Participation, Co-Creation, and Appropriation

This conversation explored how best to foster communication between future users, planners, and clients. At which stages of a project do the key decisions that determine success get made? Providing answers were Andreas Bremhorst (archi­tec­ture), Johannes Posch (project facilitation), and Nicole Kalteis (education), joined by Caren Ohrhallinger, Franz Ryznar, and Karin Schwarz-Viechtbauer, architects who bridge the disciplines.

Moderated by: Christian Kühn

Christian Kühn This book takes a look at the past 15 years of educational building in Austria. What has changed in terms of participatory processes during this time?

Andreas Bremhorst We won our first school design competition for the City of Vienna in 2002. Educators were involved neither in the competition nor in the implementation of the school. That has since changed. Today, users are involved on different levels, from the preparation of a competition to participation in the jury process. However, I don’t expect any more major innovations from it. In Vienna, a particular type of cluster school has become the new standard.

Johannes Posch Our participation methods have remained consistent. We have a basic concept: a kick-off event, then three planning workshops with a team of educators, school administrators, staff, and—depending on the type of school—also students. From this, we develop quality catalogues for competitions. This model has proven effective, even as the requirements for educational buildings evolve. Fifteen years ago, we were working on assumptions; today we have examples to guide us, which makes it easier to introduce new approaches. 

Karin Schwarz-Viechtbauer The major innovation was that participation took place at all, and that it made innovative spatial concepts possible. These developments emerged at the project level, not top-down. Participation has evolved from being a means of gaining insight to becoming an added value in every project—for example, in terms of user acceptance and the appropriation of space. New concepts such as the competency-oriented department system demonstrate how crucial on-site expertise is. In the beginning, it was a long process of raising awareness. Discussions with educators often yielded few results, so we focused on pilot projects instead. 

CK Has participation become routine?

KS-V No, it’s still not established as a standard. Even in cases where schools are required to create an organizational concept or a quality profile as a condition for receiving funding, it is often done without external support and has little spatial relevance.

Nicole Kalteis It would be hardly manageable without support; it would be overwhelming. We’ve benefited from the fact that spatial concepts and design have been integrated into curricula as educational content, and that many teachers are already familiar with these topics. The idea of space as the third teacher is well-known to the educators. But teams need external facilitation to develop concepts such as the competency-oriented department system. 

CK How did this system come about? 

NK Through an intensive process of reflection. Our idea was that the spatial environment should make what is being taught visible. Six departments were developed based on the educational areas of the Vienna Education Plan, for example the department for mental and physical well-being. Our practice kindergarten and training for early childhood education are closely interlinked, so that the space itself becomes an instrument of education. 

Caren Ohrhallinger Our role as architects and process facilitators is to translate the needs of educators into a language that planners can clearly understand. Social dimensions are becoming increasingly important, especially in renovation projects, where there’s not only an existing building fabric but also an existing social fabric. Schools are social systems with characteristics that are expressed spatially.

Franz Ryznar The dialogue between architects, educators, and users has changed the self-under­standing of architecture. Cooperation and empathy have moved to the center. Participatory processes are the marketplace of innovation—they allow the perspectives of all participants to be valued equally. 

CK But that can’t really work in an anonymous competition, where architects don’t appear personally as dialogue partners.

AB I see effective participation more in the pre-competition phase. That’s where users can have real influence. We’re currently planning a middle school in Bruck an der Mur. In Styria, there are state guidelines with predefined spatial programs, but you can deviate from them significantly if you provide good justification.

CK Let’s turn briefly to kindergartens. Has there been an architectural stagnation in that sector?

FR We’ve been designing kindergartens for about 20 years, and the system is quite rigid. Regulations such as square meter requirements and safety standards vary greatly between federal states. Things get interesting when a site is too small to fit everything on one level—then we can start to explore the third dimension and create additional space. That opens up opportunities for niches, retreat areas, and other creative solutions.

CK But generally, the system doesn’t seem to want change?

NK I wouldn’t say that, but there are different state laws and strict regulatory frameworks that can limit innovation. 

KS-V On the one hand, there is a great deal of innovation in the kindergarten sector, particularly in Vienna, where the open learning approach allows children to move freely throughout the building. On the other hand, there are strict safety regulations … 

CK … which often seem excessive to me. Do fall protections really need to be 1.8 meters high?

NK But there are real risks behind that—for example, when children use movable elements to climb up.

CO One more point regarding kindergartens: in evaluating the seven Campus Plus sites developed by the City of Vienna, whose spatial concept is based on educational areas—called BIBERs—that are used jointly by kindergartens and primary or primary and middle schools. One key finding was that in daily practice, this shared use often doesn’t work as intended due to different use cycles and noise levels that make it difficult to implement the concept as planned.

NK When kindergarten children use the shared open areas according to their needs, running around and being loud, the concentrated focus of the primary school children is disrupted. In kindergartens, we work with the principle of free play, which means creating an environment so stimulating that children can design their own learning settings and engage in self-directed learning. In schools, instruction is typically led by teachers. These two pedagogical models are incompatible, both in terms of noise levels and the children’s movement patterns. 

CK Hasn’t there been a trend toward transferring insights from early childhood education into schools in recent years?

KS-V That was indeed the approach pursued by the City of Vienna. The goal was mutual learning, especially for schools to learn from kindergartens. But that has only been achieved to a limited extent so far. 

AB In Vienna, I currently see more of a stagnation. Ten years ago, the city was certainly a pioneer with the campus concept, but the model has since become a new standard that is no longer being questioned. Our school buildings are meant to last 50, or better yet 100, years, and therefore the architectural parameters cannot be too narrowly defined.

FR Regarding the topic of primary and secondary schools: We’re facing a strong social segregation at the interface, which has remained unchanged for a hundred years, despite clear opposition from experts, researchers, and educators. 

CK That’s particularly true in eastern Austria. 

NK It’s really more of an urban–rural issue. What you’re describing is absolutely true for Vienna, except for special institutions like the Lernwerkstatt Brigittenau.

CK Could the difficulties in practical implementation of the combined kindergarten–primary school model be due to poor communication of the underlying intentions? Would it help to have a start-up phase during which all parties are supported, perhaps as a dedicated phase? 

NK Yes, absolutely. 

JP I’d take it even further. After Phase Zero, i.e. until the competition, there should be a follow-up phase that continues seamlessly through to starting operations. During this period, details should be monitored and made transparent to ensure that educators remain involved throughout planning. 

CO Exactly. Not everything can be determined in advance; many user needs don’t even emerge until the building is in operation. In projects where users were actively involved, we see a clear positive influence on the dialogue between planners and users, often around very concrete issues such as furniture or spatial flexibility. 

CK Let’s briefly touch on the interface with architectural competitions. Are these quality catalogues actually being read? In the first campus project that explicitly required a cluster structure, fewer than 10 out of 80 entries took the call for proposals seriously. 

AB The Viennese authorities were truly ahead of their time back then. Today, I see more innovation coming from mid-sized municipalities, where new schools are also prestige projects and a way to counteract population drain.

FR In our first participatory project, it was ultimately the two school directors who made the final decision. That shows how empowering such processes can be for users.

CK Ms. Kalteis, how was your experience? Were you satisfied with the competition process?

NK The competition was quite challenging for me. It took me a while to get my bearings. Ultimately, however, I was glad to have understood the winning project well and that it met my expectations.

KS-V We acted as translators, not only through the quality catalogues for architects, but also directly in jury sessions for the participating educators. 

CK Many architects consider anonymous competitions to be the best procurement model. Mr. Posch, how important is anonymity to you? 

JP I find cooperative models particularly interesting, especially in the context of urban design, and I could imagine adapting such formats for educational buildings as well.

CK Ms. Ohrhallinger, the project in Leoben that you supervised for the firm nonconform did not involve a competition. 

CO That was a pilot project, also in terms of procurement. We accompanied it together with Michael Zinner (schulRAUMkultur / University of Art and Design Linz) in a participatory process; we handled most of the planning ourselves, while a local office oversaw imple­men­tation. We’ve also accompanied many projects from participation through to compe­tition, and sometimes even into the design, implementation, and moving-in phases. You could call it a “participatory, quality-assured project supervision from Phases Zero to Ten.”

KS-V Yes, exactly. Phases Zero through Ten all need process facilitation, not just Phases Zero and Ten. 

CK And there should even be a phase I’d call Phase Ten Plus—when school leadership transitions to the next generation—to avoid misunderstandings. This is something I noticed repeatedly during research: The first visit meets with enthusiastic users, and a few years later, after a change in administration, everything is wrong. Let’s move on to a final round: What will the major challenges be in coming years?

JP I think the models we’ve just discussed are important and should be continued. The challenge lies in getting commissioning bodies and financiers to support them. Adequate resources must be provided to realize such projects. Therefore, facilitated user participation should be taken into consideration and specified in the project development phase. The cognitive process of appropriation that takes place is crucial. It is important that the commissioning bodies exercise patience. Participation processes must start early and be continuously facilitated.

NK I can only reinforce that. I experience the different time periods of the process very intensely. Architects and planners are continuously engaged with the issues of building, while educators are often occupied with other tasks. As a result, they lose track of developments and keep raising the same questions, because they can’t continuously follow along in the process. Making sure the process of appropriation is effective requires constant repetition and reflection. If the necessary support is not provided, many aspects risk going unnoticed, or certain spatial potentials may never be fully realized.

AB In architecture, problems arise where participants stop striving for progress and settle for simply meeting standards. While good architecture can still achieve a great deal under such conditions—by offering structural flexibility, adaptability, and potential for expansion—it requires intelligent construction, for example with large spans. But the real challenge for the future lies in regaining the courage to innovate. When only the meeting of standards is asked for, the temptation to copy successful projects is strong, but in this case neither a competition nor a participatory process is needed. 

KS-V I see it somewhat differently. The purpose of participation is not primarily to promote innovation, which should never be an end in itself, but above all to improve how spaces are appropriated and used. Regarding future challenges, I’d like to address the risks that come with institutionalization, especially after 15 years of innovative development. In many cases, the cluster system with open learning zones is regarded as established and is often implemented without user participation. Yet during school visits, we frequently observe open learning zones that remain underused. A lack of participation often also leads to a lack of understanding of the educational potential of open spatial structures. Furthermore, external factors such as staff shortages also contribute to schools reverting to traditional structures, which poses a real threat to the continued existence of these concepts. 

FR I’d like to add to that. Underused spaces are often seen as wasted resources. Awareness of spaces and their creative use has not been particularly pronounced to date and is further declining in teacher training. At teacher training colleges, I observe a regression towards conservative teaching methods and frontal instruction. Schools report that there are hardly any young educators who know how to use open spaces and open learning formats effectively. It is highly essential that future teachers become familiar, during their training, with the educational use of differentiated spaces so they can activate them and offer children an education fit for the future.

CO I’d also add that the focus should increasingly be on the pedagogical level. Even in less-than-ideal, outdated spaces, good education can thrive if the right people are committed to it. In this sense, Phase Ten is more important than Phase Zero, since the best spatial intentions often fizzle out without support during the appropriation phase, whereas in Phase Ten, much can be intercepted and steered in the right direction.