12.06.2026

U-Value of Triple-Glazed Windows: An Overview of Basics and Requirements

Building design

White window frame with a glass pane in daylight – Photo: iambburson / Unsplash

Triple-pane windows are now the standard for high energy efficiency in new construction and high-end renovations. Their key performance indicator is the U-value, which describes the heat transfer coefficient and thus indicates how much heat flows through one square meter of a building component per second when there is a temperature difference of one Kelvin between the inside and outside. Anyone who truly understands the U-value of triple-glazed windows grasps not just a number on a data sheet, but the physical logic behind thermal insulation, condensation prevention, and indoor comfort.

What the U-value means in physical terms and how it is determined for windows
How the U-value of a triple-glazed window is determined by the glazing, frame, and installation conditions
What values are typical for triple-glazed windows and what standards and energy regulations require
How inert gas fillings, thermal barrier coatings, and spacers influence the U-value
Why a low Ug-value alone does not make a good window, and what role the frame and installation play
What advantages triple glazing offers over double glazing and where its limitations lie
How triple glazing prevents condensation on the inner pane and improves indoor climate
What to consider when planning, specifying, and installing triple-glazed windows

The U-value: Definition, unit, and physical basis

The U-value, denoted by the symbol U, stands for the heat transfer coefficient and is expressed in the unit W/(m²K), i.e., watts per square meter per kelvin. It describes how much thermal energy flows through one square meter of a building component per second when the temperature difference between the two sides is exactly one Kelvin. The lower the U-value, the better the component insulates, and the less heat is lost. A U-value of 1.0 W/(m²K) means that, with a temperature difference of ten Kelvin, ten watts per square meter flow through the building component. With a U-value of 0.5 W/(m²K), only half that amount would flow under the same conditions.

With windows, the situation is more complex than with a homogeneous wall because a window consists of several components with different thermal properties. The DIN EN ISO 10077 standard governs the calculation of the heat transfer coefficient for windows, doors, and openings and therefore distinguishes between several sub-values. The Ug value (g for glazing) describes the heat transfer through the glazing unit alone. The Uf value (f for frame) describes the heat transfer through the frame profile. The Uw value (w for Window) is the resulting overall value of the installed window, combining the glazing, frame, and the thermal bridge effect at the glass edge seal. For the U-value of a triple-glazed window, the interaction of these three factors is decisive.

Added to this is the psi value (Ψ, Greek letter), which describes the linear heat transfer coefficient of the glass edge seal. A thermal weak point arises at the junction between the glass unit and the frame because the spacer, which keeps the panes apart, forms a thermal bridge. This effect is factored into the calculation of the Uw-value via the Psi-value and the length of the glass edge assembly. Therefore, knowing only the Ug value of triple-pane glazing does not provide a complete picture of the window’s quality.

Structure and Operating Principle of Triple Glazing

Triple-pane glazing consists of three glass panes separated by two air spaces. Each cavity is hermetically sealed and filled with an inert gas, typically argon or krypton. Argon is significantly less expensive and widely used; krypton has even lower thermal conductivity but is more expensive to produce. The thermal insulation effect results from three mechanisms: the low thermal conductivity of the filling gas, the suppression of convection in the narrow gas space, and the reduction of radiative heat transfer through thermal insulation coatings on the glass surfaces.

Thermal protection layers, known in technical terms as Low-E coatings (Low Emissivity), are applied to the inner glass surfaces using a vacuum process. They typically consist of thin metal oxide layers, often silver-based, which reflect long-wave thermal radiation without significantly impairing the transmission of short-wave sunlight. In triple-pane glazing, these coatings are typically located on the sides of the outer and middle panes facing the interior—that is, on the surfaces referred to in technical terminology as Surface 2 and Surface 5. The exact positioning of the coatings influences both the Ug value and the g-value—that is, the glass’s total energy transmittance.

The g-value indicates what proportion of the incident solar radiation enters the room as heat. It is dimensionless and is expressed as a decimal or a percentage. For triple-pane glazing, the g-value typically ranges between 0.50 and 0.62, which is lower than for double-pane glazing, where values range from 0.60 to 0.72. This means that triple-glazed windows allow slightly less passive solar heat into the room. This difference is relevant to the overall energy balance of a well-designed building because solar gains in winter reduce the heating load. Designers must therefore optimize the U-value and g-value together, rather than considering them in isolation.

Typical U-values for triple-glazed windows and code requirements

The U-value for triple-glazed windows—referring solely to the glass assembly, i.e., the Ug value—typically ranges between 0.5 and 0.7 W/(m²K). High-quality products with optimized gas filling, multiple Low-E coatings, and a narrow air space between the panes achieve Ug values of 0.5 W/(m²K), while standard products filled with argon often range from 0.6 to 0.7 W/(m²K). By comparison: Standard double-pane glazing with thermal insulation achieves Ug values of about 1.0 to 1.1 W/(m²K); older insulated glazing without a coating is around 2.8 W/(m²K), and standard single-pane glazing comes in at around 5.8 W/(m²K).

For the overall window value Uw, the frame reduces the value compared to the glass unit alone, because frame profiles made of plastic, wood, or aluminum have significantly higher Uf values than the glass unit. Plastic profiles with a multi-chamber system achieve Uf values of about 1.0 to 1.4 W/(m²K), wooden frames range from about 1.0 to 1.4 W/(m²K) depending on the type of wood and profile depth, and aluminum profiles with thermal breaks achieve values between 1.3 and 2.0 W/(m²K). A window with a Ug value of 0.6 W/(m²K) and a Uf value of 1.2 W/(m²K) can achieve a Uw value of approximately 0.9 to 1.1 W/(m²K), depending on the ratio of glass to frame area.

The Building Energy Act (GEG), which regulates thermal insulation in new construction and renovations in Germany, does not prescribe a direct limit for the Uw-value of windows in new buildings; instead, it evaluates the building as a complete system based on annual primary energy demand and heat transmission loss. A Uw value of 1.3 W/(m²K) serves as the reference window for calculations under the GEG. For passive houses certified by the Passive House Institute in Darmstadt, a maximum Uw value of 0.8 W/(m²K) serves as a guideline—a value that is virtually impossible to achieve without triple glazing. The KfW funding standards for energy-efficient buildings are based on similar requirements and make a U-value for triple-glazed windows a practical prerequisite for the highest funding tiers.

Spacers and the Glass Edge Seal: An Underestimated Weak Point

The spacer holds the panes of an insulated glazing unit at a defined distance apart and seals the space between the panes from the outside. Traditional aluminum spacers conduct heat well and create a pronounced thermal bridge at the glass edge. This effect significantly lowers the temperature of the inner edge of the glass, which can lead to condensation at the glass edge when indoor humidity is high and reduces the effective U-value. “Warm edge” is the technical term for spacers made of thermally insulating materials such as stainless steel, plastic, or composite materials, which can reduce the Psi value of the glass edge assembly to levels below 0.03 W/(mK). In triple-pane glazing, the “warm edge” is particularly important because, otherwise, the temperature difference between the highly insulating glass unit and a poorly insulating spacer would be especially large.

Triple Glazing and Condensation Protection: Why the Glass Surface Temperature Is Crucial

A key practical advantage of the low U-value in triple-glazed windows is the significantly higher temperature of the inner glass surface. At an outside temperature of minus ten degrees and an indoor temperature of twenty degrees, the inner surface of triple-glazed windows with a Ug value of 0.6 W/(m²K) reaches a temperature of about seventeen to eighteen degrees Celsius. Under the same conditions, double-pane glazing with a U-value of 1.1 W/(m²K) reaches about fourteen to fifteen degrees, while older insulating glazing without a coating reaches only about seven to nine degrees.

This temperature difference is of great significance from the perspective of building physics. The dew point of indoor air at twenty degrees and fifty percent relative humidity is approximately nine degrees Celsius. Under these conditions, no water condenses on triple-pane glazing with a surface temperature of eighteen degrees. On old single-pane glazing with a surface temperature of seven degrees, the same indoor air would immediately form condensation. Fogged-up panes, mold on window reveals, and wet window sills are therefore largely prevented with modern triple-pane windows, provided that the frames and installation also meet high thermal performance standards.

The higher pane temperature also improves thermal comfort in the room. The human body releases heat not only to the air through convection but also to surrounding surfaces through radiation. A cold window surface draws radiant heat away from the body, which is perceived as a draft, even when the air temperature in the room is comfortable. Triple-glazed windows significantly reduce this effect and allow for smaller radiators to be installed beneath windows—or for them to be omitted entirely—which opens up new architectural possibilities.

Frames, Installation, and the U-Value in Practice

A common mistake in design practice is to base the U-value of triple-glazed windows solely on the Ug-value of the glass unit while neglecting the frame and installation conditions. Depending on the window size and configuration, the frame accounts for between twenty and forty percent of the total window area. In the case of a large fixed glazing element with a narrow frame, the frame’s influence is minimal; in the case of a small, multi-sash window with wide profiles, the frame can worsen the Uw value by more than 0.3 W/(m²K) compared to the Ug value.

The installation of the window in the exterior wall also affects the effective heat loss. A window installed in a reveal without insulation loses significantly more heat through the reveal surfaces than a window installed flush with the exterior insulation layer and secured in the reveal with insulation wedges. The installation position within the wall cross-section also determines whether the temperature of the interior soffit surface remains above the dew point of the indoor air. Specialists refer to this as the installation Uw-value or window installation according to Passive House criteria, in which the window is recessed as far as possible into the insulation layer to minimize thermal bridges at the junction between the window frame and the masonry.

For tendering and quality assurance, it is recommended to specify not only the Ug value but the complete Uw value according to DIN EN ISO 10077, taking into account the glazing unit, frame, spacers, and installation situation as a whole. Certifications from the Institute for Window Technology (ift Rosenheim) or the Passive House Institute provide a reliable basis for product selection and documentation for energy performance certificates and subsidy programs.

Advantages and Limitations of Triple Glazing in Comparison

The advantages of triple-glazed windows over double-glazed windows are substantial: lower heat transmission losses, higher internal pane temperature, better protection against condensation, improved sound insulation due to the third pane, and greater comfort in the living area near the window surface. In buildings with a high proportion of glazing, such as office buildings with glass facades or residential buildings with large window areas, the difference in heating energy requirements is clearly noticeable.

At the same time, triple glazing has limitations that must be honestly taken into account during the planning phase. The weight of a triple-glazed unit is considerably higher than that of a double-glazed unit, which places greater demands on the hardware, frame profiles, and mounting structures. Large sashes with triple glazing can weigh over eighty kilograms, which limits ease of operation and requires expensive hardware systems. The lower g-value means that in passive solar designs that rely heavily on solar gains through south-facing windows, a careful balance between the Ug-value and the g-value is necessary. In some cases, double glazing with a high g-value on the south side may be more energy-efficient than triple glazing with a low g-value if the solar gains outweigh the higher transmission losses.

The additional cost compared to double glazing is real and must be recouped through energy savings. The payback period depends on energy prices, climate zone, building standards, and occupancy patterns, and cannot be quantified as a flat rate. In well-insulated buildings, where windows account for a large proportion of heat loss through transmission, triple-glazing pays for itself more quickly than in buildings where the opaque structural elements are already very well insulated, and where the proportion of heat loss attributable to windows is low anyway.

Planning, Bidding, and Quality Assurance for Triple-Glazed Windows

Anyone planning and putting out a bid for triple-glazed windows should specify the relevant performance values completely and unambiguously. These include the Ug value of the glazing unit, the Uf value of the frame profile, the Psi value of the glass edge seal, the resulting Uw value according to DIN EN ISO 10077, the g value of the glazing unit, and the light transmittance (Tv). For Passive House certifications, the installed Uw value as defined by the Passive House Planning Package (PHPP)—which takes the installation situation into account—must be documented.

When selecting products, attention must be paid to the quality of the gas fill. Argon filling is standard; krypton filling enables better insulation values with a narrow air gap and is relevant for special products with very narrow frames. The air gap should be tailored to the gas fill: For argon, gaps of about twelve to sixteen millimeters are optimal; for krypton, narrower gaps of about eight to ten millimeters are more favorable. Gaps that are too wide promote convection in the gas space and worsen the U-value.

Quality assurance during installation is at least as important as product quality. Leaky joints between the window frame and the masonry are a common cause of thermal bridges and moisture problems, which can negate the benefits of high-quality triple glazing. The RAL quality mark for windows and entry doors, as well as the installation guidelines from the German Flat Glass Association and the Institute for Window Technology, provide guidance for professional installation. Seals should be installed according to the principle of “airtight on the inside, rain-tight on the outside, and open to vapor diffusion,” as described in the technical rules for the glazing trade and window installation.

The U-value of triple-glazed windows in the context of the building

The U-value of triple-glazed windows is not an end in itself, but rather a component of an overall concept. A building with exceptionally well-insulated walls but poorly insulated windows loses a disproportionately large amount of heat through the window surfaces. Conversely, elaborate triple glazing is of little benefit if thermal bridges at window reveals, lintels, and parapets account for the majority of heat loss. The quality of the windows must match the overall standard of the building envelope.

Architecturally, the high insulating effect of triple-glazed windows opens up design possibilities that were not possible in the past. Large glazed areas on north-facing facades, floor-to-ceiling windows without radiators beneath them, and cantilevered glass surfaces without thermal comfort issues: all of this requires that the glazing itself no longer represents a significant source of cold. At the same time, this freedom requires careful consideration of shading and summer heat protection, because even triple-glazed windows allow solar radiation to pass through, and without effective shading, overheating problems arise that cannot be solved by the low g-value alone.

Developments in window technology show that the U-value of triple-glazed windows today represents the achievable optimum for mass-produced products that are widely available on the market and economically viable. Vacuum glazing and aerogel glazing promise even lower U-values with a shallower installation depth, but are currently still specialty products with limited availability and higher costs. For the vast majority of new construction and renovation projects, triple-pane glazing—with a carefully selected frame, warm-edge spacer, and professional installation—remains the most reliable and well-established solution for high thermal insulation in the transparent building envelope. Those who know its performance characteristics, understand its limitations, and consistently integrate it into a coherent overall concept can create buildings that are permanently energy-efficient, highly comfortable, and structurally robust.

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