From Idea to Building: Processes of Spatial‑Pedagogical Project Development
The architecture of educational institutions is a crucial factor in the educational process. Buildings where learning takes place not only define the external framework but also shape the pedagogical atmosphere and the social interactions of their users.
In recent years, the planning and construction of educational facilities have increasingly been understood as dynamic, interdisciplinary processes. These processes involve not only clients, their representatives, and planners, but also the users themselves: teachers and educators, students, and other school staff and parents. The idea behind user participation is that the people who spend time in the spaces on a daily basis—working, teaching, and learning—have valuable insights and needs regarding the use and design of the spaces. Integrating these experiences into the planning process not only strengthens acceptance of the building but also ensures that the resulting spaces genuinely support learning and social interaction.
This essay examines the processes of spatial-pedagogical project development, focusing on user participation and architecture competitions, describing them within the context of the changes and reforms in Austrian educational architecture documented in this volume.
The Beginnings of Change
The origins of today’s changes date back to the first decade of the 2000s. This period was marked by growing criticism of the traditional and often standardized school architecture in Austria, which was predominantly characterized by corridor school typologies with more or less structured sequences of cellular spaces (classrooms or teaching rooms). Such layouts offered little to no potential for differentiated learning settings capable of supporting a contemporary and future-oriented pedagogy.
This criticism emerged primarily from architectural circles and gained traction through specialized events [→ 1] that sparked broader discussions about educational architecture in Austria. These debates can be seen, at least in part, as a delayed consequence of the educational discussions triggered by the “PISA shock” shortly after the turn of the millennium. The initiatives from the field of architecture can thus be considered a catalyst and driving force behind the ensuing sense of renewal in Austrian school architecture, which was gradually taken up by key decision-makers at both federal and regional levels, including the Ministry of Education, the Federal Real Estate Agency (BIG), and various state government institutions. This collaboration between the architectural field and public administration proved essential to the success of reforms and was expressed for instance, in joint efforts within the schulUMbau platform, initiated by the Köck Private Foundation. Among other achievements, this platform produced the Charter for the Design of Educational Facilities in the 21st Century.
Published in 2010, the Charter outlined 11 key principles, establishing a new framework for school architecture that remains effective and relevant today. Point 5 already stated at that time that “the development of schools, teaching methods, and spatial design must go hand in hand,” and called for a preliminary phase in every school building project involving all key stakeholders. This “preliminary phase” would later be referred to as Phase Zero. Although not yet applied in every project, it is now widely recognized as best practice.
Within the ÖISS (Austrian Institute for School and Sports Facilities), which serves as a networking platform for institutional stakeholders, the prevailing opinion was that school architecture needed to change, though the “what” and “how” remained uncertain. Theoretical discussions with experts in education had yielded few tangible outcomes. Consequently, the ÖISS working group for school space agreed to promote pilot projects involving user participation, with the aim of generating general insights for future school building.
Although this learning process cannot and should never be regarded as complete, significant findings have since emerged. New spatial concepts, most notably the cluster system featuring open learning zones, have become established practice. In turn, user participation has evolved beyond its initial exploratory role to become a meaningful and integral part of each individual project.
Facilitating Participation Processes
In participatory processes, the pedagogical dimension takes center stage: The spatial concept must be closely aligned with the goals and requirements of the educational process. The aim is to reflect—together with users—on how future-oriented living, learning, and working might take place in their future educational facility, and to develop shared visions for it. The focus is on thinking in terms of functions and qualities, not on predefined rooms. Translating these visions into a spatial concept upon which architects can then base their concrete designs is the task of the process facilitators.
User participation goes far beyond surveys or feedback rounds; it is primarily shaped through workshops of various formats. There have never been fixed rules for structuring participatory processes—and rightly so, as diverse creative methods should remain possible. When involving students, age-appropriate formats are essential. For younger children, for instance, it has proven particularly effective to explore their emotional relationships to existing spaces and to draw conclusions about “favorite places” or “scary places.”
In general, professional external facilitation has proven both useful and effective, as it supports the educational institution with specialized and methodological expertise. Effective facilitation teams combine competencies in architecture and educational design with skills in moderation, mediation, and process design.
User Participation and Its Prerequisites
A concrete building project at the respective site is a prerequisite for initiating a participatory process. If the identified needs and developed visions have no realistic prospect of implementation, participants become frustrated, an outcome that is counterproductive in the long term. Therefore, technical and economic feasibility must be clarified in advance and accepted by all stakeholders as a binding framework. Only under these conditions can user participation represent the beginning of a successful implementation.
It is crucial that these framework conditions not only clearly define spatial and financial boundaries, but also leave room for genuine participation. Tokenistic participation, or merely symbolic involvement without any real influence on the planning of the educational facility, must be clearly rejected. Finally, a participation process requires commitment from the client to provide an adequate timeframe for realization.
Spatial Appropriation
Innovative, often open spatial concepts require deep understanding from educators, as well as the necessary didactic tools and a willingness to engage with them. These environments are far more effectively received and used when the people working within them have been fully informed and involved in their development. It is increasingly evident that school (re)construction projects and user participation processes should be combined with a pedagogical school development procedure, in order to best prepare all stakeholders for working and operating in the new building. In the case of newly founded schools, where participation in Phase Zero is not possible due to the absence of an existing teaching staff, it becomes essential to provide ongoing support during and after the move-in phase. This helps new users become familiar with the spatial concept and, where necessary, receive guidance on pedagogical and didactic matters.
Innovation and New Insights
For process facilitators, it is essential to approach each new participation procedure with openness and to meet the users where they are in their school development process. For participants, the process brings an abundance of new information and inspiration, which they must be allowed to explore gradually and at their own pace. Experience shows that every participatory process offers development opportunities for the site and a general increase in knowledge for the field. Depending on the project, a participatory process can even bring about an innovative potential that would not be achievable without the users’ ideas.
Synergies and Space Utilization
Participation has the potential to foster synergies in spatial use and to result in a more efficient utilization of facilities. This is particular true in the case of school mergers, but also for existing school site groupings and even situations where conflicts between different school organizations exist. Through participatory processes, users engage in dialogue, shared goals move into focus, and cooperation is developed or strengthened.
From Phase Zero to Ten Plus
While user participation was initially primarily associated with Phase Zero, it is now increasingly recognized as an active component of the entire planning process, from concept development to the realization and use of the building.
Following early participatory processes, which were considered complete after the architecture competition phase, it became clear that as planning progressed, important changes and decisions were arising that likewise required user involvement, especially regarding furnishing and equipment, aspects which are decisive for the pedagogical use of space.
Since several years often pass between needs assessment and completion of the building, ongoing participation during planning and implementation ensures continuity through staff changes and helps newly arrived educators get on board. Change in personnel may even necessitate renewed participatory support, particularly in connection with changes in school leadership. Post-occupancy support provides assistance in adapting to the built spatial concept, optimizing pedagogical practices, and addressing organizational challenges.
In this context, we are talking about user participation extending through Phases Zero to Ten Plus, an approach widely endorsed by experts but still rarely practiced in Austria. Exemplary current cases include two special projects by the City of Vienna: bafep21 [→ 2] and the ZBG [→ 3] in Seestadt Aspern, both of which are being accompanied by participatory processes through all stages, from needs assessment to one year after occupancy.
Architecture Competitions and Participation
Unlike user participation, the architectural competition is not a new procedure but a long-established instrument of urban planning and architectural quality assurance that has consistently upheld a high standard in Austrian educational architecture with outstanding results. In this context, it remains uncontested as the best method for project selection, even though it can be a significant financial commitment for architects and, in some cases, alternative procedures may be more suitable depending on the project and location.
According to European procurement law, architecture competitions must generally be conducted anonymously. This makes sense, as the competition focus is on finding the best solution for the task, and the names of specific architectural firms or architects should not play a role in the decision. Fundamental qualifications of participating planners can be ensured through prequalification, requiring, for example, experience with similar building types or projects of comparable complexity. [→ 4]
User participation and competition are fundamentally separate processes that intersect at key stages. Participation during Phase Zero, when the spatial-pedagogical concept is developed, needs to precede the competition. The results of this phase must be clearly and comprehensibly translated into the competition brief for the participating design teams. To achieve this, documents detailing the functional and spatial program—often referred to as quality catalogues—have proven highly effective. The descriptive information and requirements make the task even more understandable for the planners and have contributed to stimulating creative design solutions in Austrian educational architecture in recent years.
It is also beneficial to involve user representatives (e.g. school leadership) in the colloquium and in the jury of the competition (e.g. in an advisory role). The latter, in particular, fosters understanding of the winning design, establishes dialogue between users and architects for the subsequent planning phase, and lays a crucial foundation for acceptance within the school community.
Conclusion and Outlook
Changes in Austrian school architecture over the past 15 years have largely taken shape at the project level—or rather, have originated there. In retrospect, user participation has played a pivotal role in driving these reforms. One clear example of this influence is the now well-established concept of “clusters with open learning zones.” [→ 5] This originated in the participatory project for the HAK Polgarstraße in Vienna’s 22nd district. This spatial model was subsequently confirmed and further developed in other projects involving user participation, including the Pregarten Education Center (→ Project 8) and the Sonnwendviertel Education Campus in Vienna’s 10th district (→ Project 4). Similarly, the Pestalozzi Education Center in Leoben (→ Project 15) , which was also developed through a participatory process, remains a best-practice example of a successful school merger combined with renovation and expansion. Architectural competitions should continue to play a central role in procurement procedures for educational building projects. However, they must increasingly be grounded in future-oriented spatial-pedagogical foundations established through early-stage user participation.
In recent years, user participation has proven to be a vital tool in needs assessment and project development, a driving force for innovative spatial concepts, and a key factor in successful spatial appropriation and user acceptance. Its application, however, still varies depending on local and institutional contexts. Based on our own experience, for example with the Styrian education directorate, those in positions of responsibility are inclined to initiate further participatory projects when they see that previous examples have yielded high user satisfaction and trust in the process facilitation has been established. To convince additional clients, it will be crucial to increase the visibility and dissemination of successful case studies. Moreover, in light of current socio-political shifts, future progress in Austrian school architecture may once again require collective initiatives from all stakeholders—similar to those that marked the beginnings of earlier reforms—to safeguard and advance the achievements realized in recent years.