studio
onomato

Repurposing existing buildings

The post-war housing estates built between the 1950s and 1970s still form a significant part of the housing stock in the Rhine-Main region today. Their refurbishment often focuses on energy efficiency upgrades, structural improvements and accessibility. Less attention is paid, however, to the question of whether the existing flat layouts and functional programmes can still accommodate contemporary ways of living.

This is precisely where the research project comes in. The focus is not on replacing the existing structures, but on their functional development. Home working, care, support, new household structures and communal uses are understood as changing demands on a housing stock whose basic spatial layout was originally designed for different lifestyles.

 → Renovation is thus understood not merely as technical refurbishment, but as an opportunity to reprogramme existing forms of living.

EXISTING BUILDINGS – RENOVATION – PROGRAMME – HOUSING – ADAPTABILITY

Housing estates as a field of research

The study takes as its starting point five post-war housing estates in Mainz: Berliner Siedlung, Lerchenberg, Mombach West, Mombach Ost and Neustadt. These are examined in terms of their urban structure, their housing typologies and their spatial qualities. The Berliner Siedlung, developed between 1959 and 1963 by the Ernst May architectural practice, serves as an in-depth case study.

The analysis does not focus solely on the built structure. Existing studies on residents’ perceptions, the quality of open spaces, social infrastructure and renovation measures already carried out are incorporated into the analysis. Despite the urban design quality being perceived positively overall, the housing stock reveals limited typological diversity and a lack of spaces to meet new requirements.

The estate is therefore not regarded as a self-contained legacy of post-war modernism, but as an existing spatial system whose qualities must first be understood before any changes are proposed.

Small interventions, new ways of living

The research approach deliberately avoids large-scale remodelling. Instead, it examines small, targeted interventions that can adapt existing homes and communal areas to changing living situations.

The focus is on requirements such as working from home, childcare, caring for older people, physical activity and spaces for communal use. To this end, the existing floor plans are not completely replaced, but rather selectively supplemented, reconfigured or reinterpreted in terms of their function.

 → Small-scale interventions become the means by which change within existing structures is made possible in the first place.

SMALL INTERVENTIONS – HOME OFFICE – CARE – COMMUNITY – ADAPTATION

It is precisely the limited scale of these interventions that forms part of the hypothesis: change should be made possible even in places where a complete spatial reorganisation would be neither necessary nor economically or socially viable.

Research through Design

This study combines analytical work with architectural design. Mappings, typological analyses, models and spatial experiments do not merely serve to illustrate findings already obtained, but become instruments of research in their own right.

The article describes this approach as ‘research for design’: design is used to explore spatial possibilities, to enable comparisons between variants, and to translate abstract questions into concrete architectural situations.

Models of the Berlin housing estate and the blocks of flats under investigation make it possible to consider interventions not in isolation, but in relation to existing typology, access routes and communal spaces. At the same time, they serve as a communication tool between researchers, the local authority and residents.

RESEARCH – ANALYSIS – MODEL – DESIGN – VARIANT

DESIGN IS NOT MERELY A RESPONSE TO A QUESTION, BUT A TOOL FOR FORMULATING THE QUESTION ITSELF MORE PRECISELY.

The prototype as a research tool

The research has resulted in a modular and reconfigurable prototype that can be used within existing housing typologies. A wooden structural framework accommodates various functional modules, combining spatial adaptability with the necessary technical components.

Depending on requirements, modules for home offices, care, physiotherapy, information or storage can be integrated and rearranged. Simple connections make it possible to assemble, dismantle and adapt the system to different spatial configurations.

 → The prototype thus serves not as a finished product, but as a testable spatial hypothesis.

On a 1:1 scale, it becomes apparent what drawings and analysis alone cannot achieve: actual dimensions, usability, spaces for movement, joints and the question of how much an intervention may disrupt existing daily life. The prototype thus becomes a shared focus of design, testing and discussion.

Findings and limitations

Research shows that the programmatic renewal of existing housing stock does not necessarily have to begin with extensive refurbishment or additional densification. Even minor spatial interventions can open up new possibilities for use and adapt existing typologies to changing lifestyles.

At the same time, it is clear that such interventions cannot be developed in isolation from the resident population, management, technical requirements and economic conditions. Particularly in the case of occupied housing stock, installation time, the extent of the intervention, costs and the possibility of subsequent modification become decisive design parameters. The modular nature of the system under investigation explicitly responds to these conditions.

The thesis therefore does not regard the prototype as a universal solution for post-war housing estates. Rather, it examines how architecture can open up scope for action within an existing regulatory framework.

 → The aim is not to create a single new form of housing, but to enable existing living spaces to adapt to different life situations.