In the current discourse on the redensification of cities, it is often possible to draw a coherent picture of a potential future. Urban typologies have proven their worth, continue to evolve, and can be applied in a contemporary context. 

In light of the uncertainties brought about by climate change and the rise of regressive ideologies, we as architects are also obliged to engage with what is often referred to as the “rural space.” The rediscovery of vernacular architecture offers the promise of sustainable construction methods and a sensitive connection to established local structures. However, the lived reality often tells a different story: industrialized landscapes alongside single-family housing developments and commercial zones result in a diffuse fragmentation of these spaces. 

We are interested in the social, ecological, and aesthetic conditions under which architecture can be designed in rural areas. We ask ourselves how we can critically assess the repertoire of traditional motifs and translate them into contemporary relevance. Can a hint of humor help ease the tension between past and present? And can this lead to a productive attitude toward the future? Or do we risk aligning ourselves with the very same backward-looking ideas? The difference may lie in a holistic, pluralistic perspective on evolving lifestyles and modes of production. How can alternative forms of living coexist with traditional housing models, especially with regard to the responsible use of land? And how can architecture remain resilient in the face of unforeseen developments?

Have a look at the theoretical background from the thesis here.