10/12/18
ruvius, any building should meet three crite-
ROLAND GRUBER
Roland Gruber is a founding partner at Noncomform,
established in 1999. He regularly contributes to Ar-
chitektur Aktuell and Architektur & Bau Forum maga-
zines. Noncomform connects architecture with sociolo-
gy and urban development, Gruber acts as a consultant
for participatory projects. Selected works: Temporary
summer auditorium, Haag (2000), Schloss Orth, Orth
an der Donau (2005), Bildungszentrum Pestalozzi, Le-
oben (2016), Gemeinschaft B.R.O.T, Pressbaum (2018)
I will tell you 10 stories from our office. We mostly work
in rural towns and villages in Austria and Germany. Our cli-
ents are predominated mayors and municipalities. We have
changed our working strategy radically in the past 15 years.
The setting for our productivity is a mixture of the time spent
in the office, in public spaces, pubs, drinking good beer, eat-
ing good food, working and creating future spaces, villages
and city subdivisions. We never eat alone, always with cli-
ents - people from villages, from cities. Lunch break is al-
ways working time for us. (img. RG 01, 02, 03)
10. I opened the office in 1999, together with a friend of mine.
We come from the countryside, from the mountains in the
southern part of Austria. We have working class background
and we had no jobs, but started an office nevertheless. Now,
the firm comprises about 50 people, we have 7 offices in Vi-
enna, Berlin, Munich and other cities and towns, some in the
countryside, even in farmhouses. We are not just architects;
252
According to the ancient Roman architect Vit-
ria - utilitas, venustas, firmitas (usefulness,
beauty and durability). Although - did he not
forget also another important one - humanitas?
And how should it be applied in architecture in
any other way than by talking to people? We can
take an example from the architect Roland Gru-
ber of the studio Noncomform. Many things can
be considered to be “participation” in architec-
ture. It could be a survey, a poll, or, in the worst
case scenario, only a notification in advance.
The investor or the architect can take it as the
necessary evil, or as an instrument enhanc-
ing the design, like Mr. Gruber. His employment
of proactive participation (asking and listen-
ing) as the primary tool in the design process
is very inspiring. Even if he himself admit-
ted in his lecture that the incorporation of the
ideas and notes of the public can be challeng-
ing. The very idea of the open participation in
the design process could be uncomfortable for
investors. On top of subjecting the proposal to
the review by authorities, they would also have
to ask for the public opinion. However, in many
253
 we are also urban planners, landscape architects, sociolo-
gist, teachers and communication experts. It is a mixture.
(img. RG 04, 05, 06)
9. Our life journey. The “starting point”, finding a name for
our firm, was a very creative process. We had 200 names to
choose from. At that time, no one started a firm under their
own name in Austria. We started as conform, but our friend
disagreed. So we became Nonconform. We went through sev-
eral success cycles. Each crisis was accompanied with time
for reflection. In 2009, we began with our research. In 2015,
the office was divided into two parts. Now, we work hard to
change our office organisation. We are no longer the office
we used to be. (img. RG 07)
When we started, we had nothing to do, so we participated in
competitions. We won some of them and started to work on
actual projects. We received awards and established a Euro-
pean network together with our colleagues: Wonderland. We
toured Europe and in every country, 11 teams were added to the
exhibition. In the end, there were 99 offices. It was important
to connect with the same age scene in Europe. (img. RG 08)
2005 – the first crisis. We won a competition in a historical
village and it was a very interesting project. The residents
were puzzled, no one could imagine the project. At the same
time, we won another competition, but had to face the same
problem lot of protests, people upset about the “modern”
architecture. After analysis, it was clear that the problems
stemmed from bad communication. So, we asked ourselves,
how we could change our working process, to create Bauku-
ltur for villages, schools and cities that would make the res-
idents happy. (img. RG 09)
254
cases, these tools could be very beneficial and
responsible. Therefore, the communities should
be more involved in the design of their envi-
ronment. And in the end, the architect can ben-
efit from being more successful. Participation
of the public should be added into the “toolbox”
of every architect. It should be among the pri-
mary instruments of design and architecture as
such and used much more than it is nowadays.
Mr. Roland Gruber showed us how to use it, and
that instead of being a burden, it can be a rather
pleasant way of enriching the design process.
Lívia Czikoová
Being an architect is much more than being
a good and dedicated artist and a connoisseur
of the technique. The responsibility is much
greater becausearchitects are the creators of the
cities in which we live, our homes and the places
where we go to work or spend our free time. We
are witnesses to all kinds of good and bad archi-
tecture that has withstood the ravages of time
Having such power as architects, our actions-
should be aimed towards a change, a positive
change, a big step forward to a point where we
255
 8. The result was a self-initiated two-year research. We changed
the planning process in a way to involve residents in stage ‘zero’
of the project, before the design process starts. We developed
a special design method ”nonconform on site”. Our role is to
work with as many inhabitants as possible, to filter opinions,
ask questions and produce scenarios for the design. In the
end, we should be able to come up with the perfect solution for
the topic. This is our job now. Most of these people have never
worked with architects before. And no other architect has ever
done something like this in our region before. (img. RG 10)
What does that mean? We visit the site. We establish our of-
fice there, for a few days. The next 3 days are basically a well
organised festival of ideas. People come and we are a huge
team, shaping the possible future together. In the end, there
is a design concept for a competition, or a direct commis-
sion. We use a lot of activating tools - digital or analogue, to
motivate people to participate. We do installations, to pro-
mote the event. It is very important to listen and ask ques-
tions. This method has also changed the tendency to have an
answer from the beginning. People have great ideas in their
minds, but they are afraid to communicate them. We have to
encourage them, and involve the kids too. This is our job, to
bring people together, create an inspiring atmosphere. “Drink-
ing beer and working hard” - this is what we like - the atmos-
phere for work. It looks easy, but it is actually a very hard job.
At the end of these 3 days, our studio, on the site, works hard
to produce the best, most exciting, common denominator.
In the end, we make a final presentation as an event. Then,
the mayor, the citizens, they know what to do. The idea is not
from someone unknown, it is from the public. Since 2006,
about 70, or 80 totally different processes have been done.
(img. RG 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16)
256
will proactively involve all parties that are
affected by our projects. As presented by the
architect Roland Gruber, Nonconform studio
focuses on spatial participation processes. Their
way of working includes a very important fac-
tor in creating sustainable architecture and
sustainable cities, which is the synerg y with
all those who are involved in and affected by
the project. This type of On-Site-Ideas Work-
shop is the place where the architect’s capacity
is extended by becoming a moderator, a speaker,
the one person who listens to public opinions
and who will give a real shape to the expressed
ideas. Who knows better the needs of the peo-
ple, than the people themselves? Without this
powerful tool, architects could not know if
the users of the space are or will be happy and
if their needs are or will be met. Brainstorm-
ing should be put on the table where all stake-
holders will be actively involved. The future
development or new functions in the space will
not be decided solely by the mayor or the inves-
tor. Changes in the world have great dynamics
and it is not possible for a particular profession
to survive in an isolated society; interaction
257

7. A few examples. The first project was in Maria Saal in Carin-
thia, Austria. After the competition, we identified the prob-
lem and started with the workshops, working on the site. It
was quite interesting that the result was a purist architectur-
al design. The design for the public space is one “carpet” -
stripes in the pavement running in an east-west direction. It
is one straightforward design of a space for people - no park-
ing, signs or special areas. (img. RG 17, 18)
6. Fließ in Tirol, Austria. We combined an architectural com-
petition AND a participation process. This is not usual, we
have a strict routine. You have to run the participation pro-
cess and then the competition can start. There is a risk. The
idea workshop was part of the competition procedure. Res-
idents, architects, politicians and the jury came together.
In Austria, there had never been a process like that before.
There was one year of meetings before it could happen. At
the end of the workshop, we changed the agenda and pre-
pared a different concept to start the competition. After a few
weeks, the anonymous proposals from the participating ar-
chitects came. Then we held open-jury procedure. The res-
idents were members of the jury, which made it clear, after
the procedure, which the winning project was and that there
could be no criticism. So, just a few weeks later, the winners
could start the construction based on the project. The mayor
was so happy about the result, he decided to organize more
competitions and the village has been turning into an archi-
tectural museum. (img. RG 19, 20, 21)
5. Pressbaum in Lower Austria. Creating living and housing
space with a group of people. Normally, developers build
a house. Then, they look for the buyers. We ran the process
258
is a driving force and the necessary method of
work. Multidimensional communication will
allow architecture to come up with solutions
that are acceptable and useful to everyone -
because the essence of the problems will be con-
sidered from the perspective of individuals as
direct beneficiaries. Everyone will feel they
are an important part of the project, and the
architecture will have a firm ground on which
it can sustain for a long time.
Tanja Bozhinova
During a walk through city streets, we often
notice the work of an architect as particular
buildings and facades. If we take a step back,
we might become aware of the segmentation of
streets and the coherence between buildings.
However, the essence of Roland Gruber’s work
lies in the analytical phase of planning. This
aspect of architecture is not as screamingly
blatant as some dynamic organic building; it
is a lot harder to spot at the first glance and
requires creativity on another level. Roland
Gruber introduced the planning process of non-
comform as a big social event. Usually, residents
259
 the other way round, this is called “Baugruppe”. The village
is about 30 minutes outside of Vienna. With 40 people, we
were to create a housing project. It was a very interesting de-
signing process. There was a core group of people - the part-
ners in the process. We worked step by step, from nothing, to
find a site and create everything. Now, it has been complet-
ed. This is a possible way of working in the future – by utiliz-
ing not just one brain, but many. (img. RG 22, 23, 24, 25)
4. Leoben in Styria, Austria. Combining three schools in a large
old building. We started our three-day-process with all the
children, teachers, parents and politicians. At the end, there
was the idea to transform the school and after two years it
was opened with a big event. It had lofty interior with lot of
glass and adaptable classrooms and a learning landscape
inside the big old building. This was possible only thanks to
the initial process. (img. RG 26, 27, 28)
3. Illingen in Saarland, Germany. One of the “ordinary” villag-
es outside of major cities. They had a big problem in the cen-
tre of the main square. There used to be a brewery and then
there was a sausage production plant, which closed down
and the building was left abandoned. 18,000 m 2 of waste.
The mayor was pushing the process forward, campaigning
against empty houses, but he wanted them re-used, not de-
molished. He was also an activist campaigning against a new
shopping centre. He won and had the mandate to invest in
the town centre. We organised a three-day-process. In the
end, we had a strategy, but with no architecture, because it
preceded the competition. Now, the area is being re-built
and should be completed in 2 years. It is interesting, that not
much has changed in the strategy from our workshop. Triv-
ia: one of the investors is a producer of cheese, who needs
260
of various ages from the area in question also
attend and they think and experiment together
with the team of architects. It was mentioned
that these events are organized very thoroughly;
they appeal to the public and raise its inter-
est in the future structure. This approach also
evokes trust in people regarding the change and
the building becomes a part of the environment
even before it is built. This style of planning
also causes many difficulties, which is not ideal
for many architects. When the author wants the
public to have larger inf luence on the construc-
tion, he also surrenders some of his authority. It
is very problematic to work with a large num-
ber of people who can have different opinions
and motivations. According to Gruber, the firm
organizes courses where they teach methods of
working with people. The goals of the noncom-
form concept are oriented towards the satisfac-
tion of the public and their identification with
the modifications. It is the complete opposite of
the deeply artistic and philosophical architec-
ture which is presented by Jabornegg & Pálffy.
Compared to their strict and weighty style, the
architecture of Noncomform is defined by the
261
 a special basement for the cheese production process.
(img. RG 29, 30, 31)
2. In 2012, our office turned in another direction. We realised
that we are not only an architectural office, but also “helpers”.
We help good projects to come into the world. So we start-
ed another two-year, self-initiated research process. The re-
sult was a building typology for urban development. An open
building system that can include a kindergarten, or hous-
ing, or a school, or business premises. We called the pro-
ject New Townhouse - the Work Life building. After the first
phase, we started to look for an investor to build it. We even-
tually found one and at the moment we are building a proto-
type of the townhouse in Vienna.
1. In 2015, as we have many students in our office, we realized
that at the university they learn how to draw and to sketch,
maybe a little writing. However, none of them can moderate,
or lead big meetings. So we realised, we needed to make
a knowledge transfer. We organised the ‘nonconform Acade-
my’ for our employees. People come together and learn from
each other. At the end, we had so many people asking us if
they could also participate that we created an open acade-
my for the public. We train people how to organize the par-
ticipation processes. We have 6 modules to teach the craft
of how to work with people. The participants are from Ger-
many and Austria - politicians, city planners, architects, jour-
nalists and students. (img. RG 32)
0. There is one thing we do every year. It is called the “empty
space conference” - our think tank. Every year has one spe-
cial topic (villages, tourism, agriculture, schools, etc. The
last one was in October in Brandenburg in Germany in an
262
hand of the people; it is a lot less strained and
much more informal. Gruber identifies himself
with this collective playful form of work quite
a lot. As he mentioned, the creation of his new
firm was a leap of faith into the unknown; how-
ever, as we can see in his works, he feels in his
element in this spontaneity.
Adam Nemes
Mr. Roland Gruber presented the work of his
office Noncomform with the community as
a way to accomplish the quality of design. As he
noted, it is an answer, in a way, to the question
of how to inform and engage the public in the
development. Their work in the field with the
community - talking, drawing, discussing - is
remarkable. They show that the way the public
perceives the project, what their common idea
about it is and how they want to improve it is as
important a factor for the architect as the con-
ditions and context of the site are. If a building
is welcomed by the people who use it every day,
it can guarantee its success and longevity. The
way these architects collect the needed infor-
mation can only be admired. They do not look
263
 old power station. One artist bought it. We held the confer-
ence with 150 people from all interest groups - politicians,
journalists, investors. The topic was: Empty industrial spac-
es and how to bring life to these abandoned structures that
are often located in the countryside.
264
for the aspects everyone can agree on easily, as
most of the participatory processes do. Noncom-
form looks for the “red lines”, the limits of what
people can imagine and feel positive about. The
common denominator is then pushed a few steps
farther, to achieve something more ambitious.
It has to be noted that such process is limited to
mid-scale projects with specific typolog y. Cer-
tain buildings do not have a compact commu-
nity to work with, a community that inhabits
or uses it - such as a railway station, or a family
house, inhabited by individuals with very spe-
cific needs.
Filip Krajč
The philosophy of the studio Noncomform encour-
ages us to think about the value of the architec-
ture we produce. Many architects have a specific
style, but this studio has developed a certain
design manual of its own production. The goal is
to make people happy in their environment and
fulfil their needs as much as possible.
Marieta Janičová
265
(img. RG 01) (img. RG 02)
(img. RG 03) (img. RG 04)
(img. RG 05) (img. RG 06)
(img. RG 07) (img. RG 08)
(img. RG 09) (img. RG 10)
(img. RG 11) (img. RG 12)
(img. RG 13) (img. RG 14)
(img. RG 15) (img. RG 16)
(img. RG 17) (img. RG 18)
(img. RG 19) (img. RG 20)
(img. RG 21) (img. RG 22)
(img. RG 23) (img. RG 24)
(img. RG 25) (img. RG 26)
(img. RG 27) (img. RG 28)
(img. RG 29) (img. RG 30)
(img. RG 31) (img. RG 32)