12.06.2026

Installing a Window Lintel: An Overview of the Definition and Importance

Building design

A white window with a glass front in natural light—a simple close-up of an architectural detail. Photo: iambburson / Unsplash

Every window opening in a wall creates a structural gap in the load-bearing structure that, without specific measures, puts the building at risk. Installing a window lintel closes this gap: It takes on the loads from the masonry above the opening, safely transfers them to the adjacent wall piers, and creates the structural conditions necessary for windows and doors to be installed permanently and securely in walls. Anyone who understands the window lintel understands one of the most fundamental relationships between openings, loads, and the structural framework in solid-wall construction.

What a window lintel is and what structural function it serves
What types of lintels exist and how they differ structurally
How to properly plan and install a window lintel
What materials are used for window lintels and what they are capable of
Which standards and design rules apply to installation
How thermal bridges form at the lintel and how they can be minimized through design
What to consider when retrofitting a window lintel in an existing building
What typical installation errors occur and how to avoid them

What is a window lintel? Definition, function, and structural principles

A window lintel—also referred to as a door lintel when it spans a door opening—is a horizontally oriented load-bearing structural element that closes off the top of a wall opening for a window or door. Its primary function is load transfer: The masonry or concrete structure above the opening cannot itself bridge the vertical and horizontal forces acting there because the opening interrupts the force transmission. The lintel takes on these loads as a flexural beam, distributes them to the supports on both sides in the wall piers, and transfers them from there into the foundation.

Structurally, a window lintel behaves like a beam supported at both ends under a uniformly distributed load. The loads originate from the dead weight of the masonry above the lintel, from floor loads transferred into this wall section, and, if applicable, from wind loads on the facade. The span of the lintel—that is, the clear width of the opening—significantly determines the bending moments that occur and thus the required load-bearing capacity. The wider the opening, the greater the bending moment, and the more massive or reinforced the lintel must be. This basic rule is immutable and applies regardless of the chosen material or construction principle.

The term “window lintel installation” encompasses both the design and sizing of the lintel as well as its craftsmanship. The two are inextricably linked: a correctly sized lintel that is installed incorrectly cannot fulfill its structural function. Conversely, a carefully executed installation cannot compensate for an inadequately dimensioned lintel. In practice, responsibility for planning and execution often lies with different parties, which makes communication between structural engineers, construction management, and the tradespeople carrying out the work a critical factor.

An Overview of Lintel Types: Materials, Shapes, and Design Principles

The most common types of lintels in German masonry construction can be distinguished by material and design principle. Precast reinforced concrete lintels are the most commonly used type in new construction today. They are industrially prefabricated, delivered in standardized dimensions, and installed on-site without the need for complex formwork. Their load-bearing capacity results from the combination of concrete, which absorbs compressive forces, and embedded steel reinforcement, which absorbs tensile forces in the flexural compression zone. Precast lintels conforming to DIN 1045 and the associated product standards are approved for specific load classes and spans; the designer selects the appropriate type based on the design load and the opening width.

In addition to the classic precast reinforced concrete lintel, there is the flat reinforced concrete lintel, which is characterized by a low overall height and is used particularly where the distance between the top edge of the lintel and the bottom edge of the slab is minimal. Flat lintels generally require a concrete cap or are constructed as a composite system with the masonry above, which then functions as a structurally active compression zone. This principle is known as a composite lintel and requires that the masonry above the lintel have a minimum height and be fully laid before the lintel is loaded.

For exposed masonry and historic facades, steel lintels made of rolled sections—often L- or T-sections—are a common solution. They allow for a low structural height and can be concealed behind the masonry, ensuring that the facade view remains uninterrupted. However, steel lintels without corrosion protection and without thermal separation are problematic: Steel conducts heat very well, which leads to significant thermal bridges, and is susceptible to corrosion without a coating or cladding. In modern energy-efficient buildings, therefore, pure steel lintels are rarely used without supplementary insulation measures.

For masonry construction using bricks, calcium silicate blocks, or aerated concrete, the respective system manufacturers offer specially adapted lintel systems. Aerated concrete manufacturers supply reinforced aerated concrete beams that integrate seamlessly into the wall system and offer significantly improved thermal insulation compared to reinforced concrete lintels. Brick manufacturers sell U-shaped brick shells, known as brick lintels or lintel bricks, which serve as permanent formwork and are filled with reinforcement and in-situ concrete. These systems combine the load-bearing capacity of concrete with the thermal and aesthetic qualities of the surrounding masonry.

Installing a Window Lintel: Planning, Design, and Execution Step by Step

The installation of a window lintel begins long before the actual placement of the component on the construction site. During the planning phase, the structural engineer determines the required lintel width, the support length, and the load-bearing capacity class. The support length—that is, the length over which the lintel rests on the masonry on both sides—is a critical factor: It must be sufficient to limit the bearing pressure in the masonry to an allowable level. As a rule of thumb, a minimum support length of about ten to fifteen centimeters applies to many lintel types, with correspondingly greater lengths required for larger spans and higher loads. The exact requirements can be found in the relevant approvals and standards.

On the construction site, installation begins with preparing the supports. The masonry must be level, cover the entire surface, and be sufficiently load-bearing at the support points. Any unevenness is leveled with mortar; placing the lintel on an uneven or incomplete support results in point loads instead of distributed loads and can damage both the lintel and the masonry. Heavy precast lintels are installed using lifting aids or a crane; lighter types can be carried by two people, though care must be taken to ensure the correct installation orientation, as precast lintels have a defined compression zone at the top and a tension zone at the bottom and would fail if installed upside down.

After the lintel is installed, the masonry above is continued. It is important to note that the lintel must be temporarily supported during the masonry work and until the mortar has fully cured, provided that the lintel’s inherent stiffness is insufficient for the construction phase. Precast reinforced concrete lintels are generally designed to withstand the dead loads during the construction phase; composite systems and flat lintels often require scaffolding support until the masonry is activated as a structurally active compression zone. Removing the support before the scheduled time is a classic construction error with potentially serious consequences.

Installation in Existing Structures: Special Considerations for Retrofitting Lintels

Retrofitting a window lintel in an existing building is more challenging than installing one in a new construction because the masonry continues to bear loads during the work. Before the opening is created, the masonry above the planned opening must be temporarily supported. This is done using support beams or support truss structures that divert the loads around the work area. Only once this temporary load transfer is secured may the masonry be removed to create the opening.

The new lintel is then installed in the supported opening. The lintel must be carefully set in mortar, with the joints filled completely to ensure even load transfer. The embedding mortar must be sufficiently hardened before the temporary support is removed. In Germany, structural calculations performed by a licensed structural engineer are generally required for structurally significant modifications of this kind; installation without planning and approval is not only risky from a technical standpoint but also prohibited under building codes.

Thermal Bridges at Window Lintels: Causes, Consequences, and Structural Solutions

Installing a window lintel made of reinforced concrete or steel into an insulated or solid exterior wall almost inevitably creates a thermal bridge. Reinforced concrete has a thermal conductivity of about two watts per meter per kelvin, while steel has a thermal conductivity of around fifty watts per meter per kelvin. Both values are far higher than the thermal conductivities of typical masonry materials such as aerated concrete (approximately 0.09 to 0.20 W/mK) or lightweight brick (approximately 0.10 to 0.30 W/mK). A conventional precast reinforced concrete lintel that extends across the entire wall thickness thus forms a highly thermally conductive path through the exterior wall, which significantly cools the interior wall surface in the lintel area.

This has several consequences: First, the building’s heat loss in the lintel area increases, which raises energy consumption. Second, the surface temperature of the interior wall below the lintel drops, which—under certain indoor air conditions—can lead to water vapor condensation and, consequently, mold growth. Third, the thermal bridge can result in additional computational effort when calculating the energy performance certificate and providing verification in accordance with the Building Energy Act (GEG), which must be offset by other measures.

From a structural standpoint, the thermal bridge at the window lintel can be reduced through various measures. System lintels made of aerated concrete or brick shells filled with in-situ concrete have significantly lower thermal conductivity than pure reinforced concrete lintels and are therefore preferable from an energy efficiency perspective, provided the load-bearing capacity is sufficient. For reinforced concrete lintels, a layer of insulation applied to the exterior of the lintel—either as an insulation wedge or as part of the facade insulation—can significantly reduce the thermal bridge effect. In external thermal insulation composite systems (ETICS), insulation of the lintel area is a standard component of system design. Standardized thermal bridge catalogs and numerical calculation methods in accordance with DIN EN ISO 10211 are available to verify the absence or minimization of thermal bridges.

Standards, Approvals, and Building Code Requirements

The installation of a window lintel in Germany is regulated by a network of standards, general building authority approvals (abZ), and state building codes. The structural design is based on the Eurocodes, in particular Eurocode 2 for concrete components and Eurocode 6 for masonry, which are supplemented in Germany by national annexes. Precast reinforced concrete lintels must be manufactured and installed either in accordance with a harmonized European product standard (such as EN 845-2 for masonry lintels) or in accordance with a general building authority approval issued by the German Institute for Building Technology (DIBt).

Manufacturers’ approvals contain detailed installation instructions that must be strictly adhered to. Among other things, they specify the permissible spans, the required support lengths, the minimum masonry strengths at the supports, the permissible load classes, and the installation direction. Installation that deviates from these specifications invalidates the approval and renders the installation non-compliant with building codes. For the designer, this means that when selecting a lintel product, they must always check the manufacturer’s current approval and incorporate the installation instructions into the construction drawings.

For the retrofit installation of a window lintel in an existing building that involves a change to the building’s structure, a building permit is generally required. The state building codes of the federal states regulate which modifications require a permit; in many cases, the dual-review principle applies, under which a qualified design engineer must assume structural responsibility. Anyone who installs a lintel without this safeguard bears full liability for any resulting damage.

Common Installation Mistakes and How to Identify Them

One of the most common mistakes when installing a window lintel is an insufficient support length. If the lintel rests on the masonry for too short a distance, the support forces are concentrated over too small an area, which can exceed the masonry’s allowable compressive stress and lead to cracks or spalling in the support area. Such damage often does not become apparent until weeks or months later as diagonal cracks in the masonry radiating from the corners of the opening. These characteristic crack patterns are a reliable indication of lintel or support problems and should always be assessed by a professional.

Another common mistake is installation without a full-surface mortar bed. If the lintel rests only at specific points because the support surface was not carefully prepared, bending stresses develop in the lintel that were not accounted for in the design. Particularly with precast lintel products, which are designed for uniform support, localized load transfer can lead to cracks in the lintel itself. Quality assurance on the construction site must therefore include support preparation as a separate inspection point.

Incorrect installation orientation is an error that occurs with precast lintels featuring asymmetrical reinforcement. If such a lintel is installed upside down, the reinforcement is located in the compression zone instead of the tension zone, and the lintel cannot absorb the bending stress. Precast lintels are therefore usually marked to indicate the installation direction. This marking must be checked before installation, which unfortunately does not always happen amid the hustle and bustle of construction site operations.

Finally, the thermal decoupling of the lintel from the exterior wall is often neglected. Particularly in renovation projects where an external thermal insulation composite system is retrofitted, the lintel area sometimes remains uninsulated or is covered with an insulation layer that is too thin. The result is thermal bridges, which become apparent in winter through condensation and mold growth beneath the lintel on the interior wall. Careful detailed planning of the lintel area is therefore essential, even in renovation projects.

The Window Lintel as a Key Structural Element in the Overall Structure

The installation of a window lintel is far more than a routine craftsmanship task. It is a structural intervention in a building’s load-bearing framework that requires planning, sizing, knowledge of materials, and careful execution. Anyone who understands the relationships between opening width, load transfer, bearing pressure, and thermal bridging will recognize why this seemingly inconspicuous component is so often a source of damage in practice when it is not treated with the necessary care.

Choosing the right type of lintel is not purely a structural decision. Energy efficiency requirements, the appearance of the facade, the wall system used, and the component’s sound insulation and fire resistance performance all play a role. Today, system manufacturers offer coordinated products that combine load-bearing capacity, thermal insulation, and ease of installation in a single component. These system solutions are the most economically and technically sound choice for new construction, provided they are installed consistently and in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.

In existing buildings, where interventions in the structural framework are always associated with uncertainties, an expert assessment by a structural engineer is not merely an optional safeguard but a technical and legal necessity. Buildings that have evolved over decades or centuries bear loads in ways that are not always apparent at first glance. A lintel installed in such a building without a full understanding of the existing structural system can cause damage that extends far beyond the immediate installation area. In these cases, investing in sound planning is the most cost-effective decision a building owner can make.

19.01.2026

Digitization

Digital neighborhood analyses at district level

Building design

aerial-view-of-a-town-with-many-houses-sC6IvRuqx-g — An impressive aerial view of a city with numerous houses, taken by Berke Can.

Neighbourhoods in the digital mirror: with modern neighborhood analyses at district level, the city is beginning to understand itself – and often reinvent itself. Between real-time data, citizens’ interests and algorithmic forecasts, planners are facing the biggest challenge since the introduction of the land use plan. Those who fail to recognize the opportunities offered by digital tools are left at an analog dead end.

Definition and development of digital neighborhood analyses and their integration into urban planning processes.
Technical basics: From geodata to AI – which tools and data types are used?
Use and impact: How do digital analyses change neighborhood development, participation and governance?
Practical examples from Germany, Austria and Switzerland – successes, stumbling blocks and lessons learned.
Opportunities for climate resilience, social mix, mobility transition and sustainable land use.
Risks: Data protection, algorithmic distortions and the risk of alienating urban societies.
Legal, technical and cultural hurdles in German-speaking planning practice.
Strategic recommendations for cities, planners and developers venturing into digital neighborhood analyses.

Digitalization of the neighbourhood: from classic social space analysis to real-time neighbourhoods

Anyone who still thinks of neighborhood analyses in terms of transit traffic counts with clipboards and timesheets has overslept the last few years. In the meantime, digital neighborhood analysis has become a highly dynamic field that does not do away with traditional methods, but takes them to a new level. What used to be painstakingly determined through surveys and observations is now created from a fine mesh of real-time data, algorithmic evaluation and participatory feedback. But what is really behind it all?

At its core, digital neighborhood analysis describes the systematic collection, linking and evaluation of a wide range of data on the condition, use and development of a neighborhood. Unlike a rough social area analysis, today it is no longer just demographic and infrastructural key figures that are collected. Instead, mobility flows, residence times, climatic parameters, energy consumption, noise levels, green space quality and even the residents’ subjective perception of safety are digitized, collated and analysed. Thanks to sensor technology, geoinformation systems and artificial intelligence, a living, multidimensional image of the neighborhood is being created.

This development is not an end in itself. It is the answer to the increasing complexity of urban spaces, where traditional static analyses quickly reach their limits. Neighborhoods today are highly dynamic systems with diverse interactions. A new café, a building site or a heavy rainfall event can change the fabric within hours. Digital neighborhood analysis creates the conditions for reacting flexibly to such changes – or even anticipating them.

What is particularly exciting is that digital analyses can not only capture the purely spatial aspects of a neighborhood, but also the social aspects. By evaluating anonymized mobile phone data, social media feeds or online participation platforms, patterns of use, wishes and problems of residents can be made visible. This creates a holistic picture that goes far beyond the traditional planning perspective.

The digitalization of neighbourhood analysis is therefore not a technical gimmick, but a new form of urban intelligence. It enables planning that is no longer based solely on experience and gut feeling, but on reliable, up-to-date and multi-linked data. And it opens up the opportunity not just to manage the city, but to actively shape it.

Technical foundations: data, sensors and AI – the digital nervous system of the neighborhood

The basis of every digital neighborhood analysis is a data-driven ecosystem, the complexity of which is often underestimated. At its heart is geodata, which is fed from a wide variety of sources. Traditional cadastral data and official statistics only form the foundation. The real magic comes from the integration of real-time data from sensors, mobility providers, energy suppliers, weather stations, public WLANs, sharing services and even smart home systems. This transforms the neighborhood into an “Internet of Neighborhood Things” – a dense network that regularly provides up-to-date information.

Sensor technology is no longer limited to traffic counts or environmental measurements. Modern LoRaWAN sensors record particulate matter, temperature, humidity, noise, light intensity and movement profiles – and do so comprehensively, cost-effectively and with low maintenance. There are also crowd data approaches: Residents themselves provide valuable information via apps, social networks and digital participation platforms, for example on problem areas, quality of stay or conflicts of use.

What happens to this data is decided by the next layer of analysis: powerful algorithms and artificial intelligence. They recognize patterns, calculate forecasts and simulate scenarios. For example, it is possible to model how a new traffic routing will affect noise distribution, how the microclimate will change with additional greenery or how social infrastructure will have to adapt to the development of the neighborhood. The demands are high: it’s about more than just pretty visualization – it’s about well-founded decision support in real time.

Open interfaces, so-called Open Urban Platforms, play a decisive role here. They ensure that data from different systems can communicate with each other – without proprietary isolated solutions or data monopolies. This is the only way to create a holistic, interoperable picture of the neighborhood that can be used and further developed by various stakeholders.

The requirements for data protection, data sovereignty and cybersecurity should not be underestimated. The more granular and up-to-date the data, the greater the responsibility in handling it. The development of legally compliant, transparent and comprehensible analysis processes is therefore one of the key tasks for planners, technology service providers and local authorities alike.

New planning reality: how digital neighborhood analyses are changing districts

The establishment of digital neighborhood analyses is fundamentally changing the rules of the game in neighborhood development. Planning is becoming more dynamic, more interactive and – in the best case – more inclusive. Suddenly, planners can not only document current conditions, but also simulate future developments and weigh up different scenarios against each other. A new residential district? The effects on traffic, infrastructure, microclimate and social mix are no longer a guessing game, but can be estimated based on data.

An illustrative example: In Zurich, all movement data in public spaces was evaluated anonymously as part of a Smart City project. The analysis showed that certain places were avoided despite their attractive design – because they were perceived as unsafe. Only the combination of quantitative movement data and qualitative feedback from a digital participation platform revealed the causes: lack of lighting, poor sightlines, lack of social control. The city was able to make targeted adjustments – and visibly improve the quality of life.

Digital neighborhood analyses are also a key to climate-resilient neighborhoods. In Vienna, for example, particulate matter and temperature data is evaluated in real time in order to identify heat islands and to green them in a targeted manner. In Hamburg, mobility data is used to assess the effectiveness of traffic calming measures and to optimize neighbourhood mobility. These examples show: The possibilities extend far beyond the classic survey of existing traffic.

The influence on governance in the neighborhood is particularly significant. Digital analyses make connections visible that previously remained hidden in the fog of subjective perception. They promote the transparency of planning processes and enable a more precise, fact-based discussion between administration, politicians and residents. Participation thus becomes not only more digital, but also more substantial – as long as the data is open and comprehensibly accessible.

Of course, not all that glitters digitally is gold. The use of digital tools can also lead to alienation if the technology becomes a black box and citizens feel excluded. This is where planners and local authorities are called upon to establish digital neighborhood analyses as an instrument of understanding – not as a substitute for dialogue, but as its catalyst.

Practice and perspective: opportunities, risks and the German-speaking reality

In practice, the picture is quite mixed. While international pioneers such as Helsinki and Singapore have long been using digital city models as a basis for neighborhood decisions, German-speaking countries are often even more cautious. Cities such as Hamburg, Munich and Zurich have set up initial pilot projects, but the big leap towards the widespread use of digital neighborhood analyses has yet to be made in many places. There are many reasons for this: technical hurdles, a lack of standards, uncertainty about data protection and governance and, last but not least, cultural reservations about algorithmic planning.

Nevertheless, successful examples show the potential that can be tapped. In Vienna, for example, digital neighborhood analyses are being systematically integrated into urban development planning. Neighborhood profiles are created there that map climate resilience, social mix, mobility options and energy consumption in real time. The results flow directly into competitions, development plans and investment decisions. In Zurich, the Smart City Lab demonstrates how the combination of real-time data, visualization and citizen participation can not only accelerate planning processes, but also increase the acceptance of new projects.

Risks exist in particular in the danger of algorithmic distortions. If data sources are unrepresentative or algorithms make non-transparent decisions, social imbalances can be exacerbated instead of remedied. The risk of excessive commercialization is also real: if large technology companies gain data sovereignty over neighbourhoods, urban development threatens to become the plaything of private interests.

The legal framework in German-speaking countries continues to be a stumbling block. Data protection laws, the separation of responsibilities between the federal, state and local authorities and the lack of binding standards make it difficult to introduce the system across the board. Added to this is the often small-scale administrative structure, which slows down rather than promotes innovation. But here, too, the following applies: those who invest early on create a strategic advantage – and can help shape standards instead of being overrun by them.

What remains is the realization that digital neighborhood analyses are not a panacea, but a tool – one that offers enormous added value when used wisely, but also creates new responsibilities. The key to success lies in the combination of technical excellence, open governance and a culture of dialog that sees the city and neighbourhood as a living organism.

Strategies for the future: recommendations for planners, municipalities and developers

Any planner, local authority or developer who wants to venture into the world of digital neighborhood analyses faces an exciting but challenging task. The most important recommendation is: technology is never an end in itself. It is crucial to ask the right questions and choose the right tools. Start with a clear analysis of the objectives: Is it about traffic optimization, climate adaptation, social integration or all of the above? Each goal requires its own data, methods and participation formats.

Rely on open, interoperable platforms instead of isolated solutions. This is the only way to flexibly expand data sources and integrate different stakeholders. Invest in the data expertise of your own teams – and create interfaces to external experts from IT, social sciences and communication. Digital neighborhood analyses are teamwork, not an individual discipline.

Don’t forget the people in the neighborhood. Digital participation is not a one-way street, but thrives on transparency and feedback. Explain what data is collected and how it is used. Actively involve residents – for example via digital reporting platforms, participatory workshops or visualizations that even laypeople can understand. If you operate digital neighborhood analysis as a black box, you will lose trust and acceptance.

Establish clear rules for data use, data protection and governance. Define who has access to which information, how decisions are documented in a comprehensible manner and how errors or distortions are identified and corrected. Remember: with every new technology, the responsibility towards urban society and democracy also grows.

Finally: Have the courage to innovate. Digital neighborhood analysis is not a rigid recipe, but a dynamic learning process. Mistakes are unavoidable, but also valuable – as long as they are made transparent and used to improve. Those who close their minds to digital change are planning for the city of yesterday. Those who shape it will shape the neighborhoods of tomorrow.

Conclusion: Digital neighborhood analysis – a compass for the city of the future

Digital neighborhood analyses at district level mark a paradigm shift in urban and open space planning. They create the basis for forward-looking, resilient and participatory development of urban spaces – and are therefore far more than just another technical tool. They make the dynamics of the district visible, promote a new dialog between planning, politics and society and give the city a voice that comes not just from the drawing board, but from real life. They are not a sure-fire success, but require technical expertise, open governance and a good dose of courage to question old ways of thinking. But it’s worth the effort: if you use digital neighborhood analyses wisely, you can turn data into real quality of life – and set the course for the city of the future. With this in mind, welcome to the reality of tomorrow, which begins today.

23.01.2025

Event

Baumeister student competition

Building design

Competition

RWTH Aachen and TU Munich are the most successful universities in this year’s student competition organized by Baumeister and Nemetschek Allplan Systems.

RWTH Aachen and TU Munich are the most successful universities in this year’s student competition organized by Baumeister and Nemetschek Allplan Systems. A TU team won with its submission on the subject of “Three houses under one roof”, “Curia House on Roncalliplatz in Cologne” and “Diving Bunker”, the titles of the two winners from Aachen. The theme of the competition was additions to storeys, under the title “That’s the height!” 16 universities with a total of 33 entries responded to our call.

The jury could not (and did not want to) decide on an exact order this year. The projects in the final round simply excelled with too many different aspects. They agreed on three equal prizes in the categories “Housing”, “Public Building” and “Conversion”. Each prize-winning work received prize money of 1,500 euros. Three further projects were recognized and awarded prize money of 250 euros each.

All winning projects and recognitions will be published in Baumeister 7/2014 with the jury’s assessments. We would like to congratulate the winners and thank them for their fantastic entries!

The winners are:

Category “Living”

Barbara Trojer, Markus Munzig, Cosima Krubasik from the Technical University of Munich for their submission “Three houses under one roof”, prize money: 1,500 euros

Category “Public Building”

Patrick Knüppe from the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen for his submission “Kurienhaus am Roncalliplatz in Cologne”, prize money: 1,500 euros

Category “Conversion”:

Thomas Haber from the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen for his submission “Tauchbunker”, prize money: 1,500 euros

Recognition and prize money of 250 euros each:

Janna Lane and Jan Hendrik Lorenzen, Lübeck University of Applied Sciences

Felix Broer, Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts

Acar and Xi Li, Berlin University of Technology

The jury:

Dr. Matthias Castorph, Götz Castorph Architekten und Stadtplaner (jury chairman)

Philipp Auer, Auer+Weber+Assoziierte

Susanna Knopp, 4architekten

Lorenz Lachauer, Nemetschek Allplan Systems

Mauritz Lüps, Atelier Lüps

Sabine Schneider, Baumeister