The award ceremony for the German Landscape Architecture Prize 2021 will take place tonight, May 13, 2022. Around 400 guests are expected at the Allianz Forum at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. Lohaus – Carl – Köhlmos will be honored with the first prize for the project “Westpark Augsburg”. Congratulations from the G+L editorial team! Everything you need to know about the winning project […]

The award ceremony for the German Landscape Architecture Prize 2021 will take place tonight, May 13, 2022. Around 400 guests are expected at the Allianz Forum at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin. Lohaus – Carl – Köhlmos will be honored with the first prize for the project “Westpark Augsburg”. Congratulations from the G+L editorial team! Tanja Gallenmüller, an Augsburg native and long-time G+L editor, tells us everything you need to know about the winning project.

I still remember the loud rumble of the heavy tanks of the Americans stationed in Augsburg when they drove past our apartment on their way back to their barracks from the maneuvers outside the city. Thousands of Augsburg residents worked there. Day in, day out, they passed the barrier to the Sheridan or Reese barracks. But despite the presence of the soldiers in the everyday lives of many Augsburgers, the military areas, which together covered more than 100 hectares, were a fenced-in island – America in the middle of Bavarian Swabia, so to speak. Today, nothing can be seen or felt of this spatial barrier in the city and the surrounding area of Augsburg with its local recreation area Westliche Wälder.

Since 2006, the Westpark, an open, spacious and modern landscape park with a path meandering from south to north as the main structuring and connecting element, has been created on the former barracks grounds. The park achieves what was not possible for decades: to link the districts of Pfersee and Kriegshaber as a continuous green corridor in the west of Augsburg and to open up the city center to the surrounding countryside. The acceptance and popularity of the park among the otherwise rather skeptical Augsburg residents confirms that the long process is worthwhile. And now the project has also won over the jury of the 2021 German Landscape Architecture Award.

The withdrawal of the American armed forces in 1998 presented Augsburg with a unique opportunity: the conversion of a military wasteland as an impetus for the overall development of the western part of Augsburg. The city seized this opportunity and, through its urban development company AGS, purchased the land from the Federal Agency for Real Estate (BImA) in order to develop new residential and commercial sites. The early and intensive involvement of citizens quickly made it clear that the new districts had to compensate for the considerable lack of open space in the adjacent neighborhoods. The ideas and suggestions from the citizens that emerged from various participation workshops were initially incorporated into an urban planning competition for the Sheridan site, which was won in 2002 by the Frankfurt office BS+.

The architects came up with a classic tripartite division of the elongated site: residential in the east towards the city center, a park in the center and commercial in the west along the B17. The open space planning competition held in 2004 was based on this clear framework. The realization part of the competition sought concrete proposals for the park on the former Sheridan site and the ideas part for the area of the Reese barracks and their interconnection. While most of the competition entries attempted to structure the open space with geometric shapes, the design by landscape architects Lohaus – Carl – Köhlmos from Hanover did not convince all of the jury members, but it immediately won over the client.

The wide, meandering main path, which drifts apart here and there to form islands that offer space for play, sport and planting, is a memorable image. It is reminiscent of the nearby Wertach floodplains. In the competition, the flexible form of the path was the best response to the large stock of trees on the barracks grounds, which are worth preserving. After extensive mapping work, the trees were largely preserved and integrated into the new park. Loosely scattered in the partly extensive meadows to the right and left of the main path, they underline the effect desired by the landscape architects, which is intended to evoke the vastness of the American landscape. The history of the site is also evident in other places: Lohaus + Carl preserved some of the barracks buildings. ARCHE e.V., for example, found its home in the former commandant’s office.

The Chapel is a defining landmark, as is the casino. The former sports hall on Appellplatz opposite the Kommandantur had to be demolished, as did most of the other buildings, due to the high level of pollution. The roll call square was also preserved in its original form. Today you can play beach volleyball, streetball and table tennis there. The landscape architects chose North American tree species, prairie shrubs and grasses for the planting of some of the path islands. However, the originally planned in-situ concrete for the main path, which is often used for footpaths in the USA, had to give way to an asphalt surface due to the climate and experience in Augsburg.

The play and sports facilities on the variously sized islands within the path demonstrate a great deal of creativity and courage on the part of the planners and builders. A water playground, skate hills, climbing rocks, a hedge maze with trampolines, grassy hills or boulders in a birch grove awaken the spirit of discovery and offer challenges. And that is the intention, according to Irene Lohaus. After all, where else can children today move freely and test their limits without the danger of car traffic or constant parental supervision? The playground in the first construction phase of the Reesepark, which opened last year, makes the latter possible. The area, which is modeled on a riverbed with a concrete slide and impact slope that drops three meters from the edge of the path, offers ropes, nets, beams and a slide, the breakneck use of which makes many parents break out in a sweat. The other play and sports islands promise even more adventure: including a volcano landscape for skaters and BMXers, calisthenics and a woodchip soccer pitch.

The citizens’ wish for the Reesepark, whose urban planning idea dates back to the 2003 Europan competition, was to fill it with different offerings than in Sheridanpark, based on the same spatial structure of main path and islands. Lohaus – Carl – Köhlmos have complied with this. With foresight, they were also commissioned by the city to realize the second large part of the Westpark. With this decision, not only the functional, but also the design unity of the entire park and its two main areas Sheridan and Reese was achieved, whose meandering main path also continues as a theme across the streets, neighborhoods and Sullivanpark along the West Cemetery in between.

The Supplypark is the only small break in the otherwise coherent overall concept. This was planned by the investor of the adjacent residential area even before the competition for the Westpark. It briefly makes you wonder what the west of Augsburg would look like in 2021 if the BImA had not sold it to the city or its subsidiary AGS, but to various investors. But fortunately, this question no longer arises in Augsburg.

Client: Augsburger Gesellschaft für Stadtentwicklung und Immobilienbetreuung GmbH (AGS), City of Augsburg

Period Sheridanpark: 2008 to 2014; Reesepark: since 2014; Sullivanpark: since 2016

Size: around 45 hectares (new building), 60 hectares (total park)

Construction costs: Open space around 12 million euros (net), with funds from the Urban Redevelopment West program

Landscape architects: Lohaus – Carl – Köhlmos landscape architects + urban planners

Read more about the German Landscape Architecture Award 2021 here.

The article by Tanja Gallenmüller first appeared in G+L 05/17 on the topic of “Conversion”.

Good floor plans are like successful punchlines: they work without forcing themselves into the foreground. But while spectacular façades and fancy renderings are universally acclaimed, the fine art of floor plan planning usually remains invisible – and that is precisely its greatest talent. Why the inconspicuous floor plan is taking center stage, especially in times of digital transformation and the sustainable building revolution, remains strangely underestimated in the industry. Time to break the taboo.

• Floor plans are the silent backbone of architecture – and yet they are often underestimated.
• In German-speaking countries, there is a wide gap between aspiration and reality in floor plan planning.
• Digital tools and AI are changing the methodology, but not the fundamental problem: quality remains difficult to measure.
• Sustainability starts with the floor plan – space efficiency, flexibility and life cycle are more important than ever.
• Technical know-how ranges from knowledge of standards to BIM expertise – but without spatial thinking, everything remains theory.
• The debate about standardization, typologies and social responsibility is more topical than ever.
• Global role models show: Invisible planning is the basis for visible innovation.
• Visionaries demand: The floor plan must once again become a topic of discourse – and one at eye level.

The silent power of floor plan art: invisible but indispensable

The floor plan is the secret DNA of every building. What at first glance appears to be a banal line layout on white paper is actually the matrix that shapes our everyday lives. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, great importance is traditionally attached to this skill – at least in the industry’s Sunday speeches. But the reality is sobering: Between DIN standards, living space regulations and cost pressure, genuine innovation often falls by the wayside. If you take a look at the current housing market, you quickly realize: the standard floor plan rules, efficiency is placed above all else, and spatial quality is rarely a selection criterion. This is not due to a lack of creativity, but to the balancing act between ideal and feasibility.

In an age in which architectural attention is primarily focused on external design, choice of materials and staging, the floor plan has become a mere compulsory exercise. Yet it is precisely its invisibility that is its greatest trump card: if it succeeds, nobody notices that it exists at all. Only when it fails does its significance become painfully tangible – in the form of passageways, blind spots, cramped kitchens or anonymous corridor zones. The floor plan is the stage on which daily life is staged, and yet it remains as anonymous as a good ghostwriter.

However, this invisibility is no coincidence, but the result of decades of routines and an understanding of planning that places efficiency above experience. The DACH region is characterized by standardization and typification. Residential construction projects are designed according to grid dimensions, price per square meter and parking space regulations. The floor plan serves as an Excel sheet with walls. And yet: the best projects are created where floor plans are not seen as a necessary evil, but as a spatial promise. A promise that takes quality of life, flexibility and social change seriously.

Anyone who claims that the floor plan is an anachronism in the age of digital tools has not understood the nature of architecture. The greatest innovations are created in the invisible. A well-planned floor plan is like a tailor-made suit: it fits without pinching, adapts to every movement and only reveals its value years later. The trick is to make this quality measurable – a task that planners and developers regularly struggle with.

But why is that? Because the floor plan is far more than just a technical drawing. It is an expression of social ideas, economic constraints, technical innovations and cultural expectations. Its invisibility is not a weakness, but a strength – provided it is consciously designed. The question is: who today dares to radically rethink floor plans instead of just optimizing them?

Digital transformation: from the drawing board to algorithmic architecture

Digitalization has turned floor plan planning on its head. What used to take hours to create using pencils, tracing paper and templates is now created using BIM software, parametric tools or even AI assistants. The hope: more precision, fewer errors, faster creation of variants. In practice, however, it is clear that the quality of the end product still depends on people, not machines. Germany, Austria and Switzerland are not pioneers, but at best solid followers. While AI-based tools such as Spacemaker, Testfit or PlanFinder have long been tried out in international architecture firms, the PDF still reigns supreme in this country.

However, the new tools certainly have their place. They make it possible to generate countless floor plan variants in the shortest possible time, maximize space efficiency and optimize technical parameters such as lighting, access and acoustics. AI-supported analyses identify problem areas, suggest interface optimizations and even simulate subsequent furnishability. What sounds like digital magic at first glance is in fact the consistent rethinking of familiar routines. However, the creative spark often falls by the wayside. This is because algorithms can optimize, but rarely inspire.

This leads to a paradoxical situation: it has never been easier to standardize floor plans – and it has never been more difficult to generate real innovation. The temptation is great to rely on automated solutions and delegate one’s own judgment to the software. However, good floor plans are not created by ticking off checklists, but through spatial thinking, empathy and experience. Digitalization can support, but not replace. It creates transparency, comparability and efficiency – but it does not relieve planners of their responsibility.

The integration of BIM systems in particular has revolutionized planning processes. Floor plans are no longer static drawings, but multidimensional data models that depict all life cycle phases of a building. This opens up new possibilities for collaboration, cost control and sustainability assessment. But here too, without a solid basic knowledge of standards, typologies and user requirements, even the most beautiful software remains just an expensive toy.

The biggest challenge remains the interface between man and machine. Anyone who believes that AI will soon spit out the perfect floor plan is very much mistaken. The art of the floor plan still lies in the subtle interplay of experience, intuition and technical finesse. Digital change is both an opportunity and a risk – and is forcing the industry to radically question its skills.

Sustainability starts with the floor plan – and yet remains invisible

Everyone is talking about the building revolution, but the floor plan remains a blind spot in most discussions. Yet the sustainability of a building is already decided on paper: space efficiency, flexibility, adaptability and the possibility of conversion are key levers for conserving resources and protecting the climate. In German-speaking countries, this realization is increasingly being discussed, but rarely implemented consistently. The influence of investors is too strong, the requirements of housing subsidies too strict and the fear of vacancies too great.

Innovative approaches such as reversible floor plans, open structures or communal forms of living are still the exception. If you look around the housing market, you will still find the classic three-room model, the standardized kitchen and the separate bathroom. However, social realities are changing rapidly: patchwork families, working from home, multi-generational households and sharing concepts demand new floor plan solutions. The invisibility of the floor plan becomes a problem here – it prevents innovation from becoming visible and open to discussion.

Sustainability in the floor plan also means thinking about life cycles. Buildings must not only function for the first user, but for generations. This requires walls to be movable, rooms to be divisible and access to be flexible. Technical tools such as BIM can help to run through scenarios and simulate conversion capability. But in the end, it’s planning courage that counts. The international trend is towards adaptive structures, multifunctional spaces and radical simplicity. Germany, Austria and Switzerland are lagging behind – not technically, but in terms of thinking.

Another aspect is space equity. Sustainability is not just a question of gray energy, but also of social responsibility. Whoever plans floor plans decides on inclusion or exclusion, on participation or segregation. This applies to subsidized housing construction as well as urban redensification or neighborhood developments. The floor plan is political – no matter how invisible it may appear.

The big challenge is to make sustainability measurable and visible in the floor plan. Key figures such as land consumption per capita, deconstruction potential or flexibility of use could become standard. They are not yet – and that is a missed opportunity. Anyone who continues to see floor plans purely as a balance of space is stuck in the last century. The building turnaround begins in the invisible.

Technical expertise, social aspirations and the curse of standardization

The floor plan is no longer just a matter of drawing. Anyone planning today must be able to do more than just memorize a few DIN standards. In addition to building regulations and design details, technical knowledge also includes digital skills: BIM, parametric planning, data modeling and interface management are mandatory, not optional. But all this is of little use if the spatial imagination is lacking. The best algorithm is no substitute for a sense of proportion, light, movement and atmosphere.

With digitalization, the pressure to standardize is growing. Modular systems, typologies, grid dimensions and industrial prefabrication promise efficiency – and yet often lead to spatial monotony. The balancing act between cost-effectiveness and individual quality is becoming ever greater. Anyone planning a floor plan today is juggling interests that rarely coincide: cost efficiency, sustainability, user satisfaction, technical feasibility and regulatory requirements. The temptation to rely on tried and tested schemes is great – but it inevitably leads to mediocrity.

At the same time, social demands are growing. Floor plans are becoming the venue for questions of inclusion, accessibility, gender equality and social mix. In the relevant discourses, there is a lot of talk about facades and urban planning, but too little about the social logic of the floor plan. This is where it is decided whether buildings are liveable, equitable and sustainable. The invisibility of the floor plan is both a curse and a blessing: it protects against vanity, but also prevents debate.

An international comparison shows that outstanding solutions are created where the floor plan is made an issue. Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands and Japan rely on open discourse, experimental typologies and participatory planning processes. German-speaking countries remain reserved, self-critical and sometimes too comfortable. Visionaries are calling for the floor plan to become a topic of discourse again – not as a compulsory technical exercise, but as a social promise.

The future of floor plans lies in the intelligent combination of technical know-how, social responsibility and design quality. Those who make the invisible visible win. Those who rely on standardization lose. The choice lies with the planners – and with the society that lives in their buildings.

Discourse, debate and the return of the floor plan to the limelight

It is high time to reopen the floor plan debate. Because behind the invisibility lies a whole world of design possibilities, challenges and innovations. In recent years, a certain weariness has spread through the architecture scene: everything has already been seen, everything has already been built, everything has already been optimized. But it is precisely the major social upheavals – climate change, demographic change, digitalization – that call for new spatial responses. The floor plan is the decisive tool for this.

Criticism of current practice is justified. Too many projects rely on copy-paste typologies, too few dare to think radically new. The fear of mistakes, cost explosions and vacancies paralyzes innovation. However, this is not a law of nature, but a question of courage. Those who once again see the floor plan as a field for experimentation open up new perspectives: for communal living, for adaptive working environments, for sustainable urban development. The big vision: floor plans that not only work, but also inspire – and as quietly as possible.

The importance of the floor plan has long been recognized in international discourse. Competitions, research projects and publications are dedicated to the question of how spaces must be designed in a digitalized, sustainable and diverse society. The best solutions are created where planners, users and technology work together as equals. The floor plan is not a relic, but a laboratory – open to mistakes, surprises and radical simplicity.

Of course, there are also dissenting voices. Some warn against the over-engineering of planning, algorithmic monotony and social coldness. Others call for more courage to embrace imperfection, more room for spontaneity and less optimization mania. As is so often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between: The floor plan must be able to do both – function and surprise, be efficient and inspire. Those who master the invisible have mastered the true art of architecture.

The question remains: how do you get floor plans back into the limelight? The answer is simple and uncomfortable at the same time: by making it visible. Through courageous projects, an open culture of error, interdisciplinary collaboration – and through an honest exchange about what doesn’t work. The time of hiding floor plans is over. Planning today means planning for the future – and that starts on paper.

Conclusion: Invisible planning as the key to a building turnaround

The art of the floor plan is not a nostalgic relic, but the backbone of sustainable architecture. In an industry that thrives on visible innovations, it is the invisible that ultimately determines success or failure. Digital tools and sustainability debates are changing the rules of the game – but the real task remains: To design spaces that work, inspire and remain changeable. Those who limit themselves to ticking off floor plans as a compulsory technical exercise will be overtaken by reality. Those who see them as an invisible stage for life will create the conditions for a real building turnaround. It is time for the art of floor plans to become visible again – precisely because it wants to remain invisible.