13.01.2026

Risk assessment: thinking safety architecturally

Building design

Grayscale photo of an architecturally striking glass building in an urban environment, photographed by Ihor Malytskyi.

Risk assessment – sounds like another bureaucratic monster from German legislation, but it is the underestimated supreme discipline of architectural responsibility. After all, anyone who merely nods at safety as a compulsory exercise has not understood the true potential of architectural intelligence. Why risk assessment, of all things, could become the control center of sustainable planning – and why architects, building owners and operators must finally rethink.

Risk assessments are far more than minimum legal requirements – they are a strategic tool for sustainable, resilient architecture.
Germany, Austria and Switzerland focus on different priorities and standards in their implementation – with some serious consequences for construction practice.
Digital tools, AI and BIM are fundamentally changing the methodology of risk assessment – from risk analysis to real-time monitoring.
Sustainability and safety have long been two sides of the same coin – and require an interdisciplinary understanding of new hazards, such as those caused by climate change or digitalization.
Technical expertise alone is no longer enough – systemic thinking, communication skills and the ability to manage uncertainties are required.
The debate about liability, responsibility and participation is gathering pace – and is calling for a rethink of the architect’s job description.
Global trends such as smart buildings, resilience strategies and data-driven planning are setting new standards and expectations.
Risk assessment is becoming a yardstick for the innovative strength and social relevance of architecture.

Risk assessment – status quo and stumbling blocks in the DACH region

Risk assessments are as much a part of architecture as a pencil is to a sketchpad – or so one might think. In reality, practice is often fragmented, characterized by uncertainty and minimal concepts. Although Germany, Austria and Switzerland share the goal of protecting people and the environment from harm, the ways of achieving this differ considerably in some cases. In Germany, regulations reign supreme: workplace regulations, state building codes, DGUV regulations, fire protection concepts – the list is endless, the bureaucratic jungle at least as dense. In Austria, on the other hand, the focus is more on individual responsibility and the integration of occupational health and safety and construction planning. Switzerland relies on a mixture of norms, voluntary standards and cantonal specifics. Sounds like diversity, but in practice it is often a patchwork quilt that causes confusion, especially in cross-border projects.

What all three countries have in common is the fundamental obligation to carry out a risk assessment – and the tendency to perceive this as an onerous duty that needs to be completed with as little effort as possible. This is where the fundamental misunderstanding lies: those who treat risk assessments merely as a legal footnote or as an appendage to fire protection are missing the opportunity to identify risks at an early stage and promote innovation in a targeted manner. This is because the classic approach – ticking boxes on the checklist, standard forms, copy-paste from old projects – simply no longer does justice to the complexity of modern construction tasks.

What’s more, social expectations in terms of safety and sustainability have risen massively. Climate change brings new hazards such as overheating, heavy rainfall and supply bottlenecks. Digitalization opens the door to cyber risks, networking gaps and new points of attack. Those who do not think ahead here risk not only liability problems, but also their own reputation. Nevertheless, the discourse remains surprisingly defensive. In many offices, the motto is: attract as little attention as possible, provoke as few questions as possible, take as little responsibility as possible. This is not only despondent, but also dangerously short-sighted.

The result is projects that formally meet all requirements but still fail in an emergency. Whether it’s fire protection in high-rise buildings, accessibility in existing buildings or evacuation concepts for hybrid use – all too often, work is carried out according to a formula instead of analyzing real risks. Yet risk assessment would be the ideal tool for enabling innovation, optimizing processes and making the value of one’s own work visible. But there is a lack of courage, know-how and modern tools.

The real problem, however, is of a structural nature: risk assessments are considered too late, too isolated and too formalistic. The opportunity to turn them into an integrative, future-oriented planning instrument usually remains unused. Yet this is precisely what is essential in the age of the climate crisis, digitalization and social change.

From mandatory to optional: digital tools and AI in risk assessment

Digitalization has long since shaken up the construction world – and it doesn’t stop at risk assessment either. What used to be considered a paper war and a battle of forms is now increasingly becoming a data-based, dynamic discipline. Building Information Modeling (BIM), digital twins and artificial intelligence are opening up new dimensions of risk analysis. The classic risk assessment is thus getting an update that is more than just a technical gimmick: it is becoming the control center for smart, resilient and adaptive architecture.

BIM models make it possible not only to document risks, but also to simulate and evaluate them in real time. Whether fire protection scenarios, evacuation times, material behavior in extreme weather or interface problems between trades – everything can be run through digitally before the first brick is laid. The advantages are obvious: risks are identified at an early stage, solutions are developed iteratively and planning errors are drastically reduced. If you don’t take advantage of this, you are wasting innovation potential and remain flying blind in the analog world.

Artificial intelligence goes one step further: algorithms can evaluate historical accident data, maintenance reports and environmental data to identify patterns and weak points that remain hidden to the human eye. This results in predictive risk assessments that not only react to the past, but also anticipate future risks. In practice, this means that sensors report the failure of a fire door in real time, AI models warn of overheating in glass façades and digital twins simulate evacuations at mass events. What sounds like science fiction has long since become reality in pilot projects in Switzerland and Austria – in Germany, experiments are still cautious, driven by data protection debates and liability fears.

The flip side of the coin: the more technology, the greater the complexity. If you want to use the new tools, you need more than just an app store account. It’s about data sovereignty, interface standards and the ability to integrate digital and physical risks. The construction industry must learn that risk assessment is not a rigid document, but a living, constantly evolving process. Those who cling to the old paper-based approach will be overtaken by reality.

And there is another aspect: with digitalization, expectations of transparency and participation are growing. Anyone who assesses risks algorithmically must be able to explain how these decisions are made. Black boxes are as popular in the construction industry as mold in the basement. Architects and engineers must learn not only to manage risks with digital tools, but also to create trust. Risk assessment thus becomes a stage for competence, innovative strength and social responsibility.

Safety and sustainability – an unequal duo on the road to resilience?

For a long time, safety was seen as an obstacle to innovation. The old mantra was that anyone who focused too much on risks would block creativity and progress. But this idea is outdated – and dangerous. After all, there can be no sustainable architecture without a comprehensive risk assessment. Climate change, scarcity of resources, demographic change and digitalization are creating new risk situations that go far beyond traditional occupational health and safety and fire protection. Sustainability and safety are not opposites, they are interdependent – and are becoming the touchstone for real resilience in construction practice.

In Switzerland, for example, sustainability certificates such as Minergie or SNBS are increasingly being linked to risk assessment requirements. In Austria, climate resilience and social safety are included in the assessment of neighborhoods. Germany is still struggling to systematically record new hazard situations – for example, heat islands in cities, the effects of heavy rainfall on underground car parks or the vulnerability of digital building technology. Standards are lagging behind reality and practice often stops halfway.

However, risk assessments offer the opportunity to take a holistic approach to sustainability. Those who analyze risks along the entire life cycle of a building can identify conflicting objectives at an early stage and can plan, use and dismantle with foresight. This requires interdisciplinary teams, new interfaces between planning, operation and maintenance – and the courage to leave traditional comfort zones. Anyone who still believes that safety can be achieved with fire doors and emergency exits has not recognized the signs of the times.

The new generation of risk assessments integrates aspects such as energy supply, water scarcity, social stability and cybersecurity. It asks: What happens if the power goes out, the IT is hacked or the infrastructure collapses? How do we protect not only people, but also economic and ecological values? The answers to these questions are uncomfortable, complex and increasingly politically controversial. But those who rise to this challenge design architecture with real added value – for users, operators and society.

Resilience is thus becoming the new benchmark for architectural excellence. Hazard assessments are their tools – and architects are their conductors. Those who manage to reconcile safety and sustainability are not just designing buildings, they are designing the future.

Competence, responsibility, debate – what architects really need to know today

Risk assessments are no longer the exclusive domain of safety engineers and lawyers. Architects are at the center of a paradigm shift that is fundamentally changing their job description. What is required is no longer just detailed technical knowledge and design finesse, but systemic thinking, communication skills and the ability to manage uncertainties productively. Those who recognize, anticipate and communicate risks will become sought-after partners – those who duck out will remain an extra in their own project.

The technical side is more demanding than ever: digital tools, simulations, interface management, data analysis – these are all part of the tools of the trade today. But technology alone is not enough. Anyone who takes risk assessments seriously must learn how to present complex interrelationships in an understandable way, involve those involved and make decisions transparent. This requires leadership, empathy and the willingness to take responsibility. Especially in international projects, these skills become a decisive competitive advantage.

However, change is not free of friction. The debate about liability, responsibility and participation is becoming increasingly heated. Who decides which risks are tolerable? Who bears the consequences if simulations fail? How much co-determination makes sense, where does the excessive demand begin? The answers to these questions are neither clear nor easy – and they differ depending on the country, project and constellation of players. In Germany, the fear of liability traps still dominates, while in Switzerland and Austria, people are more confident of having more leeway. But the same applies everywhere: those who view security solely as an avoidance strategy will miss the boat in the long term.

The global architecture debate has long since focused on openness, innovation and the courage to take risks. Smart buildings, adaptive infrastructures and data-driven planning are no longer dreams of the future, but part of everyday life in cities such as Singapore, Copenhagen and Toronto. If you want to keep up, you have to say goodbye to old ways of thinking and see risk assessment as a strategic management tool – not a necessary evil.

Architects who accept this challenge will become true designers of social resilience. They create buildings that are not only beautiful, but also safe, sustainable and fit for the future. Risk assessment is not a stumbling block, but a springboard for innovation and excellence.

Conclusion: Risk assessment – the underestimated design tool of the future

Anyone who continues to dismiss risk assessment as a chore is failing to recognize its revolutionary potential. It is not the end of creativity, but its catalyst. It forces us to see risks as a driver of innovation, to proactively shape technical and social change and to rethink responsibility. An international comparison shows that the future belongs to those who think of safety, sustainability and digitalization as a single entity. Risk assessments are the touchstone for architectural intelligence – and perhaps the most exciting design tool of the next generation.

14.04.2025

Project

besgen landscape architecture: outdoor facilities Dietrich-Bonhoeffer-Haus

Building design

The redesign of the entrance area of the community center transforms a previously unsafe concrete arena into an inviting, colorful seating arena for young people. Noël Besgen, besgen landscape architecture

The redesign of the entrance area to the community center was a major challenge. Despite years of experience in designing outdoor areas, it was difficult to redesign the steep “concrete arena”, which was no longer safe to use. In the following project presentation, the besgen landscape architecture firm explains how it nevertheless succeeded in transforming this space into an inviting area.

The starting point was the redesign of the steep, no longer safe to use concrete arena that leads to the “Sonderbar” children’s and youth club in the community center. The aim was to create a friendly and colorful entrance situation that invites people to the “Sonderbar”. A seating arena is intended to invite young people and confirmands to linger, chill out and celebrate, while also appealing to everyone who passes by. As part of the design, the extended outdoor area was also integrated into the design to create a harmonious overall look for the community garden and make access to the community center more inviting. The greywacke rock seating arena forms a transition and acts as a “front garden bed backdrop” to the community center, which changes over the course of the seasons. Strictly trimmed hedge bands serve as “green hedge railings” and protect the footpath from the flowerbeds. The steps are atmospherically set off by bollard lights in the clusters of shrubs and grasses, while recesses in the path decking serve as small seating niches. Herbaceous perennials were planted at the sides of the flowerbeds to turn the steps into a “scented staircase”.

A connecting element between the front and rear garden areas is the “community meadow”. At the rear is the “community terrace”, which adjoins the worship hall and is slightly higher, like a small bastion. This previously little-used terrace has now been transformed into an extended worship and open space that is used for congregational activities, open-air services, baptisms, meetings and festivities. The terrace is structured by intersecting strips of light-colored slabs and protected from noise and views from the main road by a hedge. Beds of ground cover and vertical grasses reinforce the effect of a sheltered, framed space. Here too, bollard lights in the beds provide atmospheric lighting accents, especially in the evening and in winter.

The garden was designed to be climate-friendly, with robust, low-maintenance plants that can withstand drought, urban climates and cold. The plants are also insect and bee-friendly. The plant beds consist mainly of ground covers, ornamental perennials, grasses and specimen plants that change depending on the season. Especially in summer, white hydrangeas and solitary grasses with taut stems add to the atmosphere.

The selection of plants in the community garden includes a variety of robust and climate-resistant plants. Strictly pruned hedges such as hornbeam (Carpinus betulus) and Schmidt’s alpine currant (Ribes alpinum Schmidt) form a structured framework. Flowering plants such as the panicle hydrangea (Hydrangea paniculata Limelight), the autumn anemone (Anemone japonica ‘Honorine Jobert’) and the white summer wood aster (Aster divaricatus Tradescant) provide seasonal color accents. Ground cover plants such as the ground cover rose Noatraum and the ornamental lady’s mantle (Alchemilla epipsila) fill the garden with vibrant greenery. The candle knotweed (Bistorta amplexicaulisLisan) and the cranesbill (Geranium wallichianum Azure Rush) complete the floral variety. Other plants such as steppe sage (Salvia nemorosa Caradonna), coneflower (Rudbeckia fulgida var. sullivantii Goldsturm), mountain mint (Calamintha nepeta Triumphator) and Patagonian verbena (Verbena bonariensis) not only provide aesthetic accents, but also attract insects. The catmint (Nepeta x faassenii) and various grasses, such as the autumn head grass (Sesleria autumnalis) and the garden riding grass (Calamagrostis x acutiflora Karl Foerster`), round off the plant selection and ensure a dynamic garden appearance all year round.

“Every garden is the result of an individual idea,” says Noël Besgen (landscape architect AKNW) – creative idea finder and design-competent planner for all aspects of garden and open space architecture. The starting point is the location, the garden, the square, the street, the park – and people.

The office “besgen Landschaftsarchitektur” was founded in 2008 with a focus on open space and object planning of private gardens. We create innovative, pragmatic, individual and low-maintenance concepts for feasible planning and design proposals for urban garden and open space culture that meet the special requirements of contemporary living and working environments. The designs stand for functionality, timelessness, formal restraint and clear reduction to simplicity. Competent and complete project support from the first sketch to the realized object.

Climate-resilient, sustainable and aesthetic redesign and redesign of the community center’s outdoor facilities as the seasons change. “And in the middle of the paradise garden, the werewolf chills in the sea of flowers,” commented the church community on the opening of the outdoor facilities.

Realization: 2021-2022
Client: Evangelical parish of Sankt Augustin & Niederpleis and Mülldorf
Design + planning: besgen landscape architecture & Noël Besgen I landscape architect AKNW

Our September issue is all about urban oases. Find more exciting projects here.

By the way: The long-awaited vote of the European Parliament on the Nature Restoration Law did not go as planned. Find out more about the result here.

21.12.2024

English eat up Germany?

Building design

The politician Jens Spahn sees German city centres being overrun by the English language and a globalized hipster culture. Our author wishes him more serenity.

Jo, it’s funny, the picture above. A subtle linguistic attack on the common Teutonic tourist. Whether an unconscious act of Germano aversion or rather sloppiness in the Adriatic high season – the impression currently haunting Facebook refers to the great theme of longing and loss in globalization: dealing with one’s own, and foreign, language. An emotional subject. Believe me, I know what I’m talking about – I’m currently living in Mexico and am trying, with moderate success, to improve my Spanish. That’s important, because hardly anyone speaks English here. Unlike in Berlin-Mitte.

Which brings us to the topic. The dominance of English in core tourist areas such as the center of Berlin has just been made an issue by CDU politician (and, according to those in the know, upcoming party star) Jens Spahn. He says that too much English is spoken in Berlin’s hipster cafés. And tries, somewhat strenuously, to combine his position as the only CDU hipster with his Anglo-critical core argumentation. Of course, this is aimed more at the CDU core electorate “out in the country”, people in Wanne-Eickel or Salzgitter-Lebenstedt, who may not speak English as well as the Berlin hipsters Spahn doesn’t appreciate (and like himself, as he casually lets slip).

Very important for Spahn: the reversal of the provincialism accusation. It is not the people from Wanne-Eickel who are provincial, but the hipsters themselves. A popular mental maneuver: take your opponent’s main argument and throw it at them yourself. Am I stupid? No, you are stupid. No, you are. No you…

Now, the presence of English in the tourist centers of our cities – as well as in those of other metropolises – cannot be denied. Occasionally I sit with a German friend at the bar of Berlin’s Soho House and order drinks from the German barman – in English. It does feel a bit strange. But to be honest, it’s not that bad. In any case, it doesn’t give me the identity crisis Spahn is talking about. And the drinks are still good.

What is interesting about Spahn’s criticism, however, is his observation that a kind of global tourism culture is spreading in our centers and replacing everything regional. That’s true, these cultural processes do exist. They also have an architectural impact, in Berlin, for example, through the construction of architecturally disastrous hotel bunkers that signal to Easyjet tourists in particular: This is your place. Berlin has little to counter this as a city due to empty coffers. At least investment is now being made, it seems. But the question is at what point the atmosphere of a city center is actually undermined to such an extent that nothing specific to the city remains.

Although – ultimately, I’m not so pessimistic about this. And that’s because I believe in the power of our cities more than Jens Spahn does. It’s not true that “all of Mitte” or the entire city centre of Munich is degenerating into vulgar, globalized party zones. Rather, backpacker tourism and hipsteritis are being added to other cultural elements. And alongside the aforementioned hotel monstrosities, a lot of good architecture is still being created in our cities. In this respect, dear Mr. Spahn: Relax. Oh sorry – don’t despair, I meant.