16.03.2026

Server farm architecture: Aesthetics of the infrastructure

Building design

Modern, white-blue concrete building on a sustainable farm, photographed by Markus Winkler.

Server farms are the cathedrals of the digital age – but architecturally they are treated like prefabricated garages. Why is that? Behind the inconspicuous facades of data centers lies not only the technical infrastructure of our future, but also a new, unfamiliar aesthetic. It’s time to take the architecture of server farms out of the black box and see them for what they are: the most visible invisibility in the global urban landscape.

Server farm architecture remains mostly invisible in Germany, Austria and Switzerland – yet it is increasingly shaping urban and suburban spaces.
Innovations lie in sustainable construction, new cooling technologies, material strategies and digital planning processes.
Digitalization and artificial intelligence not only control operation and efficiency, but also the design and simulation of these buildings.
The biggest challenges are energy requirements, climate impact and site selection – with surprising solutions ranging from waste heat recovery to CO₂-neutral concepts.
Technical expertise: architecture must bring together IT, air conditioning and building technology, fire protection and security.
Server farms call architecture’s self-image into question: form follows function – or form hides function?
There are heated debates about cityscapes, resource consumption, social acceptance and digital sovereignty.
A differentiated, sometimes iconic server farm architecture is gaining international acceptance – a role model or a warning?
Server farms are hubs of the digital society – and their design determines the sustainability and visibility of our digital future.

The new invisibility: server farms in German-speaking countries

Server farms are omnipresent and invisible at the same time. In Germany, Austria and Switzerland, data centers are hidden behind soundproof walls, industrial halls or inconspicuous office complexes. They are located on the outskirts of cities, on derelict industrial sites, often where the price of land is low and the power supply is high. Their architectural aspirations? Mostly functional, rarely inspiring. While the industry is slowly coming out of stealth internationally, here in Germany the motto is still: the main thing is that nobody sees us. This is despite the fact that server farms have long been fundamental infrastructures for business, administration, mobility and everyday life. The volume of data is growing exponentially, the need for new data centers is increasing rapidly – and with it the number of buildings that are quietly but sustainably shaping our cities and regions. The key question here is: why are we hiding the digital infrastructure? Is there really nothing to show, or do we just need to learn to take a closer look?

The reticence has grown historically. In a region where monument protection and cityscape preservation are sacred, anything that looks like “technology” is seen as a disruptive factor. The image of the server box as a necessary evil runs deep. Politicians, developers and planners are often content with standard solutions. The result: monofunctional boxes that are aesthetically somewhere between a DIY store and a furniture warehouse. But reality is beginning to change. Cities such as Frankfurt, Zurich and Vienna are faced with the challenge of integrating more and ever larger data centers – in densely built-up areas, in commercial zones close to cities, in sensitive landscapes. At the latest when the next mega server park eats up a hectare of green space, the question arises: is invisibility really still an option?

The architectural debate in the DACH countries remains tough. There are some initial showcase projects that score points with green façades, timber construction or innovative cooling concepts. But they remain the exception. The majority of server farms are still unimaginative, questionable in terms of energy efficiency and unambitious in terms of urban design. Why? Because there is a lack of discourse. While administrative buildings, residential areas and even multi-storey parking lots have long been seen as design tasks, the old IT maxim still applies to data centers: the main thing is to keep things running. But anyone who takes responsibility for the digital infrastructure of the future seriously must also question its appearance. Architecture can no longer ignore server farms – it has to shape them.

The biggest obstacle: the fear of conflict. Server farms are seen as power guzzlers, sources of noise and polluters of the landscape. Anyone who goes public with this risks resistance. So everyone keeps quiet, and the buildings disappear behind privacy screens and camouflage colors. But this strategy is neither sustainable nor viable for the future. Data centers will continue to grow, they will become larger, denser, more present – and they will change our cities, whether we like it or not. The key question is therefore: do we want to shape this transformation or just manage it?

Conclusion on the status quo in Germany, Austria and Switzerland: the architecture of server farms is at a crossroads. Invisibility was yesterday. Today it’s all about integration, sustainability and visibility. Those who fail to design now will soon be overtaken by reality. The time for camouflage is running out – it’s high time to rethink the aesthetics of infrastructure.

Innovation and technology: server farms as a laboratory for sustainability

Server farms are not only energy hubs, but also test laboratories for sustainable architecture. The innovation density in this area is high – by necessity. This is because the digital infrastructure’s hunger for energy is a gigantic problem. Data centers in Germany already consume more electricity than the entire rail transport system. The carbon footprint? Disastrous if everything stays the same. But the industry is responding. New cooling technologies, such as adiabatic cooling, liquid cooling directly on the server racks or the use of outside air, are drastically reducing energy requirements. At the same time, more and more concepts are emerging that feed waste heat from server farms into local or district heating networks – a step that makes a virtue out of necessity and upgrades data centers to energy sources for neighborhoods, swimming pools or housing estates.

A lot is also happening when it comes to the use of materials. While concrete and sheet metal used to dominate, innovative projects are focusing on modular timber construction, recyclable components and flexible floor plans that allow adaptations and subsequent uses. The façade is becoming a technical shell that not only protects, but also communicates: with sun protection, photovoltaics, façade greening or even media installations that visualize digital activity. In Zurich, for example, the façades of server farms have become elements that shape the cityscape, deliberately setting accents and raising public awareness of the infrastructure.

In technical terms, server farms are now highly automated systems. Artificial intelligence optimizes air conditioning, load distribution and maintenance intervals. Planning is digital, BIM models enable simulations of energy flows, cooling chains and fire protection scenarios even before the first sod is turned. Smart grids connect the data centers to renewable energies, battery storage buffers peak loads and makes operation grid-friendly. Integration into urban energy systems is becoming the standard – at least in pilot projects. But perhaps the biggest innovation is the change in perspective: server farms are no longer seen as a problem, but as part of the urban infrastructure. This opens up scope for new approaches to design, use and layout.

The challenge remains huge. Sustainability is not a sure-fire success, but a permanent balancing act between efficiency, security, cost-effectiveness and ecological responsibility. Server farms not only have to be energy-efficient, but also resilient to outages, cyber attacks and extreme weather. This requires technical expertise at the highest level – and interdisciplinary collaboration between architects, engineers, IT experts and urban planners. Anyone who fails to keep up with this is stuck in the past.

International projects show what is possible. In Norway, server farms are being built that are powered by hydropower and built entirely from wood. In the Netherlands, data centers are being integrated into former greenhouses, while in Singapore they are stacked up into the sky as vertical farms. So it does work – if you want it to. The only question is when German-speaking countries will overcome the innovation backlog and see their server farms for what they are: Laboratories for the sustainable city of the future.

Digital transformation: AI, data streams and new design logic

Digitalization is not only the reason for the boom in server farms – it is also the driving force behind their own development. Today, digital planning processes shape the entire life cycle of a data center. From site selection to design and implementation planning through to operation, all processes are data-driven. BIM models, simulations and parametric tools make it possible to check thousands of variants in the shortest possible time and find the optimal solution in terms of energy, costs, security and urban planning. The architecture of the server farm thus becomes the interface between IT, building technology and urban planning – and that is more complex than it sounds.

Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly important role. It not only controls the servers themselves, but also the air conditioning, energy consumption and maintenance. Predictive maintenance detects errors before they occur and minimizes downtimes. AI-based simulations help to understand the effects of new technologies or changes in usage as early as the planning phase. The result: server farms become learning buildings that adapt dynamically – to users, climate, energy prices and network loads.

However, digitalization is also changing the role of architects. Anyone planning data centers must be able to do more than just draw pretty floor plans. What is needed is knowledge of IT infrastructure, data security, fire protection, air conditioning and energy technology – and the ability to translate all of this into a creative design. The server farm is not a solitary unit, but a highly networked system that is in constant communication with its surroundings. If you ignore this, you are ignoring reality.

At the same time, new architectural freedom is emerging. Digital tools make it possible to design server farms as variable, adaptable structures that can grow, be transformed or even repurposed. The classic separation of shell and content, of façade and function, becomes permeable. The architecture of the server farm is becoming a process, not a product – and this is forcing planners to rethink.

From a global perspective, German-speaking countries are still cautious when it comes to digital innovations. While server farms have long been integrated into urban infrastructure as digital power plants in Asia and Scandinavia, fear of loss of control and technical overload still dominate in this country. But digitalization won’t wait. Those who don’t jump on board now will be overrun by the next wave.

Controversy over visibility: server farms and the cityscape of tomorrow

Server farms are the new infrastructure of our cities – and yet they are causing fierce debate. Some demand maximum invisibility: nobody wants to look at a server farm on a Sunday outing. Others argue for transparency, integration and even iconic architecture that makes the importance of digital infrastructure visible. As is so often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. The fact is: server farms are changing the cityscape – whether we like it or not. They displace businesses, take up space and influence energy and traffic flows. The larger their share, the more pressing the question: How do we deal with them in terms of design?

The most heated debates revolve around the choice of location, competition for resources and social acceptance. Citizens’ initiatives oppose new data centers if they take up green spaces or valuable commercial areas. Urban planners fear the sealing and monofunctionality of entire city districts. And architects? They are often caught between two stools – challenged to design the unavoidable in such a way that it is not perceived as an imposition. The server farm becomes a touchstone for the ability of urban society to integrate.

But there are also visionary approaches. Some cities use server farms as a catalyst for innovative neighborhood development, linking them to housing construction, commerce and public infrastructure. The server farm as a neighbor, not as a foreign body – that is the goal. In Amsterdam, for example, data centers are being built with public parks on the roof, in Copenhagen they are becoming landmarks on the outskirts of the city and in Paris they are being integrated into historic industrial architecture. The message: server farms do not have to be ugly, loud and isolated. They can become part of the city – if you want them to.

The cultural change is coming slowly. Skepticism still dominates, but the number of positive examples is growing. The decisive factor is how openly the discourse is conducted – and how courageously architects, developers and cities assume their responsibility. Server farms are too important to be left to chance or pure efficiency thinking. They are part of the public infrastructure – and deserve a public debate about their design.

The big challenge is to strike a balance between technical necessity, design requirements and social acceptance. Those who view server farms solely as a technical necessity are missing out on the opportunity to try out new forms of architecture. Those who see them as a design task can make infrastructure visible – and perhaps even create new symbols for the digital age. The decision is now.

Server farm architecture: Between responsibility and vision

Server farms are the invisible heroes of the digital society – and the big climate sinners at the same time. Their architecture is at the crossroads between pure functionality and design vision. Anyone planning server farms today must be able to do both: technical excellence and architectural innovation. After all, the infrastructure of the future must not only be efficient, but also sustainable, resilient and integrable. This requires a new self-image of architecture – and technical expertise that goes far beyond the usual.

The responsibility is enormous. Every location, every façade, every technical decision has an impact on the cityscape, energy consumption and social acceptance. Anyone who treats server farms as isolated special buildings risks upsetting urban planning. Those who see them as part of the urban ecosystem can create synergies – from the use of waste heat to participatory neighborhood development. The architecture of the server farm thus becomes a political task that goes far beyond the traditional boundaries of design and construction.

At the same time, digitalization is opening up new opportunities. With AI, BIM and data-driven planning processes, server farms can be designed that are not only efficient, but also flexible, adaptable and visually appealing. The façade becomes a communication space, the building becomes an urban actor. Hybrid uses, new typologies – and perhaps even the icons of digital modernity – are emerging. The prerequisite, however, is the will to no longer hide server farms, but to see them as an opportunity.

The criticism of resource consumption remains justified. Server farms are energy-intensive, take up space, require water and generate emissions. But they are also indispensable for the digital transformation, for business, administration, science and everyday life. The debate therefore needs to be more nuanced: How can server farms become part of sustainable urban development? What innovations can be used to improve their balance sheet? And what does architecture look like that does justice to technology, the city and society in equal measure?

The global discourse shows that there are alternatives. From Iceland to Singapore, server farms are being built that function as landmarks, energy sources or even public spaces. German-speaking countries are at the beginning of this development. Those who are courageous now can become pioneers. Those who continue to rely on invisibility will become digital peripheries.

Conclusion: The architecture of server farms is the architecture of the future

Server farms are no longer a marginal phenomenon. They are the backbone of the digital society – and their architecture is a reflection of our technological, ecological and cultural ambitions. Those who design them are shaping the city of tomorrow. The time of invisibility is over. It is time to not only accept the aesthetics of infrastructure, but to actively shape it. Because the server farm is more than just a technical building. It is a statement – and perhaps the most important architectural challenge of our time.

19.01.2026

Digitization

Digital neighborhood analyses at district level

Building design

aerial-view-of-a-town-with-many-houses-sC6IvRuqx-g — An impressive aerial view of a city with numerous houses, taken by Berke Can.

Neighbourhoods in the digital mirror: with modern neighborhood analyses at district level, the city is beginning to understand itself – and often reinvent itself. Between real-time data, citizens’ interests and algorithmic forecasts, planners are facing the biggest challenge since the introduction of the land use plan. Those who fail to recognize the opportunities offered by digital tools are left at an analog dead end.

Definition and development of digital neighborhood analyses and their integration into urban planning processes.
Technical basics: From geodata to AI – which tools and data types are used?
Use and impact: How do digital analyses change neighborhood development, participation and governance?
Practical examples from Germany, Austria and Switzerland – successes, stumbling blocks and lessons learned.
Opportunities for climate resilience, social mix, mobility transition and sustainable land use.
Risks: Data protection, algorithmic distortions and the risk of alienating urban societies.
Legal, technical and cultural hurdles in German-speaking planning practice.
Strategic recommendations for cities, planners and developers venturing into digital neighborhood analyses.

Digitalization of the neighbourhood: from classic social space analysis to real-time neighbourhoods

Anyone who still thinks of neighborhood analyses in terms of transit traffic counts with clipboards and timesheets has overslept the last few years. In the meantime, digital neighborhood analysis has become a highly dynamic field that does not do away with traditional methods, but takes them to a new level. What used to be painstakingly determined through surveys and observations is now created from a fine mesh of real-time data, algorithmic evaluation and participatory feedback. But what is really behind it all?

At its core, digital neighborhood analysis describes the systematic collection, linking and evaluation of a wide range of data on the condition, use and development of a neighborhood. Unlike a rough social area analysis, today it is no longer just demographic and infrastructural key figures that are collected. Instead, mobility flows, residence times, climatic parameters, energy consumption, noise levels, green space quality and even the residents’ subjective perception of safety are digitized, collated and analysed. Thanks to sensor technology, geoinformation systems and artificial intelligence, a living, multidimensional image of the neighborhood is being created.

This development is not an end in itself. It is the answer to the increasing complexity of urban spaces, where traditional static analyses quickly reach their limits. Neighborhoods today are highly dynamic systems with diverse interactions. A new café, a building site or a heavy rainfall event can change the fabric within hours. Digital neighborhood analysis creates the conditions for reacting flexibly to such changes – or even anticipating them.

What is particularly exciting is that digital analyses can not only capture the purely spatial aspects of a neighborhood, but also the social aspects. By evaluating anonymized mobile phone data, social media feeds or online participation platforms, patterns of use, wishes and problems of residents can be made visible. This creates a holistic picture that goes far beyond the traditional planning perspective.

The digitalization of neighbourhood analysis is therefore not a technical gimmick, but a new form of urban intelligence. It enables planning that is no longer based solely on experience and gut feeling, but on reliable, up-to-date and multi-linked data. And it opens up the opportunity not just to manage the city, but to actively shape it.

Technical foundations: data, sensors and AI – the digital nervous system of the neighborhood

The basis of every digital neighborhood analysis is a data-driven ecosystem, the complexity of which is often underestimated. At its heart is geodata, which is fed from a wide variety of sources. Traditional cadastral data and official statistics only form the foundation. The real magic comes from the integration of real-time data from sensors, mobility providers, energy suppliers, weather stations, public WLANs, sharing services and even smart home systems. This transforms the neighborhood into an “Internet of Neighborhood Things” – a dense network that regularly provides up-to-date information.

Sensor technology is no longer limited to traffic counts or environmental measurements. Modern LoRaWAN sensors record particulate matter, temperature, humidity, noise, light intensity and movement profiles – and do so comprehensively, cost-effectively and with low maintenance. There are also crowd data approaches: Residents themselves provide valuable information via apps, social networks and digital participation platforms, for example on problem areas, quality of stay or conflicts of use.

What happens to this data is decided by the next layer of analysis: powerful algorithms and artificial intelligence. They recognize patterns, calculate forecasts and simulate scenarios. For example, it is possible to model how a new traffic routing will affect noise distribution, how the microclimate will change with additional greenery or how social infrastructure will have to adapt to the development of the neighborhood. The demands are high: it’s about more than just pretty visualization – it’s about well-founded decision support in real time.

Open interfaces, so-called Open Urban Platforms, play a decisive role here. They ensure that data from different systems can communicate with each other – without proprietary isolated solutions or data monopolies. This is the only way to create a holistic, interoperable picture of the neighborhood that can be used and further developed by various stakeholders.

The requirements for data protection, data sovereignty and cybersecurity should not be underestimated. The more granular and up-to-date the data, the greater the responsibility in handling it. The development of legally compliant, transparent and comprehensible analysis processes is therefore one of the key tasks for planners, technology service providers and local authorities alike.

New planning reality: how digital neighborhood analyses are changing districts

The establishment of digital neighborhood analyses is fundamentally changing the rules of the game in neighborhood development. Planning is becoming more dynamic, more interactive and – in the best case – more inclusive. Suddenly, planners can not only document current conditions, but also simulate future developments and weigh up different scenarios against each other. A new residential district? The effects on traffic, infrastructure, microclimate and social mix are no longer a guessing game, but can be estimated based on data.

An illustrative example: In Zurich, all movement data in public spaces was evaluated anonymously as part of a Smart City project. The analysis showed that certain places were avoided despite their attractive design – because they were perceived as unsafe. Only the combination of quantitative movement data and qualitative feedback from a digital participation platform revealed the causes: lack of lighting, poor sightlines, lack of social control. The city was able to make targeted adjustments – and visibly improve the quality of life.

Digital neighborhood analyses are also a key to climate-resilient neighborhoods. In Vienna, for example, particulate matter and temperature data is evaluated in real time in order to identify heat islands and to green them in a targeted manner. In Hamburg, mobility data is used to assess the effectiveness of traffic calming measures and to optimize neighbourhood mobility. These examples show: The possibilities extend far beyond the classic survey of existing traffic.

The influence on governance in the neighborhood is particularly significant. Digital analyses make connections visible that previously remained hidden in the fog of subjective perception. They promote the transparency of planning processes and enable a more precise, fact-based discussion between administration, politicians and residents. Participation thus becomes not only more digital, but also more substantial – as long as the data is open and comprehensibly accessible.

Of course, not all that glitters digitally is gold. The use of digital tools can also lead to alienation if the technology becomes a black box and citizens feel excluded. This is where planners and local authorities are called upon to establish digital neighborhood analyses as an instrument of understanding – not as a substitute for dialogue, but as its catalyst.

Practice and perspective: opportunities, risks and the German-speaking reality

In practice, the picture is quite mixed. While international pioneers such as Helsinki and Singapore have long been using digital city models as a basis for neighborhood decisions, German-speaking countries are often even more cautious. Cities such as Hamburg, Munich and Zurich have set up initial pilot projects, but the big leap towards the widespread use of digital neighborhood analyses has yet to be made in many places. There are many reasons for this: technical hurdles, a lack of standards, uncertainty about data protection and governance and, last but not least, cultural reservations about algorithmic planning.

Nevertheless, successful examples show the potential that can be tapped. In Vienna, for example, digital neighborhood analyses are being systematically integrated into urban development planning. Neighborhood profiles are created there that map climate resilience, social mix, mobility options and energy consumption in real time. The results flow directly into competitions, development plans and investment decisions. In Zurich, the Smart City Lab demonstrates how the combination of real-time data, visualization and citizen participation can not only accelerate planning processes, but also increase the acceptance of new projects.

Risks exist in particular in the danger of algorithmic distortions. If data sources are unrepresentative or algorithms make non-transparent decisions, social imbalances can be exacerbated instead of remedied. The risk of excessive commercialization is also real: if large technology companies gain data sovereignty over neighbourhoods, urban development threatens to become the plaything of private interests.

The legal framework in German-speaking countries continues to be a stumbling block. Data protection laws, the separation of responsibilities between the federal, state and local authorities and the lack of binding standards make it difficult to introduce the system across the board. Added to this is the often small-scale administrative structure, which slows down rather than promotes innovation. But here, too, the following applies: those who invest early on create a strategic advantage – and can help shape standards instead of being overrun by them.

What remains is the realization that digital neighborhood analyses are not a panacea, but a tool – one that offers enormous added value when used wisely, but also creates new responsibilities. The key to success lies in the combination of technical excellence, open governance and a culture of dialog that sees the city and neighbourhood as a living organism.

Strategies for the future: recommendations for planners, municipalities and developers

Any planner, local authority or developer who wants to venture into the world of digital neighborhood analyses faces an exciting but challenging task. The most important recommendation is: technology is never an end in itself. It is crucial to ask the right questions and choose the right tools. Start with a clear analysis of the objectives: Is it about traffic optimization, climate adaptation, social integration or all of the above? Each goal requires its own data, methods and participation formats.

Rely on open, interoperable platforms instead of isolated solutions. This is the only way to flexibly expand data sources and integrate different stakeholders. Invest in the data expertise of your own teams – and create interfaces to external experts from IT, social sciences and communication. Digital neighborhood analyses are teamwork, not an individual discipline.

Don’t forget the people in the neighborhood. Digital participation is not a one-way street, but thrives on transparency and feedback. Explain what data is collected and how it is used. Actively involve residents – for example via digital reporting platforms, participatory workshops or visualizations that even laypeople can understand. If you operate digital neighborhood analysis as a black box, you will lose trust and acceptance.

Establish clear rules for data use, data protection and governance. Define who has access to which information, how decisions are documented in a comprehensible manner and how errors or distortions are identified and corrected. Remember: with every new technology, the responsibility towards urban society and democracy also grows.

Finally: Have the courage to innovate. Digital neighborhood analysis is not a rigid recipe, but a dynamic learning process. Mistakes are unavoidable, but also valuable – as long as they are made transparent and used to improve. Those who close their minds to digital change are planning for the city of yesterday. Those who shape it will shape the neighborhoods of tomorrow.

Conclusion: Digital neighborhood analysis – a compass for the city of the future

Digital neighborhood analyses at district level mark a paradigm shift in urban and open space planning. They create the basis for forward-looking, resilient and participatory development of urban spaces – and are therefore far more than just another technical tool. They make the dynamics of the district visible, promote a new dialog between planning, politics and society and give the city a voice that comes not just from the drawing board, but from real life. They are not a sure-fire success, but require technical expertise, open governance and a good dose of courage to question old ways of thinking. But it’s worth the effort: if you use digital neighborhood analyses wisely, you can turn data into real quality of life – and set the course for the city of the future. With this in mind, welcome to the reality of tomorrow, which begins today.

23.01.2025

Event

Baumeister student competition

Building design

Competition

RWTH Aachen and TU Munich are the most successful universities in this year’s student competition organized by Baumeister and Nemetschek Allplan Systems.

RWTH Aachen and TU Munich are the most successful universities in this year’s student competition organized by Baumeister and Nemetschek Allplan Systems. A TU team won with its submission on the subject of “Three houses under one roof”, “Curia House on Roncalliplatz in Cologne” and “Diving Bunker”, the titles of the two winners from Aachen. The theme of the competition was additions to storeys, under the title “That’s the height!” 16 universities with a total of 33 entries responded to our call.

The jury could not (and did not want to) decide on an exact order this year. The projects in the final round simply excelled with too many different aspects. They agreed on three equal prizes in the categories “Housing”, “Public Building” and “Conversion”. Each prize-winning work received prize money of 1,500 euros. Three further projects were recognized and awarded prize money of 250 euros each.

All winning projects and recognitions will be published in Baumeister 7/2014 with the jury’s assessments. We would like to congratulate the winners and thank them for their fantastic entries!

The winners are:

Category “Living”

Barbara Trojer, Markus Munzig, Cosima Krubasik from the Technical University of Munich for their submission “Three houses under one roof”, prize money: 1,500 euros

Category “Public Building”

Patrick Knüppe from the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen for his submission “Kurienhaus am Roncalliplatz in Cologne”, prize money: 1,500 euros

Category “Conversion”:

Thomas Haber from the Rheinisch-Westfälische Technische Hochschule Aachen for his submission “Tauchbunker”, prize money: 1,500 euros

Recognition and prize money of 250 euros each:

Janna Lane and Jan Hendrik Lorenzen, Lübeck University of Applied Sciences

Felix Broer, Dortmund University of Applied Sciences and Arts

Acar and Xi Li, Berlin University of Technology

The jury:

Dr. Matthias Castorph, Götz Castorph Architekten und Stadtplaner (jury chairman)

Philipp Auer, Auer+Weber+Assoziierte

Susanna Knopp, 4architekten

Lorenz Lachauer, Nemetschek Allplan Systems

Mauritz Lüps, Atelier Lüps

Sabine Schneider, Baumeister