Guntramsdorf:
Anningerblick - an ecological village
Guntramsdorf:
| |
| Country: | a) Western Europe | ,b) Austria |
| Language: | |
| Type: | Project, 2 |
| Area: | Outskirts, < 20,000 |
| Actors: | Local government, Regional government, Economic sector |
| Funding: | Regional government, Economic Sector |
| Topics: | Architecture and construction |
| Building materials | |
| Energy | |
| Health | |
| Housing (and new settlements) | |
| Objectives: | Increase use of clean technology |
| Increase use of ecological building materials | |
| Increase use of renewable resources | |
| Reduce energy consumption | |
| Reduce resource consumption | |
| Instruments: | Least cost planning / environmental budgeting |
Anningerblick is a new settlement built according to ecological standards to fulfil the following aims:
As soon as the S-Wohnbau Gesellschaft had acquired the property on the out-skirts of Guntramsdorf, a competition was announced. At this point, neither the jury nor the developers were aware of what the consequences of sustainable architecture actually were. The willingness of the developers to experiment in this area was limited only by the issue of cost: apart from this, openness prevailed. The Deubner office had a certain amount of experience in the area of sustainable building. This included "Gärtnerhof," (where Mr. Deubner's studio is also located) a sustainable settlement of 21 completed residential units in Gänserndorf. Numerous preliminary discussions with, and presentations of the project to the district council had to be carried out by the architects, since the architecture and infrastructure plan infringed on many of the existing building regulations and guidelines. In concrete terms, the development plan had to be changed and special permits had to be obtained for fire regulations, solar collectors, and the utilisation of rainwater. The planning commission proved to be co-operative. However, this could not have been achieved without the committed persistence and persuasiveness of the architect.
A committee made up of developers, technical and commercial management representatives, site management architects, and other consultants met for 14 days to clarify the plan of action and to finalise the decision-making process. It became evident very early that strict observance of sustainable architectural principles was too expensive for the developer, and that it was therefore necessary to diverge more and more from the scale of the original concept.
The struggle over building costs and the delegation of authority came to a head during the building phase. The first point of contention was that the sustainable design, originally very comprehensive, had been reduced to a minimum in order to save money. The second point was that the role of the architect, who had only been entrusted with the artistic direction but who was constantly being asked to make decisions, had not been sufficiently clarified. The lack of familiarity of the contractors with the innovative materials and their proper application added to this problem. The site management was also unfamiliar with the precepts of sustainable building, but neither they, nor the participating companies went to the trouble of acquiring a good basis of knowledge of this area before building began. They didn’t study the detailed drawings they received from the architect thoroughly either. The building simply began. The site management and the companies assumed that the architect had "most likely made a mistake", and that "you just can't build it that way" because some things went against the conventional way of doing it. The result was complaints directed at the architect and frustration during the building. These in turn grew to general dissatisfaction, reaching its climax at the architect's weekly visits to the site. The difficulties arose mainly out of the fact that the planning, approval, and implementation of the project were not co-ordinated by the same people. The architect requested to be entrusted with the entire site management in the second building phase rather than merely the "artistic direction," in order to prevent such conflict.
The division of the project into various building phases also proved to be a great problem. Since the first building phase primarily entailed building the large and expensive residences, difficulties were experienced with sales. Two months before completion of the first phase, only one third of the buildings had been sold. This could have led to the developers deciding against the realisation of a further building phase. None of the participants felt that the insufficient demand should be interpreted as a lack of interest in sustainable building though.
The development of the actual construction costs is worthy of mention. Upon completion of the first building phase, it became clear that the costs had turned out to be far lower than was initially assumed. This was due to the reserves calculated for in the bid, which proved to have been set too high.
The flat property lies in view of the adjacent vineyards, approx. two kilometres from the centre of Guntramsdorf and 16 km south of Austria's capital, Vienna. The Viennese suburban train and the bus stop are five minutes away from it on foot. An additional bus stop is planned directly at the eco-village upon its completion. The settlement is planned as high-density low-rise. Detached houses, row houses, and atrium houses cluster around communal outdoor spaces, and recreation and play areas. The row houses are provided with screened-off, private gardens protected by wooden fences - "rooms in the open". Access to the settlement is gained on foot. Cars are accommodated in three areas on the edge of the site. All buildings that have been completed so far have conservatories of varying size with southern orientation. With a view to the realisation of the concept of sheltered, garden-like outdoor spaces: two bands of buildings have been turned to border off the remaining terraced development to the east. Here also, an effort was made to turn the attached conservatories to face the south.
The site borders on agricultural land to the south and north. The adjacent development to the east consists of rows of 4-storey housing blocks built in the eighties one behind the other. Their architecture and ideologies have little in common with the "Anningerblick" eco-village. A central "Piazza," a planted square which leads to a cafe, serving as a summer meeting place for residents and adjoined by a fresh water eco-system with a promenade and café, is planned for the eco-settlement in the second building phase.
There are nine different types of buildings in the first building phase. Nearly all of the buildings have living-room, dining-room, kitchen, and WC ensemble on the ground floor, and a varying number of rooms and a bath-room located on the top floor. Most of the living spaces open onto a 3.5 m² high attached conservatory; heat from the conservatory can be conveyed to the top floor through ducts. Where possible, north-facing rooms receive additional daylight via adjoining rooms through south- facing skylights. The zoning of the plans allows the auxiliary spaces to be oriented to the north where possible, and for the living spaces to be oriented to the south.
Buildings 7, 8, and 18 are among the largest in the settlement with approx. 140 m² of living space and a 260-280 m² private site area. Building type 7 and 8 are north-south oriented, whereas type 18 is east- west oriented. These buildings have a two-storey conservatory: a 6 m² one on the first floor and a 4 m² gallery on the second.
The two largest buildings, numbers 9 and 22, encompass 163 m² of living space and a 280 m² private plot. They differ from buildings 7, 8, and 18 in their atrium form and in the additional small, self- contained apartment that is attached to the side facing the garden. This self-contained apartment has a kitchenette and WC, and can have a door connecting it to the living space if desired.
Dwellings 24, 25, 28, 29, and 31 have something of a row house quality, but are considered apartments because of the second residence located in the loft. The kitchen, living and dining areas are kept spacious and open. Buildings 26, 27, and 30 are very similar to those described above, with the exception that they do not contain an additional loft apartment, meaning that the quality of living is equivalent to that of a row house.
The loft apartments of approx. 50 m² are suitable for a household of one or two people. Both the bedroom and the living-room open on to the south-facing roof terrace. Access to the apartment is gained through an external private wooden staircase. The disadvantage of these dwellings is the en- closed bathroom; however, it at least receives borrowed light through a skylight opening on to the stairwell.
Buildings 10 and 11 are the only single-storey buildings in the settlement. With their 83 m² large, L- shaped floor plan, they form an atrium, as do buildings 9 and 22. Unique to this type of building is the sloped roof with a visible underface, and the gallery in the living room.
All residences apart from the loft apartments have separate storage rooms, or tool sheds in the garden. Care was taken to screen off the gardens of the individual residences, and to demarcate them as clearly separate from the semi-public, planted recreation and leisure spaces.
"The original approach of Baubiologie - to provide people with healthy houses or apartments - is no longer enough. A holistic approach, taking into account social structures, as well as the impact of a building on the environment, is becoming more and more necessary," according to the architect Deubner. In the building of the "Anningerblick" settlement, care was taken to use renewable building materials that are also acceptable from the point of view of Baubiologie; materials which "inflict the least possible damage to the environment over their life cycles of acquisition, use, disposal, and reuse." (Deubner)
The constant struggle with costs and sustainability led to the Baubiologie-related aspects being increasingly abandoned in the out-door spaces as building progressed. When building had just begun, the exterior cellar was insulated with cellular glass, whereas after a number of discussions about costs, polystyrol replaced its environmentally sound, but far more expensive predecessor. Also, the walls were initially insulated with cellulose, but later with stone wool; and the last windows were foamed into place to eliminate frame conduction. In view of this, even greater effort was made in the interior area to consistently use non-toxic materials. Thus, for example, sawdust was used in the floor construction and natural paints were used on the wall surfaces. No artificial coverings were used.
The external walls are made of 38 cm thick masonry with highly porous bricks and specially-insulated mortar joints. The masonry has breather-type thermally insulating plaster. The loft area is insulated with thick stone wool. The interior partitions are lightweight walls, and consist of a timber frame with blown-in cellulose clad with plasterboard. Each floor is timber-joisted floor. Wood is predominately used in the interior spaces of the dwellings, and on the visible surfaces. Windows and doors, as well as wooden surfaces, were treated with natural resin oil. The floor covering is either parquet or clay tiling.
The main emphasis in terms of energy was placed on the use of passive solar energy. Nearly all of the building types have an attached conservatory leading off of the south-facing rooms, with the north- facing rooms mostly closed for buffer zones. In the multi-storey buildings, the south-facing rooms on the first floor are glazed down to the floor.
Collectors were to be installed on the roofs to provide solar-powered hot water; however considerations of cost resulted in only the connections being installed in some cases, depending on available installation space. This allows the buyer the possibility of attaching collectors. As the technical director of S-Wohnbau, Mr. Hübschmann argued that these are "sustainable extras that cannot be offered as standards."
The buildings are heated with low-temperature, individual gas-fired boilers for space/water heating run on natural gas that react to the outside temperature: as soon as the sun has shone for a sufficiently long period of time, the heating turns off automatically. In addition, each radiator is thermostatically controlled. The radiators are proportioned to radiate a high amount of heat.
Outlet switches and electrical cables shielded with protective casings and which radiate from a central point were planned for the bedrooms; however, the electric company was unfamiliar with this system and the work was started in the conventional way. By the time the architect noticed the mistake, it was already too late.
Drinking-water consumption was halved through the installation of a second water cycle. Rainwater is captured in cisterns, filtered, and used for garden irrigation, washing machines, and toilet flushing. Using the water for washing machines also means that the soft rainwater requires less washing powder. Water was to be supplied by local water services if necessary. As was the case for the project in Gänserndorf, the architect, Deubner, was able to obtain special permission for the humus toilets for the first building phase; however, the client distanced himself from this idea out of considerations of cost and due to a possible negative reception on the part of the buyers. The "Clivus Multrum" was not intended to be standard, but rather to be installed at the buyer's request. A reed aquatic purification system for graywater reclamation could not be realised because of the density of the development: no adequate location could be found on the site. Using rainwater resulted in difficulties with the local water company, which refused to supply water when it was necessary, arguing that unpressurised water contained too many germs and might therefore pollute the drinking-water. This situation could only have been rectified by an expensive pump station which the developer was not prepared to pay for. In the end, an alternative solution was found involving the creation of different ground levels and the connection of a number of pumps.
The landscaping concept was originally to have been created by a landscape architect, but this was too costly for the developer. A landscape gardening company was commissioned and instructed to adhere, where possible, to the architect's outdoor space-design concept. The site plan of the settlement, which will be adhered to and implemented, specifies a network of walkways. It is designed to allow planting up to the building. The residents' private gardens may be planted at will, without regard to organic precepts.
Planned for the second building phase is a water-course flowing from east to west and ending in a pond with a pavilion in its centre.
The settlement is a pedestrian zone connected by paved pedestrian walkways. Only service vehicles are allowed vehicular access. Three parking areas are situated at the settlement edge, with some parking facilities on a car deck.
Communal areas are to be provided for the residents in the form of a cafe, a community house, and a "piazza." Since the project does not involve self-help or planning involvement, and since the prospective residents were not known until recently, no social concept has been developed apart from that mentioned above. It is hoped that people of various generations will live together in an atmosphere of a "village community". To this end, a number of ground floor, self-contained apartments for grandparents have been planned. It must be said that there has not been a very great response to this concept. The property costs - relatively high for Austria - have so far restricted sales predominantly to buyers of the upper-middle class.
An originally planned crèche was abandoned, because even after a thorough search no one could be found to run it. Plans have been made to turn the building intended for a crèche into additional housing.
The organisation of the settlement requires the employment of housing administrators, as well as a residential caretaker hired by S-Wohnbau. The caretaker's job is financed by the owners and entails maintenance of the grounds and the technical equipment.
The "Anningerblick" project was financed by the S-Bausparkasse. The Lower Austrian subsidised housing programme sponsored the project, providing 350,000 öS (approx. 50,000 DM) per residence. Interest-free repayment of the subsidisation funds by the home buyer is to occur over a period of 25 years - a clear advantage over unassisted private house-building. The purchase price of the dwellings is approx. 32,000 öS per m² of living space. The actual construction costs of the first building phase have now been established at approx. 14,850 öS/m² (turn-key, without basement), which corresponds roughly to the stipulations of social housing. Considering the high residential quality of the settlement, the construction costs are surprisingly low. However, due to the high property costs, the price is approx. 10% above average.
For the second building phase, full Austrian housing subsidisation (1,000,000 öS) has been applied for. This is allocated according to a system of means-testing, and is based on the number of cubic meters of living space.
The lack of demand for the large and expensive residences of the first building phase means that the buildings will have to be sold to random buyers, rather than to people with a genuine interest in sustainability. This in turn could lead to the numerous solar collector connections having being installed for nothing and the special permit having been obtained for nothing, because it could be that none of the prospective residents are actually interested in sustainable architecture. The developers have published a leaflet with slogans such as "I want to live like that too," or "the S-Bausparkasse's dream of living with nature has come true." Leaflets are also targeted at those buyers who do not really know what to expect of living in a sustainable building. The leaflet seems to be trying to give people the illusion that by moving into the "Anningerblick" eco-village, they will live in a peaceful world with happy people in an environment that has suddenly recovered. Obviously these expectations cannot be met in any real way; however, the particularly high quality of life achieved in the "Anningerblick" village is certainly worthy of mention. The courage of the client in financing such an unusual, sustainable project also goes beyond the usual measure.
It is reasonable to imagine that the open style of living in the settlement could stimulate prospective residents to lead a more aware existence, and thus to develop a sense of environmental responsibility and initiative even in those who had not previously dealt with these issues. It has also become clear that there are serious problems in not entrusting the person who is best informed about sustainable building and most concerned about its implementation - in this case the architect - with the site management. At the very least, companies with some experience in sustainable building techniques should have been commissioned. As was the case during the building of the Schafbrühl settlement, the building crew felt out of their depth without special instructions. As the architect's artistic direction was restricted to a weekly visit to the site, there was no one on site on a daily basis who knew exactly how the sustainable techniques were to be implemented, or who took the trouble to study the detailed drawings. This can only cause frustration, putting everyone involved off of sustainable architecture and reinforcing the stereotype that sustainable architecture is difficult and not feasible.
Units:
140 residential units in total
1st building phase - 42 residential units (realised)
2nd building phase - 44 residential units and retail space (planned)
3rd building phase - 54 residential units (planned)
Construction period:
1st building phase - 1992/1993
2nd building phase - (planned)
3rd building phase - (planned)
Site occupancy index:
0,37
Costs per m2:
approx. 14,850 Austrian shillings (£ 850; ready for occupation, excluding basement)
Purchase price:
approx. 32,000 Austrian shillings per m2 living space (£ 1,830)
Personal Communication: Guntramsdorf City Mayor, 1998.
European Academy of the Urban Environment (ed.)
M. Kennedy, D. Haas: New sustainable settlements in Europe
Berlin 1994
| Name | : | Marktgemeinde Guntramsdorf |
| Firstname | : | |
| Telefon | : | +43 / 2236 / 53 501 |
| Telefax | : | +43 / 2236 / 53 501-32 |
| Address | : | Marktgemeinde Guntramsdorf |
| Rathausplatz 1 | ||
| 2353 Guntramsdorf | ||
| Austria |
Guntramsdorf is situated in the southern catchment area of the Austrian capital city of Vienna. It is well known as a wine-producing town.
Project was added at 27.03.1998
Project was changed at 22.08.2001