1. A New Approach to Architectural Design
After more than three decades of architectural practice and theoretical work, I am convinced that the central task of 21st-century architecture lies in the further development of our built environment.
The vast majority of our buildings, neighbourhoods and cities already exist. Yet architectural progress is still frequently equated with new construction. Adaptation to existing conditions is seen as a response to constraints, while new construction is regarded as the true creative act.
Architecture of Transformation takes a different position. The existing built environment is not a limitation on design, but its point of departure. Its spatial, structural, material and cultural qualities form the basis for new architectural solutions.
This is neither about preserving what exists unchanged nor about change for its own sake. The aim is to develop a new architectural identity from the existing fabric—one that responds to the demands of the present while enabling future developments.
Transformation is therefore not a style, but an approach to architectural design: one that understands what already exists, recognises its potential and uses it to shape a new future.
2. Building on the Existing – An Original Principle of Architecture
The history of European architecture is far less a history of new construction than a history of building on what already exists.
Over centuries, European cities have evolved through extensions, alterations, additional storeys and changes of use. Existing structures were not simply replaced, but repeatedly integrated into new contexts. This is precisely what enabled buildings and cities to change without entirely losing their spatial identity
The city was never a finished work. Each generation added its own layer, responding to the spatial, technical and social conditions of its time. Continuity and change were not opposites, but the prerequisites for lasting development.
With modernism, a different understanding of progress became widely established. The radical new beginning, the functional separation of urban activities such as work, housing, commerce and production, and the unchecked expansion of settlement areas became defining principles. These were driven by faith in new technological possibilities and the mobility afforded by the motor car. The demolition of existing buildings came to be regarded as a prerequisite for establishing a new order. Yet this often obscured the long-term value of the established city: its spatial relationships and structures, the materials, infrastructure and labour embodied in its buildings, and the identity of its places. The 20th century was dominated by the assumption that resources were inexhaustible and by an unwavering belief in the progress promised by ever-new technological possibilities.
Today, we must recognise that technology quickly becomes obsolete, requires costly maintenance and servicing, and that functions change rapidly. As a result, buildings can cease to meet contemporary requirements long before reaching the end of their natural life cycle.
All these developments lead to a clear conclusion: we must once again understand building on the existing as an independent architectural task. We can neither continue expanding our cities indefinitely nor simply demolish our buildings after a few decades.
This is not about returning to historical forms. The past is not a formal model to be reproduced. What matters is learning from history how architecture can undergo continuous transformation while retaining its permanence.
3. Reading the Existing
Every process of transformation begins with an understanding of what already exists.
A building is more than an assemblage of walls, ceilings, windows and technical systems. It is the product of its time, its construction, its materials and its history of use. Subsequent alterations, repairs and traces of everyday life have added further layers.
Anyone seeking to develop a building further must be able to recognise and interpret these relationships.
The study of an existing building therefore goes beyond a technical survey. It seeks to understand the building’s underlying logic: How are its spaces interconnected? Which structural principles determine its organisation? What role do light, proportion and materiality play? Which changes have shaped its present form?
I understand this process as reading an architectural score. Only when its different voices—the structural, spatial, material, functional and historical—have been understood can a new architectural composition emerge.
This analysis is not an end in itself. It provides the basis for deciding which qualities should be carried forward, which structures should be transformed and which new elements should be introduced.
4. Designing from What Exists
The real design challenge lies in bringing the potential of the existing building into a productive relationship with the requirements of a new use.
Existing spatial sequences can accommodate new functions. Existing structures can provide opportunities for extensions. Carefully considered interventions can establish new connections, visual relationships and spatial configurations. Additions can reinforce the existing architecture or lend it a new dimension.
In this process, a new architectural unity emerges from different layers of time. The existing building remains recognisable as part of its history, while new elements respond to the demands of the present.
Not every existing structure possesses a strong architectural identity. Even buildings originally constructed primarily to meet functional or economic requirements can acquire a new spatial quality through transformation.
The value of the existing building therefore lies not only in its original architectural significance, but also in its potential for further development.
New buildings remain an integral and selfevident part of architecture. What matters is whether they meaningfully complement existing spatial relationships, establish new connections and contribute to the development of a place.
5. New Uses and a New Spatial Identity
Buildings are created to serve specific purposes. Yet uses change, technical requirements evolve and social needs shift.
The longevity of a building rarely depends on its remaining unchanged in use for generations. Rather, it depends on its ability to accommodate new requirements.
Transformation offers the opportunity to reinterpret existing buildings and adapt their uses to changing conditions. In this process, new spatial typologies can emerge, bringing different functions together and enabling new ways of living, working and learning.
The aim is to establish a new architectural identity that grows out of the existing building while also transcending it. Architectural identity is not merely a matter of external appearance. It emerges from spatial organisation, proportions, materiality and the relationships between the individual parts of a building.
Such an identity provides orientation and enables people to develop a relationship with their built environment. Where an established identity exists, it can be further developed. Where it is absent or has been lost, transformation can create a new one.
6. From Architecture to the City
The architecture of transformation extends beyond the individual building. Its principles apply equally to neighbourhoods, cities and landscapes.
The quality of European cities derives from a spatial order that has evolved over long periods of time. Mixed uses, short distances, public spaces and the proximity of different functions create cities organised around the human scale.
These qualities are not the result of individual buildings alone. They emerge from the relationships between buildings, the organisation of open spaces, existing infrastructure and the interplay of different uses.
Transformation must therefore extend beyond the boundaries of individual plots. The neighbourhood becomes a fundamental unit of architectural design.
The challenge is to develop existing structures in ways that introduce new uses, improve public spaces and create additional spatial qualities without prematurely discarding the resources already available.
The city of the 20th century has itself become an existing fabric to be transformed. Its housing estates, commercial and industrial areas, and infrastructure provide the starting point for a new design task. Even where spatial identity is lacking, carefully targeted interventions can establish new relationships and create new coherence.
The aim is a compact, liveable city designed around human needs. It emerges neither from maximum density nor from unlimited expansion, but from a balanced relationship between buildings, open spaces, mobility, infrastructure and social life.
City and landscape are not opposites. Developing the existing city also creates the conditions for preserving undeveloped land, fertile soils and regional recreational areas. Green spaces must become more deeply integrated into the city and be understood as part of a continuous living environment.
The future lies not in the individual building alone, but in the quality of the spatial relationships that connect it to its surroundings.
7. Sustainability as the Outcome of Good Design
The architecture of transformation understands sustainability not as an isolated technical objective, but as the outcome of a responsible approach to architectural design.
Existing buildings contain valuable materials, structures and the accumulated labour of generations. They are integrated into existing infrastructures and possess spatial, economic and cultural values that cannot be measured by their construction materials alone. Demolition therefore means far more than the loss of building materials. It can also entail the loss of spatial qualities, established relationships and collective investment.
A responsible approach to the existing built environment begins by asking which resources are already available and how they can be meaningfully developed further. This does not mean preserving every existing structure regardless of its quality. It means making decisions about conservation, transformation and replacement on the basis of careful architectural analysis. Sustainability emerges where buildings remain usable over the long term, can adapt to changing needs and develop a high level of spatial quality. It combines durability with an openness to change.
Architecture carries a responsibility that extends beyond the present. Each generation inherits a built environment while simultaneously shaping the possibilities available to future generations.
This responsibility does not constrain architectural creativity. It expands the design process by introducing a temporal dimension.
8. Our Work – Architecture for the Future
This design philosophy forms the foundation of our work as an architectural practice.
We investigate existing buildings and ensembles, identify their spatial and structural potential, and develop concepts for new uses and architectural interventions. We combine an understanding of architectural history with design practice, approaching transformation as a process in which analysis, design and the further development of the existing built fabric are intrinsically connected.
Our work encompasses individual spaces and buildings as well as larger spatial contexts. Depending on the task, this may involve developing existing architecture further, adapting it to new uses, introducing new building elements or transforming entire neighbourhoods.
We do not seek a predetermined formal language. Every place, every building and every task demands its own architectural response.
Our aim is to recognise existing qualities, develop them with precision and bring them into dialogue with the demands of our time. The result is architecture that not only responds to present needs but also opens up new possibilities for the long term.
Architecture of Transformation is our contribution to an architecture that creates the future from what already exists. We understand building on the existing not as an alternative to architecture, but as one of its most demanding tasks.
