Floating University: Learning with trouble

SYSTEM

Magdalena Stibralová: Floating University Berlin, and we will come back to the name later, is an environment with a wide range of characteristics. It is a place and a living organism at the same time, which brings a lot of questions we could discuss. But for those who don’t really know what Floating is and does, let’s talk about the identity first. It started in 2018 as an experiment with a strong connection to the Raumlabor community. Is it possible to describe its structure today? What kinds of groups/professions have been involved in the organisation, operation and teaching, and how are you participating?

Jöran Mandik: As you said, it started as a temporary project only funded and meant to run from May to October. After this very successful first year, we decided to keep the project going and started an association that now has around sixty members. We are mostly artists, architects, and urban designers, but also scientists, curators, biologists, structural engineers…

Jeanne Astrup-Chauvaux: I've been part of the association since 2018 and for the last two years I’ve been working as part of the communication team, which I’m also paid for, and otherwise I’ve been involved in different projects in space design and curation.

Miroslav Pazdera: What was the Raumlabor approach to the project? Did they want to do a kind of construction experiment, or did they consider it as a longer project?

JA-CH: I was also part of the team then and it was meant to just be this six-month project from May to October. Sometime towards the end when we thought we would have to unbuild everything, we said, wait a minute, maybe there’s a chance we could stay for one more season if we play our cards right – not knowing what that meant, because there was no funding at that time. So, it was more like an intuition. And then in mid-September 2018, the Floating association (Floating e.V.) was founded.

JM: It was very much just temporary, and I think it wouldn’t have been possible to start if it had been conceived as a longer-term project. No one would have allowed it. But it’s also meant to be this…I mean, who would have thought we’d still be there five years later.

MS: You have stated several times that the project is not actually floating and it’s also not a real university. I’d like to know what the name means to you. Of course, it’s not the kind of university we know from our education system, but I think it fulfils its origin as a community of people banded together seeking an education. And it’s also floating physically as a movable construction and mentally as a fluid and changing organism responding to current needs.

JA-CH: The main act was to have multiple universities on site in the first summer and there were more than 45 groups of students coming and spending time, experimenting with what it means to learn and to eventually teach also outside of their academic spaces. And naming it “University” was also an argument, it’s kind of making a clear statement when approaching the public with such a project.

JM: There was a strategy to bring this university education outside of the classroom, to change the spatial setup.

JA-CH: It was mostly design and architecture students, who were happy to design things in other ways or focus on different topics. Maybe that’s also the “floating” character that relates to the topic we are talking about. It was quite fluid in the first year, the focus was not so much on ecologies, it was more about water and urban transitions, in a somehow playful and poetic way. But now I think we’ve taken a strong path towards ecology and hybridity, and this is also still quite evolving and fluid.

MS: In contrast, universities are institutions with very clear borders, aims, rules of membership and work and ambitions of permanence. Are there any institutional qualities that would be worth following within Floating?

JA-CH: Yes, public recognition and public funding, I think.

JM: I’d like to have some less precarity, yes. But it’s hard to compare, it’s something else entirely. We don’t have an accreditation, there’s no certificate for anything, no formalised learning other than the learning accredited by actual universities that takes place on site. But if you are free from having to earn points or grades, you can just come and experiment, try things out and at the same time cook together and be together. So, we have a more holistic approach to learning. And we are still doing that today, varying facets of it. So, except for stability, I think we are actually very much trying not to be a university rather than the other way around.

MS: Did you establish any rules?

JA-CH: We have guidelines probably more than rules. And then there are the other stakeholders saying you are not allowed to do this and that… and even though these rules that are forced on us from the outside might be absurd, we still follow and comply, because that’s also part of the deal.

JM: But internally, the way we organise ourselves, we have lots of rules actually...

JA-CH: It’s more like there are structures and then everything can be, and will eventually be, negotiated.

MS: What about the approach to the visitors? Do you have rules for them?

JM: No bikes in the basin, dogs on the leash… (laughs)

JA-CH: I think that's a good question. I'm not sure if it was kind of conscious, but there is very little information or rules given at the entrance and you’re the one who must make the step. Then you also never really know – can you get down the stairs, is it OK? You must trust yourself. There are some moments when it's obvious, because there are many people and you do it easily, but sometimes everything is asleep and nobody's there. It's a small challenge.

If we started to put up rules everywhere—and we did think about this at one point—the place will just become a big sign board. This way people sometimes must speak to us, making this the first communication moment for us.

MP: How do you make decisions in such a big horizontal collective?

JM: Well, to some degree, we have people with jobs and responsibilities that do make certain decisions...

JA-CH: I would just say it’s a mandate. It’s your mandate as a production person to make certain decisions about the budget for example. But this responsibility is given to you as part of the production group by the association which is represented during the assembly.

JM: Well, yeah, basically there are two tiers. There are topics we all feel need to go through the big assembly, which happens once a month. Often, we debate until we find a consensus, sometimes we make decisions by voting. But since we noticed lots of our assemblies are long and have tedious discussions, we are trying to delegate some of the responsibility to our working groups (production, communication etc.) that have more or less informal mandates to decide things. This makes us able to react more quickly sometimes as well. This is a process that has evolved over years now and it is still and always will be in negotiation. Sometimes we feel it is a topic we should discuss with more people and put it up to a vote, sometimes we leave the decision to the working group.

ENVIRONMENT

MS: Maybe let’s get to the physical form of Floating – what kind of buildings and entities can we find on site? What can be seen, heard and felt there?

JM: There are a lot of things. Basically, it’s a concrete basin with a tarmac layer on top surrounded by steep walls creating a kind of crater. And these walls have trees and all kinds of bushes on them. On one side of the basin, we have reeds growing, where the water usually doesn’t dry out. Here, a wetland ecosystem has developed. There are lots of crows picking their food out of the mud, frogs and other animals hanging out. On the other and dryer side of the basin is our architecture. There are a bunch of different buildings connected by narrow walkways you can enter via a scaffolding stair tower. In the front, there is a big two-storey building which originated as an exhibition piece by Atelier Bow-Wow. We call it the “Urban Forest”. When we walk a little bit further, we find a kind of pavilion with different boxes, toilets. On the other side of the walkway there is a kitchen which is an elevated structure with windows that we can open or close depending on the weather. Further along there is a room with two walls made of straw and an inflatable roof that can move along a set of rails and across the platform by pulling. Then there is a big auditorium with an inflatable roof and another two-storey building structure made with scaffolding with a rooftop overlooking the site. And if we go back to the entrance there is another path that takes you the other way, down to the workshops, storage and sports hall area and past a small “sauna” and little pool. The Sports Hall and the Sauna are the only closed buildings we have on site. On the other side of the basin, behind the reed belt there is a City of Bees, a project we don’t run, where there are about 100 beehives. And then of course we are surrounded by allotment gardens that have been there for 90 years or so.

Sometimes there’s a lot of water, sometimes very little, sometimes it’s moist and muddy, sometimes dry and desert-like, so it goes through these changes with the weather.

JA-CH: Also, over the years and according to the weather, the two zones are merging. Some parts of the wetland ecosystems are now emerging behind the wooden structure and it’s not that easy anymore to distinguish where one part starts and the other ends.

MS: Is the space more created by the environment than designed for special functions?

JA-CH: No, it’s very much designed. We have very clear functions that sustain or fulfil our human needs today. But this structure is very permeable, so it always gets infiltrated by other users, protagonists and actors. So, for example, there are reeds or mushrooms growing near the toilets and that’s OK (laughs).

MS: Has a participatory approach been applied to the construction process as well?

JA-CH: Yes. We have one working group called Space Group, which is in charge of designing the architecture, because every spring we restore our structures, or we build new things and at the end of the season in October we usually unbuild. And this Space Group is there to organise and mediate the process of collaborative design. There are always discussions with the members of the association to include the different knowledge and sensibilities which are then translated into a new iteration of the space.

MP: And then the outputs are in the form of classic architecture plans or more schematic diagrams?

JA-CH: It has many levels, but we need a building permit, so we have to work with structural engineers, we have a fire escape plan…

JM: We must be proper. Right now, we started the process of iterating the structure for the 4th time and we wanted to learn from the old one, so we are asking everyone in the association and guests for their observations of what worked well and should be maybe expanded, what was problematic etc. So, in a way, we are changing the user design.

JA-CH: And we are also learning from our own mistakes. For example, in the first year, we used greenhouse plastic foil for some of the roofs and then it turned out that after a yearly cycle, with lots of sun in the summer and lots of cold in the winter, it starts to disintegrate and you end up with a lot of small pieces of plastic waste, so we don’t want to use it again.

JM: Right now, the inflatable roofs may have to go because they are very high maintenance, and sometimes break. They do work most of the time, but when they don’t its trouble. Also, the platform on top of the two-storey building has no roof and it’s always too hot, wet or windy to make good use of it … But little things like this are nice to work with within the architecture. Rather than planning some concrete building that will stand there for 50 years, why not do something totally usable, which is quickly made and adaptable. We can have more intuitive architecture we can learn from.

MS: This experimentation with the structure always brings with it a certain fragility. Does this also apply to the program? Was there any case that something happened where you've said to yourself: that doesn't belong here?

JA-CH: I think we would never say that, but once we had an exhibition, eventually a good one, where the people expected the space to work like a gallery. But Floating is still a natural habitat so, for example, some of the audio installations were quite disturbing and we had to put in place some limits in this case. We are feeling this more and more, that we can’t be perceived just as a venue. We try to really involve the organisers of external events we host in the place, to understand the space, what the limits and potentials are and to care about it the way we do.

JM: Often when we start talking with the people we host, there are a lot of management expectations. The site is not made to just become a venue – there is for example an ecosystem to be mindful of and a certain way of doing things. So, we are learning how to navigate that. And I also think we’re just going to do less of the hosting maybe. (laughs)

MS: Have you done any kind of long-term mapping of the biodiversity during the existence of Floating? Do you see any negative or positive impact?

JA-CH: There is a day-to-day observation, for example when you’re there in the summer and spend every second on the site, you can see changes on a small scale, which is super interesting. You can really feel the water coming in and some of the species taking over, then there is less water with more algae which dries when all the water is drained, but then the crows can come back… But for a longer period, we are now willing to do more of this official biological survey to find out what kind of species come back every year and what kind of habitat the site provides. I think this will be very useful and worthwhile knowledge to have about the site. The problem is that maintenance companies keep coming and disrupting a part of the habitat so we can’t even do a full year’s worth of collecting data.

JM: We recently had a workshop to identify some species on site using the iNaturalist app, as part of a citizen science project. Anyone with the app could catalogue what they’ve seen, which is a cool way of connecting a lot of data. I think we might do this next year as well… Recently we had a couple of swans there for the first time!

MS: As you said, the space is hidden but surrounded by gardens. Do the neighbours know what’s happening there, do they visit often or even participate?

JM: Some of the neighbours talk to us a lot, sometimes complaining, while other times we’re totally aligned in our interests, for example when the reed belt was recently demolished. I’d say we have a respectful relationship, and twice a year we actively reach out and invite people to a special neighbourhood program.

LEARNING

MS: If we go back to the method of teaching and learning, one could say you have created a typology in the sense of an architectural model, that is programmed to be able to accommodate the widest possible range of activities. What role does this undecidedness play in learning about architecture? Do you think it is a new way of learning in the current information age? Is it about our need to learn by doing, maybe just being and watching here and now?

JA-CH: We are in a poly-crisis, right? Everything is changing very rapidly, and I think the role of an architect, urban designer or any person engaged with the making of cities must be redefined or adapted. And so, the teaching and learning of architectural skills must change as well. So, I agree it should be more experimental and situated and deal with topics that I think are very pressing. This is something that tends to be lost when you look at cities from a white walled studio, through the lens of your computer screen and get mired in detail. I think there are a lot of things you cannot learn in a purely academic world; therefore, Floating University, or the many other alternative ways of learning, are very valuable. We’ve received lots of great feedback, from students that also got engaged in the association and became real makers of space. For teachers and students this other way of engaging and learning can be mind-opening and super important, not just with respect to building, but also in learning to ask their own questions, the ones they want to answer. Eventually this is also about the importance of care and maintenance of the spaces you can produce.

JM: I think architecture as a whole profession has kind of lost its legitimacy. In the age when developers just decide what gets built in the cheapest blueprint way, what do you need an architect for? The whole discipline is questioning its own role in the world and that should go hand in hand with changing how it's taught. So, it totally makes sense to expand the notion of what learning is, what teaching is, what the classroom is. And we can see the results. This year, for example, a group of students who spent their whole semester at Floating, came up with amazing projects exploring notions of water in contained space and breaking out, mossification of the basin or composting rituals. It’s great to have this space where you can try things and experiment. It’s a really different level of learning – and a more valuable one I believe. What I witnessed in architecture schools is a strong emphasis on learning how to make images and telling a story for them of course. And that is so far removed from what you end up doing as an architect and from what is actually needed.

MS: Do you think the methods or experiences of Floating could be transferred to a university? How connected is it to a particular place, or is it more about the ideas?

JA-CH: It depends on how deep you go within Floating. If you just visit it once, you probably take away one thing, but if you get involved a bit more and you struggle with us, then you acquire the knowledge that every project is political, and this defines so much of what you can do in the end. I think on the scale of a project like Floating you can quickly get an overview of the many tasks you must deal with as an architect.

MS: It's like a laboratory for social, political and environmental topics on a small scale. But it’s maybe not so rare, is it? There are many places you can experiment when you are open to the possibilities and take a deep interest…

JA-CH: That’s interesting because Floating is part of an infrastructure, a system repeated in the city but this one is protected by the airport, so it’s kind of a unique case. Thanks to the 2014 referendum, it has been prohibited by law to zone it for construction from then on, otherwise it would have become just another portfolio asset for an investor, and probably would have been sold long ago.

JM: But of course, it is replicable. We are trying to grow a soft network of sister projects, mostly also wetlands in urban spaces with different origins in Brussels, Rome… So, we are trying to see if we have similar case studies in other places that we can exchange experiences and trade strategies with. But it’s true, every one of these sites is different. The larger idea is that there’s an infrastructure with one purpose we can reuse in many other ways, and there are of course many examples of that, allowing for a deeper complexity of a space.

MS: Also, what those spaces have in common is this energy of temporality. Maybe the uncertainty enhances the experience that this is maybe the last time you’re doing something there?

JA-CH: Yes, I realised at one point, that the first summer I really lived it the Floating experience 100%, because I thought it’s over in October. And it wasn’t. Then the next summer it was the same, so now I have a bit more confidence that we will be there at least for a few seasons. But the first summer there was a special energy. Now we must incorporate some more stable fundamentals, otherwise we will exhaust ourselves.

JM: For me it really helps to accept this precariousness and struggle with some of the conditions as they are – we have no illusions about that. If you want to make a space that doesn’t exist yet, that doesn’t fit any existing category, then it's going to take a lot of grinding and fighting to start existing and to stay. We are here for it.