Tiny Houses for 2 People: Definition, Pros and Cons, and Examples

Building design
A modern residential building designed as a "tiny house" for two people
Wooden building with a glass roof—an example of contemporary architecture. Photo: thomaswerneken

Two people, a shared home, a living space limited to the essentials: The tiny house for two people has long been more than just an alternative living arrangement on the fringes of the mainstream. It is a serious architectural and social concept that raises questions about space efficiency, material selection, construction logic, and the relationship between space and quality of life with unusual clarity. Anyone planning or living in a tiny house for two people must be able to justify every decision, because in such a small space, there is no room for compromises without consequences.

  • What defines a tiny house for two people and how it differs from other small-scale housing options
  • What floor areas, ceiling heights, and floor plan types are suitable for two residents
  • Which construction systems and materials are used in tiny houses
  • What building code requirements apply in Germany
  • What advantages living together in a small space offers
  • What disadvantages and limitations a tiny house for two people entails
  • How floor plans and room layouts work for two people
  • What real-world examples and building types illustrate the spectrum

Definition: What Is a Tiny House for Two People?

The term “tiny house” refers to a residential building with a very small floor area that is reduced to the functional essentials while combining all essential living functions under one roof. There is no universally binding size limit, but in professional discourse and international usage, a usable floor area of approximately 15 to 50 square meters is considered characteristic. A tiny house for two people typically falls toward the upper end of this range—that is, between 25 and 50 square meters—because two occupants have certain minimum requirements for privacy, storage space, and sleeping areas that are difficult to meet satisfactorily in a space smaller than 25 square meters.

The tiny house differs from a micro-apartment—which is developed as a rental unit in an urban apartment building—in its self-contained nature: it stands as a single structure on a lot or, in its mobile version, on a trailer. It differs from a garden shed or gazebo in that it is designed for year-round habitation, which requires full insulation, heating, plumbing, and a kitchen. The tiny house is thus neither a temporary structure nor a vacation rental, but a fully-fledged residential building on a reduced scale.

For two people, the design challenge shifts significantly compared to that for a single occupant. Two people do not need twice as much space as one, but they do need different types of spaces: the ability to retreat from time to time, separate work areas or at least alcoves, and sufficient storage space for two wardrobes, two bicycles, and two sets of belongings. This requirement makes designing a tiny house for two people a more complex planning task than designing one for a single occupant, and it explains why successful examples almost always rely on a very precise spatial organization.

Construction and Building Methods: How a Tiny House Is Built

Tiny houses are built using a variety of construction systems that differ significantly in weight, insulation value, moisture management, and durability. The most common construction method is wood-frame construction, also known as wood-stud construction or, in English, “platform frame.” In this method, slender wood studs spaced about 60 centimeters apart form the load-bearing skeleton, between which mineral wool, cellulose, or other insulation materials are installed. The exterior is clad with wood siding, fiber-cement panels, or other weather-resistant materials. This construction method is lightweight, quick to build, highly adaptable, and particularly well-suited for mobile tiny houses on trailers, where total weight plays a crucial role.

More robust variants use cross-laminated timber (CLT), which, as a panel-shaped solid wood element, serves both a load-bearing and a space-enclosing function. CLT tiny houses offer higher thermal mass, which stabilizes the indoor climate, and are particularly well-suited for stationary locations due to their rigidity. In addition, there are tiny houses made from steel-frame structures, shipping containers converted into modules, as well as straw bales, clay, or other eco-friendly building materials. Each of these construction methods comes with specific building physics requirements, particularly regarding vapor diffusion, thermal bridges, and airtightness.

The issue of airtightness is particularly critical in a tiny house designed for two people. Through breathing, cooking, showering, and drying laundry, two people generate significant amounts of moisture, which is concentrated within a very small volume. A tiny house with a floor area of 30 square meters and a ceiling height of 2.40 meters has an air volume of approximately 70 to 80 cubic meters. The same amount of moisture that would be easily distributed throughout an 80-square-meter apartment leads to a significantly faster rise in relative humidity here. Consequently, either the building envelope must be sufficiently permeable to allow passive moisture release, or a controlled ventilation system is needed to ensure moisture removal.

Mobile Tiny Houses: The Tiny House on Wheels

A special category is the so-called Tiny House on Wheels (THOW), a tiny house built on a registered vehicle trailer and thus capable, in principle, of changing locations. In Germany, as long as a THOW is registered as a vehicle and can be moved, it is subject to road traffic law rather than building code regulations. This has significant consequences: No building permit is required for the structure itself, but a legal parking space is required, which in turn must be approved under building code regulations. In Germany, the maximum width of a road-approved trailer is 2.55 meters, which directly limits the floor plan width of the tiny house and poses particular challenges for the design.

For two people, the THOW is a demanding living arrangement: The width of 2.55 meters requires a very disciplined floor plan organization, in which furniture, built-in cabinets, and circulation areas are coordinated down to the centimeter. Lengths ranging from 7 to 9 meters are common, resulting in a total floor area of approximately 18 to 23 square meters. It is possible to accommodate two sleeping areas, a kitchen, a bathroom, and a living area within this space, but only through the consistent multifunctionality of the furniture and rooms.

Building Code Framework in Germany

Building law in Germany is a matter for the individual states, regulated by their respective state building codes, and there is no uniform nationwide regulation for tiny houses. Stationary tiny houses intended to be permanently installed on a property are considered residential buildings under building code regulations and are therefore subject to building permit requirements. They must meet the requirements of the Building Energy Act (GEG), meaning they must comply with certain minimum standards for thermal insulation, airtightness, and heating systems. Furthermore, the minimum requirements of the respective state building code regarding ceiling heights, natural lighting, and plumbing fixtures apply.

The issue of the zoning area is particularly relevant: In purely residential zones, general residential zones, or mixed-use zones, a tiny house is generally permitted as a residential building, provided it complies with the provisions of the zoning plan. On agricultural land, in outlying areas, or on campgrounds, permanent residential use is generally not permitted. Anyone wishing to use a tiny house for two people as their primary residence must clarify with the relevant building authority at an early stage whether the selected property and the planned structure comply with local regulations.

A common misconception is that a tiny house is automatically exempt from permitting requirements due to its small size. This is not the case in Germany. Projects exempt from permitting procedures are strictly defined in state building codes and generally do not include permanently occupied buildings. Anyone who builds without a permit risks a prohibition on use and, in the worst case, the demolition of the building. Investing in a thorough review of building codes before construction begins is therefore not a bureaucratic formality, but an essential prerequisite.

Advantages of a Tiny House for 2 People

The most obvious advantage is financial: a tiny house for two people costs significantly less to build than a conventional single-family home. Depending on the features, construction method, and location, the cost of a high-quality, permanent tiny house ranges from 80,000 to 200,000 euros, while comparable new builds in many German regions cost twice or three times as much. Those who own or can lease a plot of land can significantly reduce the total cost of living. For two people managing their finances together, the potential savings are particularly large because all fixed costs are shared.

The environmental benefit lies in the reduced use of resources. A smaller building requires fewer materials to construct, uses less energy to operate, and generates less “gray energy”—that is, the energy expended in the extraction, transportation, and processing of building materials. With careful material selection—such as using renewable raw materials like wood, straw, or cellulose—the ecological footprint of a tiny house for two people can be significantly lower than that of a conventional residential building. Added to this is the lower heating energy requirement: a well-insulated structure with a small volume can be maintained at a comfortable temperature with very little energy.

For two people, the tiny house offers another, often underestimated advantage: it forces them to make joint decisions about what really matters. What do we really need? Which items, habits, and spaces are indispensable? This process of clarification, which the tiny house compels, can have a liberating effect on couples or cohabiting partners. Many residents report that living in a small space intensifies communication and makes them more mindful of sharing spaces. This is not a romantic side effect, but a direct consequence of the limited space, which is experienced either as an enrichment or a burden, depending on personality and the quality of the relationship.

Added to this is the flexibility of location offered by particularly mobile Tiny Houses. Two people who are flexible in their careers or who do not need a permanent place of residence can change their place of residence with a THOW without having to give notice on or sell an apartment. This model has real practical value in certain phases of life, such as during temporary employment, sabbaticals, or the transition to retirement.

Disadvantages and Limitations of a Tiny House for Two People

The lack of space is the most obvious disadvantage, and it should not be downplayed. Two people living together permanently in 30 to 40 square meters have little opportunity to give each other space. Conflicts that might be mitigated by physical distance in a larger apartment escalate more quickly in a small space. People with different sleep-wake cycles, different work schedules, or different needs for quiet and companionship will encounter limitations in a tiny house that even the most clever floor plan design cannot completely resolve.

The limitations on storage space are particularly noticeable for two people. Clothing, tools, sports equipment, books, kitchen utensils: Two households merging typically bring more belongings than a tiny house can accommodate. This means either a thorough decluttering before moving in or using external storage options, which puts the cost calculations into perspective. Anyone who owns bicycles, skis, or musical instruments must either store them outdoors or do without them.

Building code hurdles and the difficulty of finding suitable plots of land are significant practical obstacles in Germany. Many municipalities have no experience with tiny houses and respond to permit applications with hesitation or rejection. The search for a legal, serviced site for a THOW can take months. Anyone planning to use a tiny house as their primary residence must factor this effort into their plans and should not underestimate it.

Finally, financing is often more difficult than for conventional residential buildings. Banks are reluctant to provide loans for tiny houses because the resale value is difficult to estimate, and mobile versions are not considered real estate property. Those without any equity may not find a bank willing to accept a tiny house for two people as collateral. This issue particularly affects younger couples who view the tiny house as a first step toward homeownership.

Floor Plan Concepts and Space Organization for Two Residents

Successful tiny houses for two people share a common design philosophy: they consistently distinguish between spaces that are shared and those that offer private retreats. In almost all well-designed floor plans, the living and kitchen area is conceived as a cohesive, multifunctional zone that is divided by furniture, built-ins, or changes in floor level. The sleeping area, on the other hand, should ideally be separable from the living area for two people, whether by a sliding door, a room divider, or vertical separation into a loft bed or a loft bedroom.

The loft concept—in which the sleeping area is situated on a raised level above the living space—is widely used in tiny houses for two people. It saves floor space but requires a clear ceiling height of at least 4.80 to 5.20 meters so that both the loft and the area below it are sufficiently usable. For two people living permanently in such a structure, access to the loft via a staircase rather than a ladder is an important comfort feature that should not be overlooked during the planning phase.

Built-in furniture is the most important element of tiny house architecture. Custom-built beds with built-in drawers, stair steps that also provide storage space, kitchen tables that can double as desks, and benches with storage underneath: This multifunctionality is not a gimmick, but a structural necessity. For two people, this means that built-in furniture must be planned as part of the architecture from the very beginning—not as an afterthought. A tiny house for two people without a well-thought-out built-in design is not a tiny house, but rather an apartment that’s too small.

An Overview of Real-World Examples and Building Types

The range of completed tiny houses for two people is broad. At the lower end are mobile THOW projects ranging from 18 to 22 square meters, which are used by couples as their primary residence and achieve an astonishing quality of living through consistent space optimization. Well-known international examples, such as those from the U.S., New Zealand, or Scandinavia, show that a fully functional daily life is possible within this space when planning and usage are coordinated.

In the stationary sector, there are an increasing number of projects in Germany where tiny houses are built on private land or as part of community projects. Some municipalities have begun designating special “tiny house” zones where smaller residential structures on smaller lots can be approved. This development is still in its infancy, but it shows that the tiny house for two people is slowly gaining recognition even within German planning culture.

Particularly interesting are projects that combine the tiny house with shared infrastructure: multiple tiny houses on a single lot that share common areas, workshops, or garden spaces. For two people who find the confined space of a tiny house challenging, this model offers a solution: Their own home remains small and intimate, while the communal space provides the extra square meters needed for socializing, work, or hobbies. This concept, discussed in the literature under terms such as “cohousing” or “communal living,” is a natural and structurally sound complement to the tiny house.

The Tiny House for 2 People in an Architectural Context

The tiny house for two people is not a marginal phenomenon, but rather a symptom of a broader debate about equitable land use, resource consumption, and the question of how much space a good life truly requires. At a time when building land is scarce, construction costs are high, and environmental requirements have increased, the tiny house represents a radical yet logical response. It forces architects, planners, and residents alike to set priorities and identify compromises, rather than hiding them behind generous amounts of space.

For two people, the tiny house is a form of housing that works when both residents make the decision consciously and jointly, when the planning is precise and tailored to the couple’s specific needs, and when the legal and structural foundations are solid. It is not a living arrangement for everyone, and it would be wrong to promote it as a universal solution. But as a well-thought-out, well-built response to specific housing needs, the tiny house for two people is a fully-fledged architectural contribution that takes the exploration of minimalism as a design principle seriously and, in doing so, can create more quality than the mere number of square meters would suggest.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

Text-to-Architecture: The New Language of Architecture

Building design
a-room-with-lots-of-plants-and-benches-_IlJrgm5eFo
A modern space with lots of plants and benches, photographed by Teng Yuhong

Architecture from a text field? What sounds like Dada and digital esotericism is actually the hottest trend of the moment: text-to-architecture. AI tools like Stable Diffusion and Midjourney, as well as specialized platforms, suddenly generate plausible floor plans, renderings, and even BIM-compatible models from vague prompts. Architecture is becoming a dialogue between humans and machines—and the profession is in an uproar. But is the hype justified? Who stands to gain, who stands to lose—and how far along are Germany, Austria, and Switzerland? Welcome to the age in which words build.

  • “Text-to-Architecture” refers to the use of AI to generate architectural designs, visualizations, and models from language or text.
  • Germany, Austria, and Switzerland are experimenting, but real breakthroughs are rare—cultural, technical, and legal hurdles are holding things back.
  • Innovative AI platforms are already delivering impressive results today: from initial sketches to complete BIM models.
  • Digitalization and AI are radically transforming the professional role—shifting from that of the traditional designer to that of a curator.
  • Sustainability by Design: AI can help create designs that are more resource-efficient and climate-friendly—or it can have the opposite effect.
  • Technical expertise remains essential: prompt engineering, AI training data, model interpretation, and critical thinking are a must.
  • The debate over copyright, responsibility, and creativity has been ignited—and is being waged more fiercely than ever before.
  • Global pioneers are setting the pace, while the German-speaking world is still weighing the risks.
  • Vision: Architecture as a democratized, accessible field—Danger: Trivialization, bias, and the loss of depth and context.

From Sketch to Prompt: How AI Is Redefining Architecture

Anyone starting an architectural design today might still reach for a pencil—or might already be typing into a text field. Text-to-Architecture is the new interface between idea and space. What began in graphic design with generative AI images has long since arrived in the architectural world. The architectural community is divided: Some see the machine translation of language into space as the democratization of the design world. Others fear the end of the architect’s signature style and warn of an era of synthetic arbitrariness.

From a technical standpoint, Text-to-Architecture works essentially as follows: An AI model is trained on millions of buildings, plans, renderings, and text descriptions. It learns to link language patterns with spatial structures. Anyone who types in “a sustainable, light-filled wooden house with a green roof in the Alps” receives plausible visualizations or even parametric models within seconds. Models like Midjourney, DALL-E, or Stable Diffusion serve as initial testing grounds. Specialized platforms, such as Spacemaker, testfit, or Luma AI, go a step further: they provide floor plans, volume studies, and BIM-compatible outputs. The interaction is shifting—from drawing to prompting.

But it’s by no means as simple as the AI providers’ marketing departments make it out to be. Those who master the tool benefit. Those who rely on AI run the risk of overlooking its limitations. For what is sold as “creativity” is often a statistical approximation of the mainstream. True architectural intelligence remains essential: contextualization, critical reflection, and the ability to distinguish between appearance and substance.

In German-speaking countries, there is still a sense of caution. Universities are conducting research, and architectural firms are experimenting—but true flagship projects are lacking. Fear of losing control, of losing one’s own signature style, and of legal gray areas is dampening the euphoria. While competitions featuring AI-generated designs are already being decided in the U.S. and Asia, Germany is still debating the ethical implications. That’s not how progress works.

Nevertheless, one thing is clear: the door is open. The question is no longer whether AI will find its way into architecture, but how. Those who use it as a tool for inspiration gain speed and scope. Those who switch to autopilot risk plummeting into the banal. The new architectural language is text-based—but translating it into built form remains a matter of craftsmanship and attitude.

The Status Quo in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland: Between the Drive for Research and Denial of Reality

Germany, Austria, and Switzerland have traditionally been skeptical of technological revolutions that undermine their own profession. Text-to-Architecture is no exception. Universities—from the Technical University of Munich to ETH Zurich—are diligently exploring the possibilities. Students generate concept studies via prompts, and design masterclasses produce explanatory videos on Stable Diffusion. But as soon as it comes to implementation in everyday construction practice, the voices grow quieter. Most architectural firms prefer to observe rather than invest themselves.

The reason is obvious: the legal situation is unclear, technical standards are lacking, and the question of who is liable for a flawed AI design remains unresolved. Professional associations issue warnings, industry groups urge caution, and building authorities dismiss the idea. For many, AI-generated design is a nice add-on, but not a tool for the HOAI phases. The feared loss of control outweighs the short-term efficiency gains.

Austria is showing itself to be a tad more willing to experiment. Vienna, for example, is testing AI-assisted neighborhood analyses, and some private developers are having algorithms generate initial volume studies. But here, too, much remains in the pilot phase. Switzerland, traditionally open to innovation, excels with research clusters and startups that bring AI and architecture together. Yet the majority of construction projects remain traditional. The leap from demonstration to implementation is a long one.

It’s fascinating to look at the educational landscape. More and more universities are integrating AI tools into design education. Prompt engineering is becoming a core competency for the next generation of architects. At the same time, the analog design process remains a required course. The hope: a synthesis of digital speed and analog depth. The danger: the next generation gets lost in generation and forgets understanding.

And the government? It’s watching from the sidelines. Funding programs focus on BIM, not on AI-based design tools. Building codes are lagging years behind these developments. While the world is jumping on the AI bandwagon, the German-speaking world is still standing on the platform. Whether this is caution or despondency is open to debate. One thing is certain: the next generation will not wait any longer.

Innovations, Trends, and the Role of AI: Does Typing Mean Building?

The pace of innovation in the field of text-to-architecture is breathtaking. What was considered an academic experiment yesterday is now a reality on the market. AI platforms deliver floor plans, facade studies, and material concepts—all based on text prompts. The quality? It varies, but it’s improving rapidly. Large firms are having initial variants generated, and developers are testing urban planning scenarios via prompts. The speed at which ideas can be visualized has multiplied. This is changing not only the design phase but the entire job profile.

One trend: the integration of AI design into parametric planning processes. Tools like Spacemaker or testfit combine data-driven analysis with generative design. For example, someone planning a residential neighborhood can run through various scenarios using text prompts—from density and orientation to shading. The AI provides options; humans select and fine-tune them. The line between design and analysis is blurring.

A second trend is the democratization of architecture: Anyone with access to a browser and AI can generate designs. This sounds like participation, but it carries risks. The danger of trivialization is real: Those who copy prompts and recycle AI outputs produce a uniform, uninspired result. At the same time, this opens up the opportunity to bring more voices and perspectives into the design process. The role of the architect is changing—from creator to curator, from draftsman to prompt designer.

The role of prompt engineering is particularly exciting. Those who know how to communicate with AI get better results. This requires technical understanding, creativity, and critical judgment. Prompt engineering is becoming a key competency—and a new architectural language. The danger: Those who merely parrot the system produce interchangeable results. Those who understand the system can amplify their own ideas.

And then there’s the big question: What does all this mean for creativity? Some celebrate the explosion of possibilities, while others warn against replacing intuition with statistics. One thing is certain: AI can do many things, but it cannot generate a genius loci. Depth, contextualization, and social embedding—all of that remains the task of humans. The machine types, but humans build.

Sustainability, Technology, and the New Responsibility

Text-to-Architecture promises efficiency, speed, and diversity. But what does that mean for sustainability and responsibility? At first glance, it sounds tempting: AI can simulate millions of variations, suggest climate-friendly materials, and optimize energy flows. In theory, this leads to more sustainable architecture—fewer resources, greater adaptability, and faster scenario development. The catch: the training data and algorithms are often black boxes. They reproduce existing patterns, favor standard solutions, and ignore local contexts.

Anyone who adopts AI outputs without scrutiny runs the risk of engaging in greenwashing on a massive scale. Sustainability does not arise from generating variants, but from understanding interrelationships. AI provides the suggestion; humans must assess the consequences. This requires technical knowledge: How do the algorithms work? What datasets underlie them? How do I interpret the outputs?

Technical expertise becomes the decisive factor. Prompt engineering is just the beginning. Anyone working with text-to-architecture must know how AI is trained, what risks of bias and distortion exist, and how to validate the results. BIM knowledge, data analysis, and a critical eye toward AI logic are essential. Those who do not master these skills will be left behind by their own machines.

The issue of responsibility is also being debated anew. Who is liable for an AI-generated design? Who decides which variants will be implemented? Traditional role models are being broken down. The architectural profession must grapple with new questions: How do you defend copyrights when AI draws from billions of other people’s works? How can you ensure quality and identity when the tool seems all-powerful?

The solution lies in a combination: AI as a tool, not a replacement. Humans remain the thinking, responsible part of the process. AI provides inspiration, analysis, and a wealth of variations. The decision of what gets built remains a matter of knowledge, attitude, and responsibility. Those who understand this can make meaningful use of the new architectural language. Those who surrender to it lose control.

Debate, Visions, and the Global Context: Architecture in the AI Carousel

The debate over text-to-architecture is heated. Some celebrate its democratizing potential, while others warn of uniformity and a loss of depth. Critics point to algorithmic biases, a tendency toward mediocrity, and the danger that AI architecture will degenerate into mainstream kitsch. Proponents see new opportunities for participation, diversity, and speed. The truth lies—as is so often the case—somewhere in between.

Visionary voices are calling for a radical overhaul of architectural education: AI proficiency as a requirement, prompt engineering as the new form of drawing, and collaboration with machines as the norm. The utopia: Anyone can build, anyone can design—architecture as an open, democratized field. The dystopia: Uniformity, generic buildings, a loss of quality and context. The challenge: Shaping the tools so that they generate diversity rather than destroy it.

From a global perspective, the German-speaking world is lagging behind. The U.S., China, South Korea, and the Gulf States are investing heavily in generative AI for architecture. There, competitions are decided by AI-generated designs, startups are developing specialized tools, and architectural education is being reimagined with an “AI-first” approach. The DACH region is debating—and losing momentum. Those who don’t move forward will be left behind.

But even the international pioneers are grappling with problems: copyright issues, ethical debates, the risk of bias, and the challenge of preserving local identity. Text-to-Architecture is not a panacea, but a tool. It requires knowledge, reflection, and creative power. Those who rely solely on AI produce quantity rather than quality.

The global architectural debate has long revolved around questions of algorithmization, the role of humans in design, and responsibility for the built environment. Text-to-Architecture is the latest—but perhaps the most radical—step in this development. The future will show whether the architectural profession masters this tool—or fails because of it.

Conclusion: Words build—but attitude decides

Text-to-Architecture is not a gimmick, but a watershed moment. The new architectural language is text-based, AI-driven, and highly dynamic. It opens up opportunities for efficiency, participation, and sustainability—if used wisely. It carries risks of trivialization, bias, and loss of control—if adopted blindly. In German-speaking countries, there is still some hesitation, while globally, what is typed is already being built. The key insight: AI is a tool, not a replacement. Words build—but attitude determines what endures. Those who understand this can shape the future of architecture. Those who hesitate will be swept away by the next wave of prompts.

MoMa exhibition: Racism and urban planning

Building design

Advertorial Article Parallax Article

The current MoMa exhibition “Reconstructions: Architecture and Blackness in America” discusses the role of US architecture in structural racism.

The current exhibition “Reconstructions: Architecture and Blackness in America” at MoMa discusses the role of US architecture in structural racism. The selected works turn places of spatial segregation into places of resistance. This also applies to Walter Hood’s contribution to the exhibition.

“Still no justice for Breonna Taylor” – on March 13, 2020, the Black American Breonna Taylor died from multiple police shootings in her own apartment in Louisville, Kentucky. Twelve months later, the police officers responsible were not brought to justice despite multiple lawsuits. Breonna Taylor, George Floyd, Ahmaud Arbery – these are the names of three African-Americans who died in police shootings last year.

To this day, the widespread Black Lives Matter movement is calling for a comprehensive investigation into their deaths. They use the claims or hashtags “Still no justice for Breonna Taylor” or “Say their names”. While the protests against police violence against Black citizens were particularly loud last year, especially in the USA, the BLM demonstrations have since quietened down. However, the topic and the associated challenges are anything but less relevant as a result. This is also illustrated by the new exhibition “Reconstructions: Architecture and Blackness in America” at the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.

The MoMa exhibition runs until 31 May 2021 and addresses the topics of racism and discrimination against people of colour and marginalized communities in architecture and urban planning. Ten works discuss how skin color and ethnicity shape buildings, neighborhoods, cities and landscapes in terms of cultural identity. Selected architects, designers and artists made these available to MoMa. Their contributions tell the story of how structural racism systematically displaced Black US citizens to places with little quality of life and housing. At the same time, the collages, photographs, installations, etc. show how Black communities brought their surroundings to life despite all adversity.

It was in these places that the American art and cultural movements of jazz, blues, the Harlem Renaissance and hip hop, among others, developed. The exhibition designers portray them as places of resistance, oppression and refusal. At the same time, the works attempt to understand and repair what it means to be American. Looking forward, the MoMa exhibition shows how architecture and urban design can prevent spatial segregation and at the same time make equitable, inclusive urban spaces possible.

The responsibility of the individual

Structural racism is firmly rooted in decision-making processes and routines in the United States of America. Anti-Black racism is reflected in the built space of countless US cities. Their urban design often ignores the fate of Black communities.

The online program “Reimagining Blackness and Architecture” accompanies the exhibition at the Museum of Modern Art. The virtual program offers original films, audio interviews and readings. They illustrate how ethnicity and ethnic-cultural exclusion shape architecture and the built environment. The digital courses challenge and encourage creative exploration of one’s role in shaping open and diverse communities.

Also a contribution by Walter Hood

The exhibition features works by Emanuel Admassu, Germane Barnes, Sekou Cooke, J. Yolande Daniels, Felecia Davis, Mario Gooden, Walter Hood, Olalekan Jeyifous, V. Mitch McEwen and Amanda Williams, as well as recent photographs by artist David Hartt. From porches in Miami to freeways in Oakland and Syracuse, each project proposes an intervention in ten U.S. cities.

“Black Towers/Black Power” is the name of Walter Hood’s contribution to the exhibition. It is no great surprise that the architect and landscape architect is also involved in the MoMa exhibition. For decades, he has been very consciously committed to community-promoting spaces with a focus on the Black community. For example, the UC-Berkeley professor of landscape architecture, environmental planning and urban design was also the lead architect on the remarkable transformation of the “Curtis 50 Cent Jackson Community Garden”. The urban garden in New York’s Jamaica Queens district is named after none other than the US musician and rapper 50 Cent. He grew up here and, with his “G-Unit Foundation”, was also one of the key initiators of the redesign in 2007.

You can read more about Walter Hood and why he believes American landscape architecture lacks empathy here at topos magazine.

“Reconstructions: Architecture and Blackness in America”

Exhibition period: February 27 to May 31, 2021

Location: Museum of Modern Art (MoMa) in New York City

Online: Find out all about the accompanying online program “Reimagining Blackness and Architecture” here.

However, admission to MoMa is currently only possible with an advance ticket.