04.07.2026

Robotics and Ornamental Architecture

Building design

Modern ceiling design with three round windows, photographed by Bruno Figueiredo

Robots that carve ornamentation? Welcome to a new era. While German architectural firms are still debating the return of ornamentation, engineers in Zurich and Vienna have long been programming robotic arms to carve reliefs into architectural facades with mathematical precision. Ornamental architecture is making a digital comeback—and robotics is its sharpest tool. But what’s behind the hype? Are robots the new Baumeister, or just toys for academic institutions with oversized research budgets? And where does the DACH region stand when it comes to combining code, trowel, and artistic ambition?

Robotics is revolutionizing the creation of ornamental architecture—from parametric design to on-site execution.
In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, the first projects are emerging in which robots are creating complex, custom facade structures.
Digital design tools and AI-powered algorithms are fueling a new approach to ornamentation—far removed from kitsch and retro styles.
Sustainability hangs in the balance: greater material diversity, as well as efficiency gains and circular processes, are possible.
Technical expertise is a must: Architects must be well-versed in parametric design, robotic interfaces, and material behavior.
The profession faces an identity crisis: Will the architect become a “code poet” or an operator of machine logic?
There are heated debates: Is ornamental robotics truly progress—or merely an aesthetic fig leaf for digital arbitrariness?
The global avant-garde is looking to Zurich, Graz, and Berlin—but also to China and the U.S., where robotic ornamentation is becoming the norm.

Robotics Meets Ornament—Between Craft and Algorithm

You don’t have to be a historian to know this: ornament has always flourished in architecture whenever technology promised new freedoms. Whether Gothic tracery windows or Baroque stucco work—progress and decoration were rarely enemies. In the 21st century, however, the situation is more complex. The digital revolution has freed ornamentation from its stigma as a “crime” (with thanks to Adolf Loos) and banished it to the engine room of design software. But now, with the availability of robotic manufacturing, ornament is making a comeback—not as a historicist imitation, but as a mathematically generated one-of-a-kind creation.

Robotic arms that lay bricks in individual patterns, CNC mills that texture concrete facades with parametric reliefs, additive manufacturing systems that build ornamental components layer by layer—all of this has long been a reality, at least in pilot projects and university research buildings. The digital design file seamlessly becomes a machine instruction; architectural details are no longer created by hand, but by code. The architect becomes an algorithm writer, the mason a machine operator. It sounds futuristic, but it’s everyday life in innovative firms like Gramazio Kohler in Zurich or at startups in Berlin’s affluent suburbs.

The DACH region is definitely at the forefront of this trend, even if people in Munich or Frankfurt still find it hard to publicly admit their fascination with ornamentation. Austrian and Swiss universities are already further along: here, robotically manufactured facades are being created that exist not just as showpieces, but as serious architectural elements in the cityscape. Anyone who recalls the public debates surrounding the “Guggenheim Lab” in Berlin knows that ornamentation still polarizes opinion. But this time, it’s not the plasterers but the coders who are in the hot seat—and for good reason.

That’s because the transition from digital design to physical ornamentation is anything but trivial. Robots are precision machines, but they don’t forgive hasty design decisions. The interface between software and the construction site is complex; errors in the code are directly transferred to the material. Anyone who isn’t trained in parametric thinking, material logic, and process architecture will quickly end up producing expensive junk instead of smart decoration. The result: robotics demands a new, hybrid set of skills from architects—somewhere between design, engineering, and IT.

But here’s the real kicker: robotics makes ornamentation a topic of discourse once again. Those who generate patterns with algorithms today no longer argue on the basis of history, but of performance. Ornament becomes function—it optimizes ventilation, controls light, and modulates acoustics. The old debate between “form follows function” and “less is more” dissolves into the digital fog. After all, robots know no dogmas. They execute whatever the code dictates—and that is often more complex than any stucco artist could ever have dreamed.

Innovations, AI, and the Return of Ornament

The surge in innovation that robotics and AI bring to ornamental architecture should not be underestimated. While digital design tools have long been standard, it is only now that robots are making it possible to economically produce truly individual, complex structures. Mass customization—that is, tailor-made series production—is becoming a reality. No two ornaments are alike; each is the product of a digital process. The lines between one-of-a-kind pieces and mass-produced items are blurring. The new world of decoration is anything but monotonous.

Artificial intelligence takes it a step further: generative algorithms can be used to create ornamental patterns based on environmental parameters, user behavior, or even sociocultural data. In Switzerland, facades have already been constructed whose ornamental structures reflect local wind conditions—an ornamental weather report manifested as a relief on the building. In Vienna and Graz, research projects are underway in which AI extrapolates new ornamentation from historical models. The result: decor that is neither retro nor arbitrary, but rather a digital translation of context, function, and aesthetics.

For designers, this means that anyone experimenting with ornamentation today must speak the language of algorithms. The classic design process is being expanded to include scripting languages, parametric logic, and robotic assembly. Those who do not master these tools will be left behind—or, as clients, will find themselves in consultation with software developers who suddenly claim creative authority. This isn’t for everyone, but the trend is irreversible.

At the same time, the path into the digital world of decoration is not a sure thing. Implementing AI-supported ornaments in real buildings requires a deep understanding of material behavior, tolerances, and manufacturing processes. Robotics can do a lot, but it is not a panacea. It creates new possibilities, but also new sources of error. Those who fail to maintain control over the processes may build beautiful facades—but risk compromising their functionality and durability.

Whether all of this is aesthetically compelling remains a matter of taste. Yet the global avant-garde has long since decided: ornamental robotics is no longer a niche phenomenon, but an integral part of architectural discourse. In China, entire city neighborhoods are being fitted with robotically manufactured facades; in the U.S., startups are emerging that offer ornamental concrete elements as a service. The DACH region is under pressure to act—those who don’t get on board will soon find themselves looking at bland grid facades from the sidelines.

Sustainability: Appearance vs. Substance

The big question remains: Is robotic ornamentation sustainable—or just digital icing on the cake for the Instagram gallery? The answer, as is so often the case, is ambivalent. On the one hand, robots offer enormous efficiency gains: They minimize material waste, enable precision-fit manufacturing, and reduce errors. Ornamental structures that would generate a lot of waste using traditional methods can be digitally optimized and realized in a resource-efficient manner. Those who use parametric design can optimize components so that material is used only where it’s needed. That’s real progress.

On the other hand, this new freedom also tempts us toward excess. The temptation to cover every facade with increasingly complex patterns is strong. Sustainability here means not only saving materials but also exercising design restraint. Those who pursue ornamental robotics as an end in itself quickly produce buildings that, while technically impressive, are socially and ecologically questionable. The debate over “digital kitsch” is not new; it’s simply being conducted through different means.

Another problem: robotic manufacturing requires specialized infrastructure, energy, and expertise. Not every construction site is suitable for the use of robotic arms, and not every region has the resources for high-tech facades. The risk that a new design elite will emerge is real. Sustainability must therefore be approached holistically—from planning through manufacturing to the use and recycling of building components.

The solutions? Circular processes, adaptive materials, modular systems. In Switzerland, robotically manufactured ornaments are now designed so that they can be dismantled and reused. In Germany, architectural firms are experimenting with the use of recycled materials in robotic manufacturing processes. Combining robotics and sustainability is possible—provided there is a commitment to innovation and not just a desire for spectacular visuals.

The greatest gain in sustainability lies in knowledge transfer anyway: Those who master robotic ornamentation can also manufacture other building components more efficiently and in a way that conserves resources. The technological advancement of decorative design is a game-changer—opening the door to new ways of thinking, better processes, and a building culture that no longer separates form from function but instead reconnects the two.

The Profession in Flux—Opportunities, Criticism, and Visions

The consequences for the architectural profession are drastic. The architect of tomorrow is no longer just a composer of forms, but a conductor of data streams, material flows, and machine logic. The shift in creative authority from the drawing board to the algorithm is no small matter—it is transforming the day-to-day work, education, and self-image of the profession. Students today learn not only design and construction but also coding, robot interfaces, and digital manufacturing processes. The profession is becoming more hybrid, more technical, and perhaps even more creative than ever before.

But not everyone is celebrating this development. Critics lament the loss of a human touch, the danger of arbitrariness, and the looming overkill of digital ornamentation. They warn against an aesthetic that is only good for creating a “wow effect” in renderings but quickly becomes outdated in everyday life. The debate over “digital ornamental kitsch” is in full swing—and rightly so. Yet it often overlooks the innovative potential inherent in the combination of robotics and ornamentation. Those who see only the risk overlook the opportunity to reimagine architecture as a sensory, narrative experience—using the tools of the 21st century.

Visionaries see robotic ornamentation as an opportunity to make architecture a cultural event once again. They argue that only digital fabrication paves the way for truly context-specific, individualized architecture—far removed from standardization and boredom. Ornament becomes a means of communication, an expression of local identity, and an interface between technology and society. The question is no longer whether ornament will make a comeback, but how we can use it meaningfully—and who will retain control over these new tools.

Internationally, the discourse has long since moved on. In China, the U.S., and the Netherlands, robotic ornamentation and parametric facade design are standard in competitions and large-scale projects. The DACH region excels in quality, research, and experimental prototypes—but the leap into widespread construction practice has yet to be made. The coming years will show whether the profession has the courage to transform itself—or settles into the comfort zone of standards and grid-based facades.

The greatest vision remains: architecture that, with every new project, seeks a response to its context, society, and technical possibilities—and in doing so, understands ornament not as a reference but as an innovation. Robotics is not the goal here, but the tool. What matters is what we make of it.

Conclusion: Ornamental Robotics—Progress or Gimmick?

Robotics and ornamental architecture are no longer footnotes but drivers of a profound transformation in building culture. They open up new design possibilities but also demand exploration of uncharted technical and ethical territory. Those who master them can make architecture sensuous and individual once again—without slipping into kitsch. The DACH region would be well advised not to fall behind. After all, the ornament of the future will be drawn not with a brush, but with an algorithm. And it will be built by machines that aren’t afraid of complexity. The question remains: Are we ready for this leap—or would we rather stick with good old flat plaster?

22.04.2025

Architecture

44 residential units in Saint-Denis from DREAM

Building design

The new building with 44 residential units by DREAM. Photo: Cyrille Weiner

Two decades after the devastating fire in a dilapidated residential building on Rue Fraizier in Saint-Denis, a new construction project marks a turning point in the urban development of the north of Paris. The Parisian agency DREAM (Dimitri Roussel) has realized a residential ensemble with 44 units there – half for rent, half as subsidized ownership according to the “Bail Réel Solidaire” (BRS) model. It is the first project of its kind in Saint-Denis. However, the ambitious gesture is less about architectural showmanship and more about functional, mass-produced housing that strives for social integration.

The new building stands on a site that has been derelict since the fire in 2001. The fire at the time drastically exposed the dilapidated conditions in the old building, which was being used by shark tenants. The ensuing vacancy was perceived not only as a physical defect, but also as a social one. DREAM now sees the project as a contribution to “repairing” the neighborhood – and to re-establishing trust in the urban space.

The 44 residential units are spread across several buildings and follow a clear principle: as much individuality as possible within the standardized production. Almost all of the apartments are open-plan, with many facing in several directions. The majority have generous outdoor spaces – balconies or gardens at ground level. Interior qualities have also been considered: separate entrance areas with storage space, daylight kitchens that can be closed off if required and large window openings with panoramic views are all part of the repertoire.

The floor plan design is based on the charter of Plaine Commune, the inter-municipal association responsible for the area. The urban positioning of the buildings responds to morphological and climatic analyses of the site. A typical planning response is, for example, the staggering and orientation of the volumes to optimize daylight and natural ventilation.

In terms of design, DREAM dispenses with design experiments. Instead, the architectural expression arises from the materiality and rhythm of the façade. Wooden slats, metal panels and open balcony structures made from a combination of wood and metal structure the outer shell. Great importance was attached to prefabrication: The timber frame construction walls, including cladding, windows and shading elements, were manufactured entirely in the factory. The self-supporting balconies also arrived on site pre-assembled.

This strategy has several advantages: Firstly, it increases the quality of execution, and secondly, it reduces the construction time – a factor that plays a particular role in the densely built-up and socially sensitive Saint-Denis. All in all, the result is a residential building that relies on CO₂-reduced construction methods without playing this off visually.

What is striking about the project is the effort to establish communal zones alongside the private living space – a concept that is often referred to elsewhere as “third places”. In Saint-Denis, the elements are simple but effective: a large, inviting entrance area, green inner courtyards with passageways and roof gardens that serve as places to retreat and meet. The lobbies act as semi-public buffer zones between the street and the apartments. Visual references to the courtyard are intended to provide not only light but also social control.

The whole project was designed in collaboration with the public housing association Plaine Commune Habitat. The aim is to appeal to a heterogeneous group of residents – both people on low incomes and young families who want to build up property through the BRS model.

With a construction cost of around seven million euros and a living space of 2,775 square meters (SHAB), the project is within the scope of what is feasible in a subsidized context. The “NF Habitat” certification and compliance with the French thermal insulation regulation RT 2012 with a 20 percent reduction underline the ecological focus.

Those involved in the project include Bollinger+Grohmann (structural engineering), ENEOR (building services), Le Sommer (certification) and Topager for the landscape architecture. Cap-Exe was responsible for coordinating the various trades.

What can be deduced from the project in Saint-Denis for the current housing debate? Certainly not a new type. Rather, it shows how a combination of solid planning, serial production and municipal control can make a contribution to sustainable urban development – beyond creative exaggeration, but also without falling into banal functionality.

The architecture remains restrained but deliberate. It unfolds its effect through everyday use – as a place to live, to meet and to reappropriate a long-neglected urban space.

31.10.2024

Ukraine war: Мы за мир

Building design

As a result of the war in Ukraine, the European architecture scene has quickly taken a public stand against the Russian war of aggression. G+L also stands in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and government.

BIG, David Chipperfield Architects, Foster + Partners, gmp, Herzog und de Meuron, MVRDV, OMA, Snøhetta, Zaha Hadid Architects – as a result of the war in Ukraine, which violates international law, the who’s who of the European architecture scene publicly opposed the Russian war of aggression in a very short space of time at the end of February/beginning of March 2022. Within just a few days, numerous offices expressed their solidarity with the people in Ukraine and with all those who stand for peaceful coexistence – above all via social media. In the case of Chipperfield, HdM, OMA and Zaha Hadid, the public statements were followed by an immediate halt to all construction projects in Russia. BIG also announced in a statement that the office would not be carrying out any projects in Russia or for the Russian government. However, it is not clear from this whether a construction freeze has been imposed or whether there are simply no Russian projects currently in progress.

First the governments, then the private sector. Today, our globalized world also makes it possible for corporations, companies or even planning offices to impose sanctions. So while Apple, Siemens, Starbucks, McDonalds, Coca-Cola, Pepsi and the management consultancies KPMG, PWC, EY and Deloitte are suspending their business in Russia as a result of the war of aggression, or Elon Musk is actively supporting Ukraine with the help of his satellite internet service Starlink, including reception systems, the world of architecture is also drawing its own conclusions. This is worth a special look, as it was or is precisely non-democratic regimes such as Russia or China that have provided the big star offices with unique construction projects in recent years. The M+ Hong Kong designed by HdM only opened at the end of 2021. While at the turn of the year in Moscow, the Renzo Piano Building Workshop RPBW converted the GES-2 power station into a center for visual and performing arts for the V-A-C Art Foundation.

Jacques Herzog on democratic architecture

For us in the editorial team, this immediately (and once again) triggers the question of how political planning can be, but also how political planning must be. What is exciting in this context is that Jacques Herzog in particular has repeatedly publicly addressed the question of democratic architecture. You can think what you like of him and the HdM projects, but he takes a stand. As he did in an interview in 2020 with Lukas Gruntz from architekturbasel.ch. Referring to the historic urban development of St. Petersburg, Venice, Rome and Paris, he said here: “Perhaps more beauty is created in a non-democratic context because the context is more extreme, more radical.” But he also continued: “From our point of view, an enlightened and democratic society, architecture must be anchored in the population and ideally emerge from the needs of the population.” Sentences that should make us think. Now more than ever.

Ukraine war: Coop Himmelb(l)au under pressure over Crimea project

Lighthouse projects in non-democratic regimes must be better considered in future. I wonder what is going through Wolf D. Prix’s head at Coop Himmelb(l)au right now? His office was criticized even before the war of aggression. Since 2020, the Viennese have been planning two of the four cultural buildings that Vladimir Putin wants to be built by 2023. The particularly tricky case is the planned opera house on the Crimean peninsula, which was annexed by Russian occupiers in 2014 in violation of international law(more on this in an SZ-Plus article). With reference to the lighthouse project, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky imposed economic sanctions against the Viennese architecture firm and six of its representatives on January 21, 2022.

Wolf D. Prix: Coop Himmelb(l)au is building an opera house, not barracks

According to an SZ.de article by Gerhard Matzig, who interviewed Prix on the subject, this was preceded a year and a half ago by threats from the Ukrainian embassy to Coop Himmelb(l)au. Prix would not be allowed to build the opera house in Sevastopol or the architectural firm would soon be ruined. And according to Gerhard Matzig in his article, Prix has now also been advised to distance himself from the project and Putin. When asked by Matzig whether he would do so, Wolf D. Prix sighed on the phone. Prix is of the opinion that he is not building a barracks, but an opera house. As a cultural project, this is not subject to the embargo regulations. Unsurprisingly, as of mid-March 2022, Coop Himmelb(l)au still has no statement on the Ukraine war.

Ukraine war: Russian planners make their mark

But now back to those who openly oppose the war. Because it’s not just the European star offices that are flying the flag. According to SZ.de, a total of 6,500 Russian architects, designers and urban planners also signed an open letter on the website of the Russian architecture magazine “Project Russia” between February 26 and March 4, 2022, calling for an immediate end to the war. The tragedy is that this appeal also fell victim to the “fake news” law against critical reporting on the Russian army signed by Vladimir Putin on March 4, 2022. Only a short version of the campaign with a picture of a dove of peace can now be seen on the site. It says here in Russian: “Unfortunately, we were forced to remove the text of the letter under threat of criminal liability under the law that came into force today. We are for peace!”

One profession, one passion

Meanwhile, however, the Union of Architects of Ukraine also called on the International Union of Architects to expel the Union of Architects of Russia from the organization. “Those who do not condemn Russia’s actions support them,” the Süddeutsche Zeitung quotes the President of the National Union of Architects of Ukraine, Oleksandr Chyzhevsky, as saying in a letter to the UIA. If you let this statement sink in, you have to ask yourself – even if you condemn Russia’s actions in the strongest possible terms – whether we really want to live in a world in which people from one industry, one profession, one passion, go against each other simply because of their nationality. For this very reason, the G+L editorial team would like to join our Russian colleagues: Мы за мир. We are for peace. And we condemn the Russian government’s attack on Ukraine, which violates international law, and stand in solidarity with the Ukrainian people and government.

Ukraine war: bdla and BAK also active

While German landscape architecture firms are still quite reluctant to express their solidarity, the bdla published an official solidarity statement #StandWithUkraine on March 2, 2022. The bdla declared its “deepest regret about the war in Ukraine, the loss of human lives.” It condemns this attack, which violates international law. The bdla’s thoughts are particularly with its colleagues from its partner association, the Guild of Landscape Architects of Ukraine. In the same letter, the bdla refers to the initiative of the Federal Chamber of Architects. This has set itself the goal of becoming active beyond expressions of solidarity. For this reason, the BAK is making its network available to the Ukrainian Association of Architects. The goal: sleeping places for refugees. Find out more here.