorrow.

The next generation of urban planners and landscape architects faces the challenge of viewing permaculture not as a niche but as an integral part of urban development. The tools and knowledge are there—it’s up to us to use them.

Summary:
Permaculture as a principle for urban open-space planning offers a fascinating, systemic response to many of today’s challenges: climate adaptation, biodiversity, social participation, and sustainable resource use. The principles of permaculture can be successfully applied to urban spaces, as numerous projects in German-speaking countries demonstrate. However, integration into planning processes, governance models, and urban society is crucial—this is where the true innovative power lies. Those who seriously engage with permaculture open up new paths toward a resilient, vibrant, and equitable city. The future of urban open spaces is multifunctional, participatory—and perhaps a little bit permacultural.

17.11.2024

Fairs

Uzin Utz presents its BIM construction database at Digitalbau

Building design

Trade fair

With the floor planning plug-in for ArchiCAD and Revit, planners can integrate the construction chemicals supplier’s systems into their digital processes. Uzin Utz provided information about its BIM application in floor planning at the newly created Digitalbau trade fair in Cologne from February 11 to 13, 2020. At the joint stand with Heinze, visitors were able to test the plug-in with ArchiCAD and Revit. BIM […]

With the floor planning plug-in for ArchiCAD and Revit, planners can integrate the construction chemicals supplier’s systems into their digital processes.

Uzin Utz provided information about its BIM application in floor planning at the newly created Digitalbau trade fair in Cologne from February 11 to 13, 2020. At the joint stand with Heinze, visitors were able to test the plug-in with ArchiCAD and Revit.

Users can use it to select the desired system components via a material query and upload them on a project-specific basis. Concrete ceilings, screed constructions for different loads, tile constructions etc. – around 3,000 parts in total – are output via structured online queries. With the help of the plug-in, all components can be updated automatically and collectively. “BIM will continue to gain in importance due to its benefits such as cost and execution security – for building owners, investors, architects and planners, the building materials industry, the building materials trade, construction companies and specialist tradespeople,” said Philipp Utz on the company’s digitalization strategy.