With the common method of technology transfer*, we – like other architects – try to detach systems or subsystems that were essentially developed by technicians or engineers for very clear applications and optimized over years from their usual (and originally intended) context. We construct a kind of ready-made form search for ourselves by testing the form already developed by the engineers, which is free of artistic intentions, for its suitability under other conditions. At the same time, we use a system and its appearance – at least in part, of course – almost figuratively and formally. But we check the new application for its meaningfulness and especially also for efficiency and economy and perhaps the decisive factor for its „ergonomics“. So it’s about a serious transfer. Perhaps it is even almost like genetics, a further development of a species by crossing it with another. If we follow in the footsteps of Lacaton Vassal and propose a large production greenhouse system or, in our case, even a second-hand greenhouse for the new construction of a day-care for children, it is only because we see it as the better kindergarten – spatially and, somewhat arrogantly, also pedagogically. A large hall with a certain intermediate (so not fully heated) climate serves as a enormous space for the children to freely experience and discover. The fixed installations in it (made of mud and wood) are reduced to the most necessary and fulfil only one third of the required heated space programme (of the competition brief). The rest is free play space in the truest sense of the word.

And besides that, if the community has fewer children again in a few years or decades, there are of course many options for subsequent use: from resale to vegetable cultivation.

(* in terms of technology-transfer watch also our project of a sports hall made within the system of gang nail connector plate trusses …)