28.01.2026

Rainwater as a resource in urban areas – a comparison of technical systems

Building design

Modern architecture with reflecting pool, photographed by Strycho.graphics.

Rainwater as a resource in urban areas? Until recently, rain was mainly seen as a disruptive factor between asphalt and excavations – but the paradigm shift has long since begun: rainwater is becoming a raw material, a lifeline for climate-resilient cities. Technical systems are competing for the cleverest use, and the best solutions combine ecology, technology and urban design. Anyone who still believes that rainwater is just a waste product has missed out on the change. Time to take a closer look at the state of the art in Germany’s cities – and ask: Who has the smartest system?

Introduction to the importance of rainwater as a resource for cities and the background to the paradigm shift.
Overview of modern technical systems for rainwater utilization and management in urban areas.
In-depth consideration of system types: centralized and decentralized solutions, including their strengths and weaknesses.
Analysis of current examples from Germany, Austria and Switzerland with a focus on innovation and practicability.
Explanation of important technical terms such as sponge city, retention soil filter or blue-green infrastructure.
Discussion of interfaces between technology, urban design and social requirements.
Evaluation of legal, practical planning and economic framework conditions.
Critical reflection: challenges in operation, maintenance costs and risks when choosing a system.
Looking to the future: What contribution do smart rainwater systems make to climate-adapted cities?

Rainwater in an urban context: from problem to potential

Rainwater and the city – a centuries-old relationship that has rarely been on an equal footing. Historically, rain was seen as an enemy: as a risk of flooding, as a burden on sewer systems, as an enemy of sealed surfaces. Traditional urban drainage aimed for maximum drainage, as quickly as possible, as far away as possible. But this way of thinking is not only out of date, it is downright dangerous in view of the climate crisis. Heavy rainfall, dry spells, heat islands – the challenges of the present demand a radical rethink of how we deal with precipitation.

The paradigm shift has long been underway: rainwater is seen as a resource, as an opportunity for evaporative cooling, groundwater recharge, urban biodiversity and even as an element for social meeting places in public spaces. The principle of the sponge city, known internationally as Sponge City, is becoming the new model. This refers to an urban system that stores, retains, purifies and releases water with a time delay – while cooling, greening and revitalizing the urban space.

But how does rainwater actually become a resource? The answer lies in a finely tuned interplay of technical systems, intelligent planning and social acceptance. The technology is by no means just a means to an end, but helps to shape the face of the city. It is about more than just pipes, manholes and retention basins. What is needed are multifunctional solutions that merge technology and design, function and experience.

In practice, planners are faced with the task of choosing between centralized and decentralized solutions, rethinking existing infrastructures and integrating innovative technologies. The spectrum ranges from classic rainwater retention basins and retention soil filters to blue-green roofs, façades and open trenches. Each of these solutions has its own advantages and disadvantages, each requires specific expertise and each has to prove itself in the context of neighborhood structures, land use and legal framework conditions.

At the same time, expectations are rising: Urban societies demand resilience, sustainability and quality of stay. Investors expect operational reliability and efficiency. And planners have to reconcile all of this – no wonder the debate about the best technical systems is so passionate. One thing is certain: Anyone who sees urban rainwater as just a problem in the 21st century has completely misunderstood the signs of the times.

A comparison of technical systems: from cisterns to retention soil filters

The choice of technical systems for rainwater management is greater today than ever before. Basically, they can be divided into two groups: centralized and decentralized solutions. Centralized systems concentrate rainwater over a large area, for example in retention basins or underground storage tanks, while decentralized approaches retain, infiltrate or use the water as close as possible to where it falls. Both philosophies have their justification and reflect different urban planning and infrastructural requirements.

Classic centralized systems such as rainwater retention basins or rainwater overflow basins are an integral part of urban infrastructure. They offer high storage capacities, enable controlled drainage and are relatively easy to integrate into existing sewer systems. Their biggest disadvantage is that they take up a lot of space, are often monofunctional and do little to improve the quality of life in public spaces. In addition, they usually drain water away again quickly instead of keeping it in the neighborhood.

Decentralized systems, on the other hand, aim to manage rainwater where it accumulates. These include cisterns for rainwater harvesting, trough-trench systems, retention roofs, façade greening with a water storage function or permeable surface coverings. Retention soil filters, which clean, store and release rainwater in doses, are particularly innovative. They are highly flexible, can be adapted to changing climatic conditions and provide ecological benefits through evaporation and groundwater recharge.

Blue-green infrastructures are another highlight: they combine water and green space elements to create multifunctional landscapes. Examples include artificial streams, open channels, water features or planted retention areas. They combine technology, ecology and design and create new qualities for urban spaces. However, the integration of such systems places high demands on planning, construction and maintenance – and is not always compatible with traditional funding programs.

The choice of the right system ultimately depends on the local context: settlement density, groundwater level, existing infrastructure, legal requirements and user expectations determine feasibility. In practice, a mix of centralized and decentralized solutions, supplemented by innovative technologies and design intelligence, is often the key to successful rainwater management in urban areas.

City, technology, society: interfaces and challenges

Technical systems for rainwater utilization are never just technology. They are always part of a social, ecological and economic fabric. This becomes clear at the latest when planners step out of the ivory tower of drainage planning and look at the interfaces with urban society. After all, rainwater systems are visible, tangible and sometimes prone to failure – and this has a significant impact on acceptance and long-term operation.

Integration into the public space is a key issue. While monofunctional retention basins are often perceived as foreign bodies, multifunctional facilities such as water squares, planted swales or urban wetlands can become places that create a sense of identity. Here, technology and design merge, creating spaces that both manage rainwater and offer quality of life. Such solutions require close cooperation between engineers, landscape architects, urban planners and maintenance staff – and often also political persuasion.

Another area of tension is operation and maintenance. Innovative systems such as retention soil filters or blue-green roofs are more complex than classic channels and require regular maintenance, monitoring and sometimes readjustment. This raises the question of who is responsible for operation, maintenance and financing – local authorities, private owners or operating companies? A lack of responsibility quickly leads to neglect and loss of functionality. The best technical systems are of little use if they become silted up or clogged after a few years.

Finally, social communication is crucial. Rainwater management needs to be explained. Citizens expect systems to be safe, attractive and comprehensible. Smart sensor technology and digital monitoring systems can help to create transparency and identify maintenance requirements at an early stage. At the same time, new technologies must be designed in such a way that they are not perceived as a black box. Participation and information are key to success, especially in larger neighborhood developments.

The interfaces between technology, urban design and society are complex – which is precisely why they are so exciting. Successful projects are characterized by interdisciplinarity, communication skills and the courage to innovate. Those who manage to establish technical systems as part of an urban living culture lay the foundation for sustainable and resilient cities.

Legal, planning and economic framework conditions

The implementation of modern rainwater systems is significantly influenced by legal and planning requirements. In Germany and its neighboring countries, there is a dense network of water, building and environmental regulations. In particular, the Water Resources Act, the respective state water laws and the wastewater bylaws of the municipalities provide a clear framework for action. Regulations on sealing, compulsory connection and use, the discharge of rainwater into the sewage system or into bodies of water determine which systems are permissible and economical.

Planning instruments such as development plans, urban development contracts or the concept of green infrastructure offer starting points for integrating rainwater management into urban development. Rainwater management and climate adaptation are increasingly being anchored as a mandatory component in new construction areas. Funding programs at EU, federal or state level support innovative concepts – albeit often with considerable bureaucratic effort and not always a perfect fit for complex system solutions.

From an economic point of view, the focus is on investment costs, operating costs and follow-up costs. Decentralized systems are often cheaper in terms of initial investment, but can incur higher maintenance and servicing costs. Large centralized systems benefit from economies of scale, but are expensive to build and require large areas. Innovative technologies such as sensors, digital controls or natural filter systems promise efficiency gains, but present planners with the challenge of guaranteeing cost-effectiveness and operational reliability in the long term.

An increasingly important issue is financing through fees, levies or innovative models such as public-private partnerships. Who pays for construction, operation and maintenance? How are the costs distributed fairly? Creative approaches are needed here, such as linking rainwater charges to actual sealing or involving private players through incentive systems. In the long term, only systems that are ecologically sensible, legally robust and economically viable will prevail.

The legal, planning and economic framework conditions are not an end in themselves, but play a decisive role in determining which technical systems are used. Those who use them wisely can promote innovation, avoid mismanagement – and make cities fit for climate change.

Looking ahead: smart rainwater systems for the climate-resilient city

The future of rainwater management in urban areas is digital, networked and multifunctional. Smart systems combine classic engineering skills with sensor technology, data management and automated control. They measure rainfall in real time, flexibly adjust storage and discharge volumes and automatically detect pollution and maintenance requirements. The goal: maximum efficiency, minimum risks – and maximum urban resilience to the effects of climate change.

Examples from Copenhagen, Berlin and Zurich show how intelligent control systems reduce the risk of flooding, optimize evaporative cooling and even enable the use of rainwater for irrigation, greywater systems or urban agriculture. Particularly exciting are approaches in which digital twins – i.e. virtual city models – are used to simulate and optimize rainwater systems. This is where the boundaries between technology, planning and operation become blurred.

However, the technology is only part of the solution. The biggest challenge remains integration into the urban structure and into people’s lives. Rainwater systems must be more than just technical infrastructure – they must become everyday places, spaces of experience and symbols for a new approach to resources. The sponge city is not just a technical vision, but a cultural project.

At the same time, it is important to keep an eye on the risks: Technical complexity must not lead to a lack of transparency or a maintenance backlog. Smart systems need smart operators, reliable data and robust emergency concepts. And last but not least, they must be designed in such a way that they meet social, ecological and aesthetic requirements.

Those who plan innovatively today are building the foundations for the city of tomorrow. Rainwater as a resource – this is not a trend, but the central task for climate-adapted cities in the 21st century. The best solutions are created where technology, design and society act as equals – and where rain is no longer seen as a problem, but as a driver of urban innovation.

Conclusion: Rainwater in urban areas has long been more than just a peripheral issue for technology enthusiasts and environmental romantics. It has become a key issue for resilient, liveable and sustainable cities. The variety of technical systems – from cisterns and retention soil filters to smart blue-green infrastructure – offers planners a wide range of options. However, only those who consistently combine technology, urban design and social requirements will be successful in the long term. The legal and economic framework conditions are just as important as a spirit of innovation and a willingness to care. The city of tomorrow will no longer be built against the rain, but with it. And that is the best news for all those who want to make urban spaces truly sustainable.

12.11.2024

Project

Tverfjell hut from Snøhetta

Building design

The Oslo-based architecture firm Snøhetta built a hut made of Corten steel walls and glass in the Tverfjell area in the barren Norwegian landscape. The Tverfjell area was used as a test site for bombs and other munitions for 100 years. Now you can watch reindeer there undisturbed.

Anyone who founds their small architecture firm high above the infamous Dovrehallen pub in Oslo, takes Paolo Conte as the inspiration for an important competition design, builds at Ground Zero and, with the Oslo Opera House, makes us forget Utzorn’s Sydney Opera House, can also give this firm the name Snøhetta. This is the name of the highest mountain in the Dovre Mountains, which are almost sacred to Norwegians. It is named in the Norwegian constitution as a guarantor of stability (which is why Norway rejected the euro) and appears in Ibsen’s Peer Gynt.

Norway’s most important cultural prize is named after this shady character, which Snøhetta was the first architecture firm to win in 2008.It is therefore clear that Snøhetta was awarded the contract to build two cabins on Tverfjell. Unprosaically, it is a spacious wooden box with a communication-enhancing two-person outhouse and an observation hut, which is assigned to the Hjerkinn Wild Reindeer Research Center.

Garten_Landschaft_Snohetta__Tverfjell_Holz

Garten_Landschaft_Snohetta__Tverfjell_Fenster

It should be noted that the Tverfjell area (fjell means mountain) was used as a test site for bombs and other munitions for around 100 years and was also home to an important ore mine. When the military found a better place than the Dovre National Park, the renaturation began: munitions salvage, replanting with pioneer trees and a research center to look after the Dovre’s wild reindeer population of almost 10,000 animals and the reintroduced musk oxen.

As one half of Norwegians like to run up mountains super fast and full of energy and use the wild nature as a sports ground, and the other half like to drive to beautiful landscapes in comfort, a hut was donated to the battered Tverfjell, for which an attractive name is still being sought. Just half an hour’s walk from the parking lot leads to a classic box made of a concrete platform, Corten steel walls and glass.

The panoramic window offers a view of Snøhetta, which is breathtaking in itself. However, the rear wall of the building offers architectural competition. It is made of pine wood according to all the rules of craftsmanship. A wooden sculpture that is only possible through computer-aided modeling. Seating landscape, wall and eye-catcher inside and out – contrasted by an elegant French fireplace, which can radiate a little warmth, but is also suitable for grilling sausages.Only those who are really lucky will occasionally see reindeer grazing in the distance. Black balls of wool, the musk oxen, are more likely to appear in the field of vision.

The building was inaugurated in June and is now featured in the November issue of Garten + Landschaft , along with other highlights of Norwegian landscape architecture.

23.12.2024

Event

ASLA Conference 2019: Planning as cultural research

Building design

The 2019 ASLA conference questioned US identity in troubled times. A Congressional Report The term “elephant in the room” has a nice double meaning. On the one hand, it describes something important that is known to everyone but not explicitly addressed. On the other hand, it also describes a huge, trampled something that can dismantle given structures without much sensitivity. In this […]

The 2019 ASLA conference questioned US identity in troubled times. A conference report

The term “elephant in the room” has a nice double meaning. On the one hand, it describes something important that is known to everyone but not explicitly addressed. On the other hand, however, it also describes a huge hitchhiking something that can dismantle given structures without much sensitivity. In this ambiguity, the current US President Trump was precisely the elephant at this year’s annual conference of the ASLA, the American Society of Landscape Architects, in San Diego. There was little explicit mention of The Donald and his sometimes elephantine policies. But their consequences for the American present played an implicit role again and again.

Of course, this applied most directly to the many panels and presentations dealing with the consequences of climate change. The environmental politician and researcher Gina McCarthy laid the atmospheric foundation for this, so to speak. In her rhetorically brilliant presentation, she made it clear that the Obama administration has launched many concrete legislative initiatives. Not all of these have yet been revised – and it is unlikely that they can all be withdrawn. “The train is running”, was her ultimately optimistic message. The audience acknowledged this with standing ovations, but as a fact-oriented European, it took some getting used to McCarthy’s mass preaching style.

A kind of moderate basic ecological optimism almost inevitably emanates from events such as the ASLA conference, because they deal with concrete steps towards improvement. One field session, for example, presented the regeneration of the San Diego River ecosystem. Other panels presented solutions for areas in the hot and dry southwest of the USA, some of which are becoming uninhabitable due to global warming, or landscape architecture approaches for better air quality. The impression is that landscape architecture is aware of its responsibility and accepts it even in a harsh political climate.

However, this political and social climate also played another role. Many discussions addressed the identity-shaping and negotiating role of spatial planning. The USA (and not only the USA) appears today as a country in search of its “identity”. There is a kind of existential insecurity in society as a whole. The space in which we live can take on an orientation function – for entire societies, for smaller cultural units, but also for individuals and their immediate social environment. In this context, a panel on US post-war squares was very exciting.

The head of the “Parks Conservancy” of the city of Pittsburgh presented the careful redesign of Mellow Square in Pittsburgh. Ken Smith, a well-known landscape architect in the USA, presented three different redesigns from New York and San Francisco, including the outdoor space in front of Mies van der Rohe’s iconic Seagram Building in Manhattan. It was clear from all the plaza projects presented that US-American collective memory is being negotiated here. Post-war modernism was formative for US culture – and must be treated with corresponding care. “It’s about spatial integrity, but also historical integrity,” says Charles Birnbaum, head of the Cultural Landscape Foundation.

The elephant “La Frontera”

The question naturally arises as to who ascribes integrity or to whom it applies. After all, the idea of society as a homogeneous unit is disintegrating, and not just in the USA. Accordingly, it is important to unite different perspectives in landscape planning or at least allow them to have their say. Allowing heterogeneity was the overarching theme of many panels. “Landscapes with an edge” could be created, was the tenor of a discussion on the importance of subculture in planning. “Allow provocation, create spaces for subversion”, was the plea of planner and podcaster Michael Todoran (he runs the podcast “LArchitect”). The question is where subculture, where provocation ends and where mere commercialization begins. Whether, for example, the eScooters that are also filling the streets in the USA can be considered a subculture, as suggested in the panel, is open to debate.

Nevertheless, the cultural sensitivity of this year’s ASLA conference was high. However, one culturally charged topic that would have been obvious given the San Diego venue was unfortunately largely left out: Mexico and the planning challenge of the border. A (quickly booked out) field trip to Tijuana did take place. But the border was hardly mentioned in the content panels. And this despite the fact that the new ASLA President Wendy Miller told Garten + Landschaft in an interview that the planners had the planning dimensions of “La Frontera” in mind (you can read the interview in full at www.topos-magazine.com). But perhaps that border also represents a kind of elephant in the mental room of US culture. It’s there, it’s huge, but it’s being hidden as much as possible.