Kindergarten chats.

This final project by Peter Hubner is for a kindergarten in Stuttgart. Here, he creates a network of spaces that combine intimacy and communality in a magical complexity.

Falling between school and second home, the kindergarten is a fast developing building type; and although architects seem to agree that it should be appropriate to children and visibly different from other institutions, there is no established consensus about what form it should take. Rodolphe Luscher in Lausanne, for example, tried to make the layers of construction and servicing clear so that children can learn about different materials and their assembly (AR September 1991). The geometry is regular and orthogonal to show this discipline and help develop their constructive sense, but can young children really appreciate it? Gunter Behnisch adopted a different approach with a kindergarten in Stuttgart, conceived as a stranded ship, complete with portholes, leaning decks and canted walls (AR September 1991). But is not this in danger of being too literal, of leaving too little to the children's imagination? Peter Hubner's approach lies between the two. He sees some value in the structure -- in this case timber -- being legible, and he also accepts the need for a building which stimulates children and provokes exploration, but thinks the image should not be too firmly fixed. For this recent building in Stuttgart, Hubner sought to create a network of spaces within a recognisable order, yet he also allows for variety and encourages exploration. Most important was to get the scale right, so that the spaces did not seem too large. The adoption of a module of 2.75 m, based on the requirement of about 20 children sitting in a circle, set the size for a series of aedicules or houselets, the conceptual components of the building. On the outside, these display the small scale appropriate to children, while fulfilling the need for a building which seems large enough to compete with surrounding trees and the five and six-storey neighbours. On the inside, they are interconnected, the module defining a frame that may be left open or closed. In the short-stay kindergarten, located in the basement, the aedicules supply specialised corners in the otherwise open-plan teaching spaces. In the first floor creche they make up a large group space. At higher levels, they break into more intimate and enclosed attic-like bedrooms where the longer-stay children can take a nap.

Hubner was further concerned that in section the horizon should not be too high and upward views be stimulating rather than oppressive. The module was therefore allowed to produce a varying section and to break into a series of differently orientated monopitch roofs, creating a lively ceiling with a variety of windows and rooflights, and including some protected balconies. Some roofs represent recognisable rooms, others not. The overall effect is a cascading profile which follows an early design idea about stacked nesting boxes. It allows the relatively tall building to hit the ground, with several elements at child scale.

The timber-framed, timber-clad children's building at the rear and south end of the site is partnered by a terracotta rendered masonry block at the street end, designed in a `normal' or even deliberately banal manner for contrast. This contains administration, kitchen, services and storage, with boxlike rooms and conventional windows. It is linked to the children's building behind by conservatory-like sides that illuminate both the open social rooms where everybody meets and the principal spiral staircase. Since the site drops sharply away from the street, the main entrance is across a bridge at first floor level or by ramp down to the basement.

The ins and outs of the plan are a response to a series of mature plane and maple trees already on the site. Though close to the centre of Stuttgart, the plot had never previously been built on, and seems to have been reserved as a garden by the owner of the adjacent factory. The project was a direct commission from the city of Stuttgart and was Hubner's first normal project on a normal budget for the city. To date he has made his name with buildings contrived under difficult conditions with much begging and borrowing, and usually with a large self-build component.[1] Here, the conventional design and tendering process made it difficult for him to generate the kind of onsite improvisation which is valuable for generating commitment to the building, and which for him has become almost second nature. He claims that `even an inventive architect can't manage the kind of complexity you can get on site: harnessing the creativity of the tradespeople allows you to achieve an optimum not limited by the drawing'.[2] It was unfortunately not possible to involve the kindergarten staff, for they were not chosen until the building was ready, but there was a great deal of discussion with the representatives of the city's kindergarten department, and even officials such as the safety officer were involved in creative dialogue.

Hubner did manage to introduce an element of improvisation into the finishings, and the outcome is a decorative scheme that is rich, varied and wonderfully inconsistent. It is typical of Hubner that, in choosing the furniture, rather than adopting one good design he chose twenty types from different catalogues. The last thing Hubner would want to impose on the children is architects' austere good taste, and they would, in any case, not appreciate it, for a child's world is open and magical, unconstrained by boundaries of taste and by the social classifications and conventions which it represents. Instead Hubner has made a place where richness and variety are valued above consistency, and where education is self-discovery and self-realisation rather than the overt imposition of discipline.

[1] For previous Hubner projects see The Architectural Review June 1985 pp76-81, March 1987 pp69-72, September 1990 pp49-53, March 1992 pp41-45, August 1994 pp50-55. Also The Architects' Journal 27. 7.83 pp32-50, 23.1.85 pp42-47, 9.4.86 pp12-15.

[2] Taped interview with the author, 28/9/94.