calendar / blog

touring ungers’ private library

inside the house without qualities

gathering outside the dormitories at the niederrhein kolleg

viewing the original drawings of the oberhausen institute

listening to gregor harbusch

preparing content for the exhibition

setting up the exhibition

the oberhausen institute

the architectural project for the OBERHAUSEN INSTITUT started in 1953, when the director of the school heinrich bauer contacted the young architect UNGERS on advice of the architecture journalist ulrich conrads. the oberhausen institute was a new type of college, offering a second chance to students who had not finished high school. the school had already opened its doors in the same year as ungers’ meeting with bauer, with courses being held in an existing school building on the future site of the new school. while the teaching program was underway, ungers began planning facilities for student housing, for common rooms like an assembly hall, the school’s canteen, classrooms and laboratories for the natural sciences. his design followed the idea of a school which served not only as a place for learning, but provided an overall educational program.¹ this program included collective living and shared daily activities according to the principles of the school and to the codes of conduct that the students would develop themselves in this environment.

sketch of the OBERHAUSEN INSTITUTE, looking towards assembly hall across the schoolyard

in postwar germany, school architecture was considered an important tool for a DEMOCRATIC RE-EDUCATION. the spaces for living and learning for the new generation were laboratories in which the new democratic system was to prove its effectiveness on a group level. if it worked on the small scale, so the contemporary assumption, there was reason for hope that it would work also on the larger level of german society.² at the same time, german architects were making efforts to reconnect with international networks, one of which was the young ungers, who visited CIAM IX in aix-en-provence in 1953. ciam ix was at the origin of a group later to become known as TEAM 10, whose members sought to reform modernism from the inside by breaking away from its more rigid, functionalist dogmas towards a more avant-gardist program.³ it was here that ungers was confronted with new theoretical debates and design strategies which would later inform his work.

model of the OBERHAUSEN INSTITUTE

the FORMAL LAYOUT of the oberhausen institute was highly influenced by contemporary ideas on space and society, and by the architectural debate on modular or patterned schemes and clusters heralded by team 10 architects. ungers grouped the assembly hall, the school’s canteen, classrooms and laboratories into the main building, which would be finished in 1959, and housed the more private dormitory spaces in separate buildings, which opened in 1956. while the main building, adorned by some brutalist features, followed a more “conventional” floor plan, the students dorm rooms were organized in groups, clustered around a central staircase, and forming a loose arrangement around a central courtyard.

OBERHAUSEN INSTITUTE, view of the assembly hall from the old school building

OBERHAUSEN INSTITUTE, interior of assembly hall with brick and concrete relief

the institute is interesting for a study of the MATERIALITY OF THE SOCIAL not only with regard to the role it was ascribed in building up a new society after the war through the means of an architectural experiment. the overall organization of UNGERS’ plan as well as the more detailed planning of the private and public spaces and their interrelations serves as a valuable starting point for an analyses of the relation of spatial layout to behavior, use and social life.

OBERHAUSEN INSTITUTE, south-east elevation of dormitories

footnotes

1. heinrich bauer, “man sollte ein haus bauen können…: von der baukunst, der bildung und dem vierten zeitalter,” baukunst und werkform 8, no. 3 (1955).

2. on the discussion on student living see for example bauwelt 50, 51/52 (1959), which asks “how the new generation lives” and features the oberhausen institute on page 1506–09.

exhibition of the results of the summer school (image credit: bernd grimm)

the summer school looked at the architecture of the OBERHAUSEN INSTITUTE. our aim was to analyze how the material structures of the school related to the social. in order to do so, we discussed different perspectives on the topic and considered a broad range of presentation formats and media on how to best convey these perspectives. in so doing, we developed various positions towards the oberhausen institute and, more globally, towards the question, how materiality and social life, social structures, use patterns and shared aesthetic experiences belong together. besides research on texts and drawings, the visit to the niederrhein kolleg as it exists today along with the accounts and various anecdotes of former students and teachers of the school guided the study of how buildings mediate social behavior.

original publications featuring the oberhausen institute (image credit: bernd grimm)

four different positions took shape during the discussions:

how can a pedagogical concept be translated into a spatial layout?

verónica emilia tapia abril, sascha lehnhardt and jeffa vandecasteele analyzed how ungers developed the design for the school. their focus was on the relationship of individual spaces and the educational and common spaces.

three diagrams describe the different spatial forms of the design proposals (image credit: bernd grimm)

“the design of the oberhausen institute emerged out of a dialogue between heinrich bauer, the director of the school, and ungers, the architect. bauer’s commission for the design in 1953 initiated a period of at least one and a half years of coordinated work.

bauer had a specific idea of a new educational structure which was to build up the new social and political system to be established in west germany. he thought of an organically structured education that was focused on holistic learning.

ungers translated these ideas into a number of design proposals, suggesting different spatial forms of organization. after the first drawings, two opposite schemes were developed further: a large block including all functions and a fragmented pavilion structure. the final plan combined both schemes into a comprehensive layout.”

how can windows negotiate social space?

başak işik, annelien seys and robin vleeschouwers were interested in the window wall of the stairwells in the living quarters. the design and position of the window within the building composition suggested a structuring of social interaction.

“WINDOWS are the vital apparatus that connects inside and outside. they have significant locations in the oberhausen institute. the main STAIRS of each dorm unit face the greenery surrounding the campus. the large glass walls in these spaces invite nature inside the most commonly used area of the dorms and transform circulation into a delightful experience.

a scaled abstraction of the stairwell window in the dormitories (image credit: bernd grimm)

the dorms are organized around a wide courtyard with old trees where the students can socialize, which is directly accessible from each dorm unit. by contrast, the staircase space opens up the view towards the surroundings and visually connects the campus with its environment. our installation aims to parallel the dorms with the exhibition space in the haus belvederestraße 60, which ungers designed at the same time. both spaces open towards the courtyard, and have visual connections towards the exterior space.”

how does the building define use patterns?

yasaman hedayat, margot schurmans and amber van houdt concentrated on the interaction of original behaviors and use structures of the oberhausen institute. based on recollections of former students, they developed a narrative of how the architecture mediates social relationships.

“in his design for the oberhausen institute, ungers planned a generous amount of common spaces. the individual spaces were limited: in the first years, three students slept in a room. this forced the inhabiting students to organize themselves properly.

a comic illustrates student life in the oberhausen institute of the 1950’s (image credit: bernd grimm)

the comic book retraces the uses of the building in the 1950s, according to the REPORTS OF FORMER STUDENTS. it departs from an individual perspective in order to focus on the dialogue between the student and the build environment. the sequence of scenes is made of punctual highlights, and reflects the partial nature of the students’ memories, which are both incomplete and individual.”

how has the building been adapted to new use patterns?

chaoyu huang, cansu koçdemir and ying zhao examined the oberhausen institute as it stands today and how contemporary behaviors and needs have affected the architecture. looking at the traces of use they posited how the building has been adapted to current habits.

“as society’s habits change, the layout of both individual and common spaces is affected. TODAY, the sleeping rooms of the oberhausen institute are occupied by one person and the common space of the restaurant has been reconverted.

a video shows today’s perceived use patterns in the oberhausen institute (image credit: bernd grimm)