What do the new Axel Springer building in Berlin by Rem Koolhaas, architecture like a blasted rock made of glass and steel, and the colorful San Riemo residential building in Munich by the young Leipzig architects Summa Cum Femmer for the similarly young building cooperative Kooperative Grossstadt have in common? In short: nothing, except that the two buildings are among the four finalists of the DAM Prize 2022, which will be awarded this Friday. The architecture prize is one of the most important, but also one of the most public in Germany, as the award ceremony is always followed by a big one exhibition in the German Architecture Museum (DAM) in Frankfurt.
In contrast to many awards in this category, where after the jury meeting the display boards of the nominated construction projects are folded up again and the jury’s justifications disappear in thick illustrated books, everyone in Frankfurt can form their own opinion about the decision from Saturday. A total of 100 buildings are presented in the show, all of which were nominated by the DAM with the aim of “showing the range of good architecture in Germany”, as Peter Cachola Schmal, the director of the DAM, puts it.
But what does that mean for architecture when such contradictory projects compete for the title of the best building in Germany? Because if you will, all four finalists actually represent a completely different approach to building.
Springer Campus: Tomorrow’s offices, yesterday’s isolation
The new Axel Springer building in Berlin by Office for Metropolitan Architecture (OMA).
(Photo: Laurian Ghinitoiu)
On the one hand there is the Axel Springer new building in Berlin. Its architect Rem Koolhaas is probably one of the best contemporary architects. He breaks down every building task into its individual parts and then puts them back together for the future. With the Springer building, the 77-year-old architect, who began his career as a journalist and filmmaker, asked the not entirely uninteresting question of how the media industry will work in the future (and make money doing it). Anyone who is allowed to enter the building cannot stop being amazed. It’s a kind of spaceship Enterprise, with cockpits and air bridges, flexible working environments and a silver tube walkway to the roof that you wish for in any modern high-rise office building.
Alone: Hardly anyone gets into this huge building because, contrary to what was announced, the ground floor is not open to the public. There may be important reasons for this, but as a signal for a city society it means that a private client is claiming a plot of land in the heart of Berlin covering more than 10,000 square meters for himself, although he promised numerous areas for public functions in the atrium during the competition had. With urban space becoming increasingly scarce and battles becoming increasingly heated as to who can still afford to work and live there, it is time to question this appropriation.
“San Riemo” in Munich.
(Photo: Petter Krag)
San Riemo: Living in the bedroom community
Contrary to such an egoistic (occupation) is the San Riemo cooperative house in Munich, which shows in an exemplary way how far – despite all prophecies of doom – participation can be enough. Because much more co-determination in a project from the founding day of building cooperative on does not work. Here, not a single builder gave the order, here there was a polyphonic community of pure individual positions of the future residents, which had to be bundled, and at the same time the claim to activate the environment with the house. The architectural competition for San Riemo was correspondingly complex. Nevertheless, the residential building designed by architects Anne Femmer and Florian Summa together with the office of Juliane Greb manages to enliven an anesthetized new building district like that in the Munich suburb of Riem, of which there are far too many in Germany.
San Riemo has public functions on the ground floor, offering added value to the neighboring buildings and its residents all around. But it also shows that a residential building in the city can no longer be reserved for living alone if it wants to do justice to the reality of home office, patchwork families and an aging society. The floor plans of the individual apartments are tailored to the different needs of the residents and are still flexible enough to change with their lives.
The John Cranko Ballet School in Stuttgart by Burger Rudacs Architects.
(Photo: Brigida Gonzalez)
John Cranko School: the concrete ballet castle
The other two finalists also face each other at two very different corners of the architecture. There is the John Cranko School in Stuttgart by Burger Rudacs Architects, which should not only enchant the few remaining concrete fans in photographs, because the building nestles so gracefully on one of Stuttgart’s hills. But how good is a building that offers its users and young residents – the school is also a boarding school – a maximally antiseptic environment? Nothing can be attached to the bare concrete wall, the small library turns into a sauna in the autumn sunshine, and one of the most beautiful rooms facing the city did not have a window to the front, because that would have disturbed the overall view of the house. Behind the massive concrete facade, an attitude of the architects shimmers through, which subordinates everything to their own design and which one would rather have located in the last century. Not to mention the disastrous CO2 balance of the building material used.
The research houses in Bad Aibling by Florian Nagler Architects.
(Photo: Schels Lanz PK Odessa)
Research houses: testing wood, concrete and brick
The climate balance of the fourth finalist looks much better. These are the research houses designed by the Munich architect Florian Nagler in Bad Aibling. To show that even today, in the 21st century and despite an immense number of building laws and standards, especially in Germany, just build Nagler had three extremely simple houses built, made of concrete, wood and masonry. The subsequent evaluation of the buildings concerned, on the one hand, how the different building materials affect the energy consumption of the houses. On the other hand, how the orientation of the buildings according to the cardinal points, how different geometries, room heights, window sizes and glass qualities are reflected. This is a much needed approach. Nevertheless, Nagler’s three residential buildings are extremely handsome, one could say minimalistically precise.
This proves that in 2022 there will be no need for authoritarian architects or private corporations that treat public space carelessly to create good buildings. It’s true, architecture has to answer many more questions today. A Le Corbusier has not yet been slapped around the ears with the carbon footprint of his concrete masterpieces. Even a Philip Johnson did not have to justify his dictatorial attitude in architecture, nor for his statement that he would also plan for the devil if he were commissioned. The present is complex. It is time to adapt the demand for good architecture. At least two of the DAM finalists show that great buildings can still come out of it.