Photovoltaics: Cleverly integrated for sustainable architecture

Building design
a-row-of-windows-at-the-side-of-a-building-l4Gce31lsJc

View of a modern façade with a row of windows - Photo by Paul Teysen

Photovoltaics and architecture: that sounds like dreams of the future, of glass façades that supply electricity, of iconic roofs that are not only rainproof but also climate-friendly. But what is really behind the clever integration of PV technologies into buildings? And why is the German-speaking world of all places finding it so difficult, despite all the solar euphoria? Time for an unsparing look at the figures, myths and, above all, the challenges. After all, it’s not about green fig leaves, but about the energy self-determination of architecture.

  • The status quo: photovoltaics in DACH between new beginnings, bureaucracy and building culture debate
  • Technological innovations: From building-integrated PV modules to façades as power plants
  • Digitalization and AI: Planning, monitoring and performance optimization in the solar age
  • Sustainability: PV as the key to decarbonization and a challenge for aesthetics and materiality
  • Technical know-how: What planners, engineers and architects really need to know
  • Professional policy: How photovoltaics is changing the way architecture sees itself
  • Criticism and visions: From solar aesthetics to the question of gray energy
  • Global discourse: What DACH can – and wants to – learn from China, California and co.

PV in practice: Between the will to innovate, building authorities and provincial posse

Let’s start with an uncomfortable truth: Germany, Austria and Switzerland are considered solar pioneers on paper. But a look at the built reality shows a different picture. While roofs on detached houses are often adorned with solar modules, the large-scale, architecturally sophisticated integration of photovoltaics into public and commercial buildings remains a rarity. There are many reasons for this, ranging from notoriously complicated approval procedures and a federal jungle of building regulations to an astonishingly tough debate on building culture. Anyone who has ever tried to push through a PV façade in a listed old town knows that the future of solar energy often fails because of the German provincial pose.

The situation is paradoxical: on the one hand, every political strategy paper talks about decarbonization, climate neutrality and the goal of constructing new buildings with energy surpluses. On the other hand, conservative design statutes, hesitant administrations and a construction industry that still prefers to install standard solutions rather than take risks are slowing things down. Austria and Switzerland show a similar picture: While Switzerland is at least scoring points with innovative pilot projects in the field of building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV), widespread implementation remains sluggish here too. Although one or two solar icons are emerging in Vienna, there is no benchmark for nationwide integration.

They do exist, the lighthouses: office buildings with PV glass façades, schools with solar shells, residential districts that supply themselves with energy. But they are the exception, not the rule. They are often celebrated as pilot projects, end up in architecture magazines – and yet remain unique. The reasons? In addition to the familiar regulatory hurdles, the fear of design arbitrariness also plays a role. After all, the image of blue, clunky PV modules from the noughties runs deep. If you want to go solar as an architect, you not only have to rethink technology, but also aesthetics.

The great irony is that while China has long since developed an industrial PV aesthetic and solar roofs have become the legal standard in California, the German architectural discourse is still debating whether solar is “beautiful”. Yet research has long shown that the materials and colors of PV modules can now be designed in almost any way. What is missing is the courage to produce series – and a regulatory framework that sees innovation not as an exception, but as a new norm.

The result is a patchwork quilt: in some municipalities, every new roof is covered with PV, elsewhere a citizens’ petition is enough to overturn the bylaws. Technical feasibility is rarely the problem. The real question is: when will photovoltaics in architecture go from being an add-on to a matter of course? And who will bring about the necessary cultural change?

Technological leaps: from rooftop systems to solar construction kits

Anyone talking about photovoltaics in architecture should not be content with yesterday’s clichés. The technology has made a quantum leap in recent years. Building-integrated photovoltaics (BIPV) has long been more than just sticking standard modules onto roofs. Today we are talking about fully active façades, translucent PV glass, roof tiles that produce electricity and solar cells that disappear into the concrete. The variety of materials ranges from crystalline silicon cells and thin-film technologies to organic PV modules that can be bent or even printed.

These new technologies open up unimagined design possibilities for architects and planners. Façades can become power plants without the building losing its identity. Window fronts produce energy while remaining transparent. Roof surfaces become a design surface for architectural signatures. Today, anyone who wants to can use photovoltaics as subtly or as conspicuously as the concept demands. However, all this potential is of little use if it does not penetrate into the everyday work of planners. BIPV too often remains a special solution for competitions instead of becoming the standard answer to energy requirements.

Another field of innovation is system integration. Modern PV systems are no longer self-sufficient black boxes. They network with building automation systems, connect to battery storage systems or heat pumps and supply data for the energy management of the entire district. Integration into BIM-based planning processes makes it possible to simulate yield forecasts, shading analyses and life cycle costs in the early design phases. This makes planning data-driven and dynamic – and calls for new skills.

However, as the technology grows, so does the complexity. Planners have to deal with inverter concepts, wiring topologies, fire protection requirements and maintenance concepts. The traditional interface between architecture and building technology is shifting. If you want to integrate PV cleverly, you have to think in an interdisciplinary way – and be prepared to take responsibility for detailed technical issues. The days when solar technology was left to electricians are over.

The biggest challenge, however, remains cost-effectiveness. Although module prices are falling steadily, the costs for integration, maintenance and monitoring are still high – especially for individual façade solutions. Subsidy programs help, but they are often tailored to classic rooftop systems. If you want innovation, you have to overcome bureaucratic hurdles. The question is: when will the new technologies make it out of the niche – and how can architecture become a driver instead of a brake pad?

Digitalization and AI: photovoltaics as a data and control discipline

Photovoltaics is no longer just a question of module surface area and alignment. Digitalization and artificial intelligence are revolutionizing the planning, control and optimization of solar systems – and thus also their architectural added value. Digital tools that calculate shading, radiation intensity and yield simulation not only for individual buildings but for entire districts are already being used in site analysis. BIM models integrate PV components directly into the design planning and thus enable early consideration of cable routes, installation points and maintenance scenarios.

But that’s not all: during operation, AI-based energy management systems take over monitoring, detect sources of error, optimize self-consumption and control feed-in to the grid. Combined with weather data, consumption forecasts and dynamic electricity prices, the result is an intelligent system that not only produces electricity, but also actively contributes to grid stability. For architects, this means that the design of PV systems becomes a control task – and an interface between hardware, software and user experience.

Another game changer is the linking of PV systems with smart building technologies. Sensor technology not only measures electricity production, but also the temperature development on the façade, the wind load or the degree of soiling of the modules. This data flows into digital twins of the building and enables continuous optimization – from cleaning to tracking the modules. If you want to integrate PV cleverly, you need to understand how digital systems work, how data flows are organized and what interfaces to other trades look like.

In district development, the importance of platform solutions that bundle several solar projects, aggregate yields and market them together is growing. Digitalization makes it possible to dynamically distribute energy flows, store surpluses or share them with neighbors. This makes photovoltaics an infrastructure task – and an opportunity for new business models. But here too, without a technical understanding of data management, IT security and system integration, even the best solar idea remains theory.

The question of data sovereignty remains critical. The more control and monitoring are digitized, the greater the risks of cyber attacks, system errors or black box algorithms. Anyone taking on responsibility as an architect or planner must also deal with IT risks, data protection and system resilience. The future of photovoltaics is digital – but only if the industry is prepared to develop the necessary skills and redefine its role in the data age.

Sustainability Reloaded: PV between climate savior, grey energy and aesthetics debate

Photovoltaics is seen as the wonder weapon of the energy transition – at least in political communication. But how sustainable is the technology when you take a closer look? The balance is ambivalent. On the one hand, PV supplies emission-free electricity, reduces the carbon footprint of buildings and makes neighborhoods less dependent on fossil fuels. On the other hand, the industry faces massive challenges: From the extraction of raw materials to production and recycling, many questions remain unanswered. Silicon, rare earths, energy consumption during production – the gray energy of solar modules remains a blind spot in the sustainability discourse.

For architects and planners, this means that anyone who wants to integrate PV cleverly has to deal with life cycle analysis, life cycle assessment and recycling options. Although new module technologies promise lower CO₂ emissions and higher recycling rates, market penetration remains low. The classic silicon module, whose production chain is rarely transparent, still dominates. The challenge is to think of sustainability not just as an electricity balance, but as an overall concept – from raw material extraction to dismantling.

Another point of discussion: aesthetics. PV modules are not invisible – and they permanently change the appearance of buildings. The question of whether a solar roof is “beautiful” remains controversial. While some architects celebrate innovative solutions that showcase solar cells as a design element, others fear the loss of building culture and identity. The debate is often emotional – and fails to recognize that the aesthetics of energy generation have long been part of architectural history. Those who see solar as the enemy run the risk of missing out on the future.

From a technical point of view, many of the aesthetic problems can be solved. There are colored modules, semi-transparent glass, textured surfaces and individually manufactured solar tiles. The real challenge is integrating them into the ensemble of buildings, taking into account the protection of monuments and the townscape – and the willingness to allow new images. Sustainability is not just a question of energy, but also of social consensus on the “good building”.

Finally, there is the question of the social dimension: photovoltaics can contribute to the democratization of energy – or lead to a new form of exclusion if only wealthy building owners benefit from the technology. Funding models, neighborhood solutions and participatory planning are needed to make the solar turnaround fair. Anyone who is serious about sustainability must think of PV as a community project – and architecture as a stage for new forms of participation and identity.

Professional politics, criticism and visions: Architects in the solar age

The integration of photovoltaics is changing the way architecture sees itself. The planning of buildings is no longer limited to space, material and function – it is becoming an energy and control discipline. This requires new skills, but also a new understanding of roles. Architects are becoming curators of energy flows, mediators between design, technology and user experience. Anyone embarking on the solar future must be prepared to take responsibility for technical, economic and social issues.

The debate about PV in architecture is anything but harmonious. Critics warn of a monotonization of the cityscape, a loss of building culture and identity. They complain about the dominance of technical constraints and the danger of architecture degenerating into a mere energy shell. Advocates, on the other hand, see PV integration as an opportunity to reinvent the discipline – as a melting pot of design, technology and social mission.

One aspect that is often overlooked is the question of responsibility. Who decides on the integration of PV? The client, the architect, the administration? And how are users, neighbors and the public involved? The profession is faced with the task of developing new forms of participation, communication and decision-making. Photovoltaics is thus becoming a touchstone for the democratization of planning – and for the industry’s ability to respond constructively to social challenges.

Looking beyond the horizon, it becomes clear that the global discussion has long since moved on. In China, solar façades are being built on a mega scale, in California solar roofs are mandatory, in Scandinavia energy self-sufficiency is becoming a design principle. German-speaking countries are struggling to make the leap from pilot project to everyday solution. What is missing is not the technology – but the will to transform. The question is: who has the courage to declare solar architecture the new normal – and to see it as an opportunity for innovation, identity and sustainability?

Visionary projects show that it is possible. But too often they remain beacons in the fog of bureaucracy. The future of photovoltaics lies in breadth, not in individual projects. It requires new alliances, open interfaces between disciplines – and an architectural community that is keen to take responsibility. The solar turnaround is not a sure-fire success. It is a design mandate.

Conclusion: Solar architecture is not an add-on, but a question of attitude

Cleverly integrating photovoltaics means rethinking architecture. It’s not about stickers, but about identity. Not about technology fig leaves, but about responsibility for the climate, cityscape and society. The German-speaking world is at a crossroads: continue to muddle along in pilot mode – or take the plunge into solar architecture that combines energy, design and social responsibility. The technology is ready. The question is: are the architects?

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Certificate of Compliance: Fire Protection—Fundamentals, Calculations, and Practice

Building design
A structural detail of the building related to the fire safety compliance certification
Four fire extinguishers on a green wall—a quiet snapshot of everyday architecture. Photo: jandira_sonnendeck

Anyone who puts a building into service assumes responsibility for more than just aesthetics and functionality. The fire safety compliance certificate is the legal and technical instrument used to demonstrate that the installed construction products and building systems actually meet the requirements that were a prerequisite for the planning and approval processes. It lies at the intersection of product law, building code regulations, and structural testing practices, and is equally binding and significant for architects, specialist planners, and building owners.

  • What the Fire Safety Certificate of Conformity Means Legally and Technically
  • Which legal bases and standards define and regulate this instrument
  • How the conformity confirmation process works in practice
  • Which construction products and building systems are affected and why
  • What role conformity marks, test certificates, and certificates of suitability play
  • Who issues the confirmation, who reviews it, and who bears responsibility
  • What typical errors occur in practice and how they can be avoided
  • How the confirmation of conformity fits into the overall system of structural fire protection

Definition and Legal Basis: What the Fire Protection Declaration of Conformity Is

The fire protection conformity certificate is a written declaration confirming that a construction product or building system complies with the requirements relevant to its use in fire protection. These requirements may stem from a general building authority approval (abZ), a general building authority test certificate (abP), a European Technical Assessment (ETA), or a case-by-case approval (ZiE). The declaration is not a marketing document or voluntary certification, but rather an instrument required by building codes that documents the transition from abstract product characteristics to concrete use in construction.

The legal basis lies in the state building codes of the German federal states, which are largely based on the Model Building Code (MBO). The MBO distinguishes between regulated and unregulated construction products. Regulated construction products comply with a technical building regulation or a harmonized European standard and may be used without further proof, provided they bear the conformity mark (Ü mark). Non-regulated construction products require separate proof of suitability for use, which is provided by the aforementioned instruments. For construction products relevant to fire protection, a higher level of requirements applies because failure in the event of a fire can pose an immediate threat to life.

The Ü mark, which is affixed to regulated construction products, is the visible symbol of the declaration of conformity. It indicates that the manufacturer declares that its product complies with the applicable technical regulations. For construction products that are not covered by harmonized European standards but perform fire protection functions, the fire protection declaration of conformity is the key proof that bridges the gap between product approval and installation. Without it, there is no formal proof that the product used is in fact what the approval specified.

The System of Proofs of Suitability: Approvals, Test Certificates, and Standards

To properly understand the fire safety declaration of conformity, one must understand the system of proof of suitability in which it is embedded. This system has several levels that apply differently depending on the product type and application. At the foundation are harmonized European standards (hEN), which are adopted under the Construction Products Regulation (EU Regulation No. 305/2011, or CPR for short). Products that comply with such a standard bear the CE marking; however, this marking does not constitute approval for use under national law but merely declares the product’s performance characteristics.

For products without a harmonized standard or for applications that fall outside the scope of a standard, national instruments apply. The General Building Authority Approval (abZ) is issued by the German Institute for Building Technology (DIBt) in Berlin and fully describes the permissible conditions of use for a product. The General Building Inspection Test Certificate (abP) is a simplified instrument for products whose suitability for use can be demonstrated through testing without the need for a full approval. Both documents contain precise information on installation conditions, processing instructions, and maintenance requirements that are directly relevant to the subsequent confirmation of compliance with fire safety standards.

Since the amendment of the Construction Products Act, the DIBt has gradually supplemented or replaced the general building authority approval with the general type approval (aBG) and the general building authority test certificate with the general type test certificate (aBPZ). These terms no longer refer solely to the product itself, but to the construction type—that is, the combination of product, installation situation, and installation rules. This distinction is significant for fire protection: A fire protection system, such as a cable penetration or a fire damper, will only function as tested if all components and the installation precisely comply with the specifications of the proof of suitability for use. The fire protection conformity confirmation is the document that confirms exactly this for the specific construction project.

Who issues the Fire Safety Conformity Certificate, and who bears responsibility?

The issue of responsibility is particularly sensitive in fire protection because defects can have irreversible consequences in an emergency. Depending on the product and the level of requirements, the Fire Safety Conformity Certificate can be issued in two ways: by the manufacturer itself or by a recognized testing, inspection, and certification body (PÜZ body). The applicable method is determined by the respective proof of suitability for use. For simpler products with a lower risk potential, the manufacturer’s declaration is sufficient; for safety-critical construction products with high fire safety requirements, third-party monitoring by an accredited body is mandatory.

By issuing a declaration of conformity, the manufacturer makes a legally binding statement that its product meets the requirements of the declaration of suitability for use. This declaration requires an in-house production control system (WPK)—that is, an internal quality management system that ensures consistent manufacturing quality. The WPK is not an informal tool, but a normatively required component of the proof of conformity. For products subject to third-party supervision, the in-house production control is supplemented by regular audits conducted by the PÜZ body, which makes the right to award the conformity mark contingent upon ongoing compliance with the requirements.

On the construction site, the contractor is responsible for ensuring that only products with a valid certificate of conformity are installed and that the installation complies with the specifications of the certificate of suitability. The architect or specialist planner is required to request, review, and document the certificates of conformity. The building inspection authority may require the submission of these documents as part of its construction supervision. In practice, the documentation chain is often incomplete because the importance of the fire protection certificate of conformity is underestimated on the construction site, and the pressure of the construction schedule takes precedence over the careful filing of supporting documents.

The Role of the Fire Protection Planner and the Expert

In buildings classified as Class 4 and 5, as well as in special-purpose structures, many federal states require the involvement of a qualified fire protection planner or a recognized fire protection expert. This expert not only reviews the fire protection concept during the planning phase but also oversees the construction process and ultimately confirms that the completed building complies with the approved fire protection concept. The certificates of conformity for the installed fire protection products are an essential part of the expert’s basis for review. Without complete supporting documentation, the expert cannot issue the final certificate, which prevents the building from being put into use.

Typical Fire Protection Products and Their Compliance Requirements

The range of construction products for which a fire protection conformity certificate is required extends from building materials and components to complex systems. Among the most common product groups are fire dampers in ventilation and air-handling systems, cable penetrations and pipe penetrations in ceilings and walls, fire-rated doors and gates, fire-resistant glazing, fire-resistant coatings (so-called reactive fire protection systems that foam up and insulate in the event of a fire), fire-resistant plasters and panels, as well as insulation materials with a fire protection classification.

Each of these product groups has specific requirements regarding proof of suitability for use and the type of conformity assessment. A fire damper, for example, must not only be the correct product; it must also be installed in the correct wall construction, with the correct fasteners, and with the correct control system in order to achieve the tested fire resistance rating. Deviations from the installation instructions in the proof of suitability—even if they seem plausible from a structural engineering perspective—void the validity of the confirmation of conformity. This principle of systemic conformity is not sufficiently understood by many tradespeople on the construction site and leads to one of the most common errors in structural fire protection.

Reactive fire protection systems—specifically coatings applied to steel structures that form an insulating layer by foaming in the event of a fire, thereby delaying the critical heating of the steel—deserve special attention. The effectiveness of these systems depends heavily on the coating thickness, the substrate, the application method, and the environmental conditions. The fire protection compliance certificate for such systems requires complete documentation of the coating thickness through measurement reports, which must be prepared by the applicator and archived by the client. If these records are missing, the certificate of compliance is not formally valid, even if the product was applied correctly.

Common Mistakes in Practice and How to Avoid Them

Practical experience reveals a recurring pattern of errors that can be divided into three categories: documentation gaps, product mix-ups, and installation errors. Documentation gaps arise when certificates of compliance are available but are not systematically collected, organized, and handed over to the building owner. Complete fire protection documentation is essential for subsequent use, maintenance, and any potential renovations. If it is missing, a time-consuming assessment by experts must be conducted in cases of doubt—a process that is expensive and rarely provides complete certainty.

Product mix-ups occur when a similar but not identical product is installed on the construction site because the one originally planned is temporarily unavailable. Any product change in the area of fire protection requires a new review to determine whether the new certificate of suitability applies to the specific installation situation and whether a fire protection conformity certificate is available for the replacement product. This verification step is often skipped in day-to-day construction site operations because it takes time and the urgency of the problem is not immediately apparent.

Installation errors are the most serious category. They occur when the installation instructions in the certificate of suitability are not followed—whether due to ignorance, a tendency to cut corners, or because the instructions in the document are difficult to understand. Typical installation errors with cable penetrations include the use of incorrect filling materials, insufficient fastening, or the mixing of products from different manufacturers that have not been tested together. For fire-rated doors, common errors include incorrectly adjusted door closers, missing or improperly installed seals, and subsequent modifications to the frame or door leaf that invalidate the certification.

To avoid these errors, a structured fire protection management system on the construction site is recommended, comprising the following elements:

  • Early specification of all fire protection-related products in the request for proposals, with an explicit requirement for a certificate of conformity
  • Establishment of a central document folder for all fire safety certifications on the construction site
  • Training of the contractors on the specific installation instructions for the products used
  • Random inspections of installation sites by the site manager or fire safety planner during construction
  • Full handover of the documentation to the building owner as part of the building documentation

The Fire Safety Declaration of Conformity in the European Context

The German system of conformity certification does not exist in isolation but is in tension with the European Construction Products Regulation. The Construction Products Regulation governs the CE marking of construction products and creates a single European market for these products. However, it expressly does not regulate the use of these products under national building codes. This means that a product with CE marking and a declared fire protection performance may not automatically be installed in Germany if a national approval or proof of suitability for use is required for the specific application.

In practice, this duality leads to confusion. Manufacturers from other EU countries who supply their products with CE marking and a declaration of performance are often surprised that additional documentation is required for the German market. Conversely, German planners and building owners must carefully verify, in the case of imported products, whether the CE marking is sufficient for the intended use or whether a national certificate of suitability—and thus a confirmation of compliance with fire protection requirements under German law—is required. The DIBt and the state building authorities have published guidance on this matter; however, this guidance must be updated regularly because the European standards framework is constantly evolving.

European Technical Assessments (ETAs) issued by the DIBt or another authorized Technical Assessment Body may, in certain cases, be recognized as proof of suitability for use under German law. For fire protection products, however, this is subject to strict conditions, because while the European classification standards (in particular the EN 13501 series) harmonize test methods and classifications, the national requirements for fire resistance classes and installation conditions remain enshrined in national law. The fire protection certificate of conformity thus remains a genuinely national instrument, even if the products to which it refers may have been tested and classified at the European level.

Context: Why the Fire Safety Declaration of Conformity Is More Than Just Bureaucracy

It would be a mistake to view the fire safety declaration of conformity as a mere administrative requirement to be fulfilled with as little effort as possible. It serves as the link between the abstract verification of product properties and concrete safety within the building. A fire protection system that has achieved the required fire resistance class in the laboratory will only provide protection in an emergency if it has also been correctly installed and documented on site. The certificate of conformity is the formal proof that this transition has been successfully completed.

For architects and specialist planners, this entails a dual responsibility: they must not only specify the correct products but also ensure that the installation and documentation meet the requirements. This responsibility does not end with the handover of the building, because subsequent changes to fire protection-relevant building components—such as replacing a fire door or retrofitting conduits with certified fire barriers—require new, valid certificates of conformity. Failure to do so not only jeopardizes the building’s operating permit but also results in significant liability in the event of damage.

This issue is gaining importance due to the increasing complexity of modern buildings and the growing density of technical installations. Buildings with extensive building services, data centers, laboratories, or special usage requirements have a multitude of penetrations, fire-resistant barriers, and fire protection systems, each of which requires its own documentation. In this context, the fire protection compliance certificate is not a single document but a structured verification system that must accompany the building throughout its entire service life. Those who consistently implement this system from the very beginning not only ensure legal compliance but also lay the foundation for a permanently effective level of fire protection that truly lives up to its name.

The light of history

Building design

The extensions stand out clearly from the brick and glass architecture of the historic waterworks.

The small town of Mons in Belgium has a turbulent past. In the Mons Memorial Museum by architect Pierre Hebbelinck, the light and dark sides of its history find architectural expression.

Buffer zone, border area, battlefield: Belgium has historically always been a crossroads of European history – and therefore also a stage for its often tragic chapters. This is particularly evident during a visit to the Mons Memorial Museum, which opened in 2015 and is located in the small town of Mons in the southern part of the country.

Pierre Hebbelinck from Liège was commissioned in 2011 to convert a historic industrial building into a museum dedicated to the history of the region. The brick, iron and glass waterworks is a typical witness to the economic boom that the Walloon region experienced during the industrialization process in the 19th century and had to be renovated and extended in line with the preservation order.

The architects opted for two wing extensions, whose exterior façades were painted white to clearly distinguish the new buildings from the existing ones. They clearly divided the functions between the three buildings, with the interior design of the individual rooms corresponding to the exhibition content: the windowless, oppressive rooms of the new buildings focus on the most dramatic chapters of local history – war, deportation, occupation – while the large hall of the old building is dedicated to liberation, democracy and freedom.

The view outside

The hall in the middle of the complex, glazed at the gable ends, serves as a transparent reception and catering area and is crossed by a 15-metre-long walkway. This connects the permanent exhibition in the left wing with the rooms for temporary exhibitions in the right wing.
The architects attached great importance to the lighting concept: in addition to the lighting, which is differentiated according to function, the historic glass fronts of the listed old building were also professionally refurbished to optimize the incidence of sunlight and improve the quality of stay for visitors to the café and bookshop. The large glass windows, which are divided by metal bars, were also renewed.

Open and closed

The closed nature of the extensions forms a contrast to the open and transparent existing building. A strategically placed aisle in the exhibition tour leads to an open space in the basement, whose brick-clad, monotonous red walls can be read as an architectural image of the tragic wartime past of the Mons region. There are also narrow windows that allow light into the interior like crevices in a rock, or provide a view to the outside at certain points: For example, to a war memorial at the crossroads or to important elements of the city’s history in the public space.

Photos: François Brix.