Design Studio SS 16

Nachbar auf Zeit: Temporäre Behausungen im innerstädtischen Raum


A growing number of people are temporarily without a residential address for a wide variety of reasons. This phenomenon has again come to the fore in the recent past. In the context of the ggst. Against this background, the aim of the design program is to develop so-called “short-term-living-solutions” in the inner-city area of Vienna, especially at selected locations in the 4th district of Vienna. The precarious situation of homeless people, as well as that of the refugees pushing across the country’s borders, together with the associated social explosive power, are to be seen as the background for the accommodations to be developed. However, the creation of a temporary “new home” is in the foreground of the consideration. The needs of a temporary neighborly relationship are to be pursued in a conceptual manner and solutions for the open number of questions associated with this are to be sought in any case. Concepts are to be developed which make use of a timber construction method/solid wood construction method. The specific framework conditions associated with such a construction method, such as rapid assembly and dismantling, winter suitability, supply and disposal are to be taken into account accordingly. Furthermore, various concrete locations in the 4th district (and adjacent) will be nominated within the framework of the program. Optionally, a design solution for at least one of these sites is to be developed.


If one looks at the design approaches now available, it is noticeable that initially the production of a cheap dwelling may not necessarily have been in the foreground of the considerations. Rather, it seems that forms of living in a confined space, as well as questions about the quality of living and the quality of stay were posed and considered. The idea around the temporary neighborhood must be more than a densification of known container houses, since these are perceived all too quickly – especially in larger numbers – as threatening. Thus, present projects not infrequently follow the approach of creating added value. Properties are provided that are intended to benefit not only future residents, but also the existing neighborhood. The sacrifice of space, even if it may only be urban space, is thus countered by a gain. Covered outdoor spaces are generated, meeting places and semi-public meeting zones are conceived that are initially intended for “everyone”. In this new public space, so the built credo, there is room “for everyone”. On closer inspection, the planned building structures reveal an astonishing openness. They do not turn out to be the kind of accommodations we are familiar with, which deliberately elude and close themselves off to outsiders. Rather, they seem to intentionally arouse interest and attract our attention. They do not hide, but rather arouse our curiosity. Perhaps this is a viable way to actively bring us closer to the urgently needed dwellings and to integrate buildings as well as residents at a time before exclusion and rejection can even begin to emerge.