This document provides a critical analysis of contemporary architecture in the Austrian region of Vorarlberg. It notes that while new buildings in both the Bregenzerwald and Rheintal regions reference local traditions through materials like untreated timber, they are nearly all shaped like boxes and thus resemble modernism. The document examines the works of three prominent Vorarlberg architects and finds that they overwhelmingly rely on box typologies and untreated timber cladding, resulting in buildings that look nearly identical despite serving different functions. It questions whether this uniformity denies the architects' stated aspirations of contextual sensitivity. Comparing to mid-century American housing developments and the Case Study Houses program, the document suggests the uniformity in Vorarlberg now lacks the

1. ARCHETYPE vs MODERNITY
A critical view on contemporary architecture in Vorarlberg, Austria
The Austrian region Vorarlberg consists of two parts: the
Rheintal and the Bregenzerwald. The Bregenzerwald is
everything you imagine about Austria: lush green valleys
with on occasion a small assembly of chalets - sometimes
with a church and a village square, sometimes without.
Incidentally a new building can be found, always thoughtfully
placed into the existing structure and landscape.
In contrast to the Bregenzerwald, The Rheintal is a densely
inhabited valley. The historical towns have melted together
by parking lots, asphalt and many small plots - occupied by
the same chalets as can be found in the Bregenzerwald, by
Bregenzerwald
barns or by freshly built houses. Many of the chalets are
rendered white and have dark coloured roof cladding and
shutters.
In both the Bregenzerwald and the Rheintal the new
buildings seem to be shaped like boxes; they remind of
modernism. Modernism is rare in this region. But these new
houses coincide resonably easy with the existing buildings.
They are cladded in untreated timber, a manner of cladding
which is traditional for the Bregenzerwald. Sometimes these
new boxes have a pitched roof, so their shape is even more
adapted; they blend into all the other pitched roofs.
The interiors of the new buildings all smell of freshly cut and
sawn timber. It is clear that very fine craftsmen have made
Rheintal
these buildings. Elements that are used most - door handles,
skirting boards - are made of oak, the others of larch. The
materials make a subtle contrast.
It is impossible to make plain photographs in these buildings;
with their angularity and the way the bright alpine light
touches the wooden surfaces it seems that these buildings
are made to be photographed.
But although these buildings are very well-crafted and
they seem sensitive towards local tradition and their
surroundings, I felt that something strange was going on.
Why were almost all these new buildings shaped like a
box? Why did I felt like it was not allowed to live in these
new buildings and to use them? Why are almost all the Community centre Raggal
new buildings cladded in wood, although white plaster is
also very common in the region? What has this traditional
material to do with the sense of modernism? And above all:
why do all the new buildings look the same?
A research on typologies
Some of these questions can only be answered when an
assessment of what has been made by Vorarlberg architects
is done.
Hermann Kaufmann is one of these architects. He has
made many buildings in both the Bregenzerwald and the
Rheintal. He is closely related to the local timber sawing and
processing industry; he is deeply rooted in local history and
1

2. tradition.
When assessing his work1, some rather remarkable
conclusions can be drawn. The typology he uses for over
sixty percent of his buildings is a simple box. The second
typology he uses is the archetypical house; a box with a
pitched roof. All the other typologies are directly derived
from either the box or the archetypical house.
Similar things can be concluded from the work of the office
of Helmut Dietrich and Much Untertrifäller. Both are also
born in the Vorarlberg region and have built most of their
projects here. Their office also uses the typology of the box
most. Their other typologies are also either based on the box Untreated timber
or on the archetypical house.
With the young office of Cukrowicz.Nachbauer things are
even sharper. They do not use any other typology than the
box or the archetypical house.
When it comes to the manner of facade cladding, similar
things can be concluded. All three offices clearly prefer
timber as cladding.
The uniformity in typologies and materials is not derived
from a uniformity in commissions. All three offices have built
for a large variation in functions. The single family house has
been done most, though.
All three offices do not have specific typologies for specific
functions. They all seem to prefer a box.
There is one exception. The archetypical house is almost only
used for single family housing. This does not apply vice versa
though, since the box is also used often for single family
housing.
It seems that all three offices want to refer to local elements
- the archetypical house, the use of timber - but they also
appreciate modern solutions. But how does this wish for
both local and modern influences work together? What does
it mean for its architecture?
The single family house
Looking at some single family houses done by the three
offices, some of these questions can be further researched2.
All three houses are located in ‘a typical Vorarlberg
condition’3; a landscape of plots with each its freestanding
house and drive on it. All three houses are loosely set in this
condition. They neither criticize nor deny it.
The exteriors of the three houses show both similarities and
differences. All three are cladded in untreated timber. All
three have a pitched roof. But, considering its proportions
and the way the roof folds over the entire volume, the house
by Cukrowicz.Nachbauer looks more traditional than the
other two do.
The floorplans of the three houses are particularly similar.
All three houses have an open ground floor plan. The second
floors are more determined by corridors and fixed walls.
All three houses remind of a historic typology that is typical
for Vorarlberg. This typology unifies both living quarters and 1. For complete research, see annex 3
stable in one volume. All three houses are shaped like this 2. For plans and sections, see annex 4
3. Lecture Hermann Kaufmann september 14th 2009, Dornbirn
2

3. volume. The stables are missing though.
When timber is used generally as facade cladding by the
three offices, in more than eightyfour percent of the cases it
are untreated boards; only a bit more than six percent of the
projects have been cladded in treated timber.
In the rural valleys of the Bregenzerwald the usage of
untreated timber as facade cladding has been tradition for
decades, since the raw material is found nearby and this
method needs almost no maintenance. The cladding ages
over the years and becomes silvery grey.
The projects made by Kaufmann, Dietrich Untertrifäller and
Cukrowicz are not all placed in the Bregenzerwald, but also
in the dense Rheintal. As was already said, many of these
Haus J.; Dietrich Untertrifäller architekten
projects are cladded in untreated timber.
A product has been developed to let a building look silvery
grey directly after it has been built, so clients do not have to
wait several years for it to become so.
Again it seems that the architects are trying to unify both
local as more wordly influences; barn-houses cladded
with untreated timber and modern houses, set in an
accommodating suburbia.
It results in three houses that look in fact very much the
same. Do the architects of these houses wish for this, or is it
accidental? What do they aspire?
Aspirations
Kaufmann expresses his architectural approach as follows: Haus Morscher Günther; Hermann Kaufmann architekten
“Das bisher bearbeitete Aufgabenspektrum zeichnet uns aus
- wir sind nicht spezialisiert auf bestimmte Bautypen. Bauen
heißt für uns Suche nach dem Kontext im umfassenden
Sinn.”4
[ We have distinguished ourselves by what we have already built - we are
not specialized in certain buildings. Building for us is searching for the
context in the broadest sense of the word. ]
‘Searching in the context, in the broadest sense of the word’
suggests that he finds no satisfaction in archetypical or
existing solutions.
Dietrich Untertrifäller describe a similar approach:
“Our projects are strongly linked to the site and its Haus Nenning; Cukrowicz.Nachbauer architekten
surroundings; they are based on the individual situation
and program. This guarantees differentiated solutions,
individuality and uniqueness.
(...)
The diversity of our projects and the permanent effort to
avoid specializing in reccuring identical construction tasks
play an essential part in our work and keep us alert.” 5
And also Cukrowicz.Nachbauer strifes for subtle, responsive
and sensitive architecture:
“Cukrowicz.Nachbauer interpret tasks and materials from 4. www.kaufmann.archbuero.com/5.php
5. www.dietrich.untertrifaller.com/concept.php?lang=en
3

4. their context - precise, simple and selfevident. They find clear
one of a kind economical solutions to complex requirements.
Using wood, glass and concrete, as well as natural surfaces,
considered use of daylight and sound proportions, creates
robust and inspiring places that appeal to all the senses,
resulting in a strong, yet subtle architecture for the
development of all aspects of life.” 6
How does this wish for context-sensitivity relate to the fact
that all their buildings look, in short, the same?
What does this uniformity mean? How would these buildings
American suburbs, Dan Graham
look if the architects did achieve their aspirations?
The office profiles remind of critical regionalism, as it
was explained by Kenneth Frampton in 1983. Frampton
advocated an architecture that is rooted in tradition and
existing contexts but does not deny contemporary demands.
Frampton’s view was responsive to - what he called - the
sense of placelesness and lack of meaning that was created
by the modernistic ‘tabula rasa’ approach7. His view was
critised as being naïve and too romantic and it disappeared
from the architectural stage.
The office profiles of the Vorarlberg architects however seem
to have put critical regionalism back on the agenda - since
they are speaking of context-sensitivity without denying American suburbs, Dan Graham
contemporary demands.
The fact however that all the buildings by Vorarlberg
architects look the same, seems to deny the criticality of
their regionalism.
American Suburbs
In the post WWII years in the suburbs of American
cities large housing developments were done. These
developments created uniform houses, repeated seemingly
infinitely with little to no variation. The artist Dan Graham
reacted to this with a research in both photographs and
text and showed with very little means the ridicule and
almost intolerable conditions that were created by these
developments.
Also responsive to the housing developments, was the Case
Study House program. The program began in 1945 as an
experiment to formulate low-cost prototypes for housing,
creating an alternative for the suburban houses of the
developers.
The Case Study program resulted in houses that were
surprisingly large, flexible and cheap. The houses were all
made of a simple frame construction in either wood or steel
and were all an assembly of larger and smaller boxes.
All the houses experimented with the - just invented -
modernistic interpretation of living: the need for equality,
hygiene, practicality, light and air. In most of the houses this
resulted in open plans and facades with large sheets of glass 6. www.cukrowicz.nachbauer.at
7. Frampton, K., 1983. Naar een kritisch regionalisme. In H. Heynen,
alternated by sheets of metal, to be opened and adjusted
A. Loeckx, L. De Cauter, K. Van Herck eds. ‘Dat is architectuur’
individually. Sleutelteksten uit de twintigste eeuw. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010, p.
This uniformity in form, construction and in interpretation 558 - 562
4

5. of lifestyles suggests that the Case Study Houses themselves
were also very uniform, but the opposite is in fact true. A
closer look at some of the Case Study Houses can illustrate
this9.
Case Study House #25, designed by Killingsworth, Brady and
Smith in 1962, is just as all the other houses made from a
simple (timber) framework. The plan is also open and the
facade is also made from large sheets of glass. But the house
has also adapted to its location and its broader context.
CSH #25 is located in the wealthy, suburban context of Long
Beach in California. The streets are alternated by canals and
luxurious cars by luxurious boats. CSH #25; front facade
The house occupies on first sight the whole plot. Its mass is
divided into two parts. The first is windowless and parted
into three vertical bands. One of these vertical bands is the
main entrance. The second part is a composition of glass
volumes, which has in front of it an olive tree. The olive tree
gives both privacy and a naturally changing filter to daylight.
When entering through the vertical band, one comes into a
double height patio. A small black pool in the patio suggests
that the concrete floor floats. The water demarcates a
private terrace. The living room, a bedroom and a study are
separated from the patio by sheets of glass.
With the introduction of the patio and the olive tree the
problems of a tight plot, the lack of privacy when using large
sheets of glass and the lack of private outdoor space have
been solved in a simple and effective manner.
Case Study House #21, designed by Pierre Koenig in 1958,
is situated in a more isolated location. It lies at the end of a
street in a canyon in the Hollywood Hills. CSH #25; patio
The house is L-shaped. The facade that is turned to the
street is completely closed, but the facade towards the valley
consists of glass sheets.
The interior design of CSH #21 is as minimal as the exterior.
The steel framework is painted black and in sight, just as the
steel sheets that make the roofs and the walls.
Surrounding the house is a garden that responds to the
simple design of the building. Rough brick terraces contrast
with the smooth surfaces of the pools and the metal panels
in the facade. The pools enlarge and double the house and
break the light and send reflections onto the surrounding
surfaces.
Although the look of the house is very minimal and rational
with its black steel frame and metal sheeting, the building
CSH #21, Julius Shulman
responds with ease to its surroundings.
Commitment
The researches on the Case Study Houses and the
architecture in the Vorarlberg region show that both
architectures have a strong uniformity in typology, material
and layout, but that the architecture of the Case Study
Houses are more critical in their response to their context.
But where does this come from and what does it mean?
9. For plans, see annex 5
5

6. Historically, the aspirations of the Case Study Houses were
to give an alternative for the monotonous suburban houses
and to cater to the casual and independent way of life that
was wanted in the post WWII years.
The uniformity of the Case Study Houses in typology
and material - the assemblage of boxes, the steel or
timber framework - were a direct result from this social
commitment; they were directly related to the wish to make
affordable houses.
Historically, the uniformity of the buildings in Vorarlberg was
derived from comparable conditions. The archetypical house
had a pitched roof, because pitched roofs were more easy
to make. Timber as construction material was an obvious
choice, since it was available in large quantities and easy to
process.
Clearly, since industrialisation and globalisation have
made other materials and processes available, these
considerations are not as obvious as they were. The use
of local typologies - the archetypical house - and local
materials - untreated timber - in contemporary Vorarlberg CSH #22, Julius Shulman
architecture has become a formalistic reference to the
buiding tradition of the Bregenzerwald, since there is no
functional or economical necessity for it anymore.
In the course of time the Case Study Houses became, helped
by the glamourous photo’s made by Julius Shulman, elitist
and exemplary for luxurious villas; inspite of the original
social commitments of their architects.
In the 1960s in the Vorarlberg region a movement
comparable to the Case Study program came to life. Driven
by post war scarcity in both materials and housing, the Neue
Vorarlberger Bauschule advocated an approach that used
materials, ground and other resources thoughtfully in order
to create modern, affordable and sustainable architecture.
But just as the Case Study House program turned out to be
an example of luxury, it seems that the same has happened
to the Neue Vorarlberger Bauschule. Contemporary
Vorarlberg architecture seems to refer to it - with the
modernistic open plans and the box typology - with
mainly formalistic means, since the social commitment for
affordable and simple houses is no longer the reason to
choose this type of architecture.
An interesting exception is the way contemporary
Vorarlberg architecture deals with sustainability. Most of the Neue Vorarlberg Bauschule, row houses, 1964
contemporary architecture in Vorarlberg is designed with
sustainable materials and leads to energy efficient buildings.
Interesting is though, that the architects do not adress the
suburban context in a sustainable manner; they accomodate
to it - using large plots of land and thus creating a sprawl
that leads to congestions on the road, the disappearance of
nature etc. They do not try to formulate an alternative for
it, as for example the densifying row houses from the Neue
Vorarlberg Bauschule did.
6

7. Critical regionalism and the suburban condition
Reviewing the built oeuvre of the three Vorarlberg offices,
the three office statements, the Neue Vorarlberger
Bauschule and the Case Study Houses, critical regionalism
comes to mind again.
Critical regionalism argues an architectural approach that
prefers tectonics above the scenic, place above space,
topographic above typological and tactiles above visuals.
It wants to be regional but does not want to historicise. It
prefers an abstract interpretation of context rather than
historicist motifs.
With the comparison of the Vorarlberg architecture with the
Case Study Houses, some conclusions can be drawn. The
architects of the Case Study Houses have found context in
the American suburbs of the forties and fifties and the social
commitment that belonged to it. It is the leading theme of
their architecture.
The interpretation of context by Vorarlberg architects is less
abstract. The Vorarlberg architecture has rendered context
mainly as formalistic references to tradition - the pitched
roofs and the use of untreated timber - and formalistic
references to their modernistic past - the box typology and
modernistic floor plans.
However, a commitment for a critical view on context
and sustainability exists, as the office statements and the
sustainable aspect of their architecture showed. Above that,
all three mentioned offices belong to the second generation
of the Neue Vorarlberg Bauschule. But their aspirations have
taken the form of an almost forgotten legacy rather than the
form of a true commitment.
The reason for that lies in the fact that the Vorarlberg
architecture almost never criticises its suburban context. It is
as if suburbia has overcome the original critical commitment
of the Neue Vorarlberg Bauschule. Wealth and luxury have
overcome the principles that originally ruled the architecture
of the Neue Vorarlberger Bauschule, just as the Case Study
Houses have become examples of luxury.
As was said in the introduction, the Vorarlberg architects
have many qualities at their disposal. One could think of
their craftmanships and their wealthy commissioners. But
when they keep denying a critical view on the suburban
conditions of their region, their architecture will continue to
be formalistic and thus will continue to look the same.
7

8. Annexes
1: Bibliography ii
2: Illustrations ii
3: Typological research iii
4: Single family houses v
5: Case Study Houses #25 and #21 vi
i

9. 1: Bibliography
Billard, T., Buisson, E., 2004. The Presence of the Case Study Houses. Basel: Birkhauser, p. 141 - 154, p. 179 - 185
Frampton, K., 1983. Naar een kritisch regionalisme. In H. Heynen, A. Loeckx, L. De Cauter, K. Van Herck eds. ‘Dat is architectuur’
Sleutelteksten uit de twintigste eeuw. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010, p. 558 - 562
Graham, D., 1962-63. Homes for America. In B. Pelzer. Dan Graham. London: Phaidon Press, p. 21 -22
2: Illustrations
Page 1
1. Flickr. 2009. Bregenzerwald on Flickr - Photo Sharing! [ online ]
available at: www.flickr.com/photos/10584185@N03/1431044623/ [ Accessed on 1 december 2009 ]
2. Own work
3. Johannes Kaufmann. 2009. Johannes Kaufmann [ online ]
available at: www.jkarch.at/ [ Accessed on 1 december 2009 ]
Page 2
1. Cukrowicz.Nachbauer architekten. 2009. Cukrowicz.Nachbauer architekten [ online ]
available at: www.cn-architekten.at/bauten/haus-fuer-einen-zimmermann-hittisau-nenning-b# [ Accessed on 1 december 2009 ]
Page 3
1. Dietrich Untertrifäller architekten. 2009. Dietrich Untertrifäller - projects 1985 - 2006 [ online ]
available at: www.dietrich.untertrifaller.com/project.php?id=176&type=HAUS&lang=en [ Accessed on 1 december 2009 ]
2. Hermann Kaufmann architekten. 2009. Architekten Hermann Kaufmann ZT GmbH - Einfamilienhaus [ online ]
available at: www.kaufmann.archbuero.com/1.php?kid=2&oid=06_01&dsc=Morscher Günther [ Accessed on 1 december 2009 ]
3. Cukrowicz.Nachbauer architekten. 2009. Cukrowicz.Nachbauer architekten [ online ]
available at: www.cn-architekten.at/bauten/haus-fuer-einen-zimmermann-hittisau-nenning-b# [ Accessed on 1 december 2009 ]
Page 4
Both images originally from Homes for America by Dan Graham, but copied from websites:
1. Blog nj. 2009. blog.nj.com/entertainment_impact_arts/2009/06/large_dan-graham-homes-for-america-whitney.jpg [ online ]
available at: blog.nj.com/entertainment_impact_arts/2009/06/large_dan-graham-homes-for-america-whitney.jpg [ Accessed on
1 december 2009 ]
2. Witte de With. 2009. Witte de With - Participants - Dan Graham [ online ]
available at: www.wdw.nl/participant.php?part_id=300&id=111 [ Accessed on 1 december 2009 ]
Page 5
1. Billard, T., Buisson, E., 2004. The Presence of the Case Study Houses. Basel: Birkhauser, p. 182
2. Billard, T., Buisson, E., 2004. The Presence of the Case Study Houses. Basel: Birkhauser, p. 185
3. Shu and Joe. 2009. www.shuandjoe.com/2009/shulman4.jpg [ online ]
available at: www.shuandjoe.com/2009/shulman4.jpg [ Accessed on 1 december 2009 ]
ii

10. 3: Typological research
Typology Example Function Total Material Total Total Percent-
func- mate- typol- age of
tion rial ogy total
Archetypical house Single family house 8 Timber 14 14 17%
Education / sports 1
Tourism 1
Public 1
Agriculture 3
Box Single family house 12 Timber 39 54 64%
Multi family house 10 Plaster 5
Admin. / commerce / 15 Sandwich 4
industries Concrete / glass 4
Education / sports 6 Corten steel 1
Public 3 Mesh 1
Agriculture 1
Hermann Kaufmann architekten
Others 7
Box; with elements Multi family house 6 Timber 6 6 7%
Box; industrialised Admin. / commerce / 4 Timber 5 5 6%
industries 1
Others
Modern chalet Tourism 5 Timber 5 5 6%
Archetypical house Single family house 7 Timber 7 7 2,5%
Box Single family house 9 Timber 8 24 60%
Multi family house 4 Plaster 2
Admin. / commerce / 4 Steel cladding / 6
industries timber
Education / sports 4 Steel mesh / timber 2
Public 1 Concrete / timber 3
Tourism 1 Corten steel 1
Others 1 Mesh 1
Glass / steel 1
Dietrich Untertrifäller architekten
Box; with elements Multi family house 2 Plaster 2 2 5%
Box; classical Public 1 Plaster 1 2 5%
Admin. / commerce / 1 Steel cladding 1
industries
Assembly of volumes Multi family house 1 Glass / steel / 3 4 10%
Public 1 plaster
Others 2 Steel cladding 1
Tower Admin. / commerce / 1 Glass / steel 1 1 2,5%
industries
Archetypical house Single family house 2 Timber 3 3 20%
Religion 1
Cukrowicz.Nachbauer
Box Multi family house 2 Timber 3 12 80%
Education / sports 6 Plaster 2
Public 4 Concrete / glass 5
U-glass 1
Natural stone/glass 1 iii

11. Hermann Kaufmann architekten Usage of timber Absolute Percentage
total of total
Material Absolute Percentage
total of total Untreated boards 76 84,4%
Timber 69 82% Untreated shingles 8 8,8%
Plaster 5 6% Painted boards 4 4,4%
Sandwich 4 5% Multiplex boards 2 2,2%
Concrete 4 5%
Corten steel 1 1%
Mesh 1 1%
Function
Single family house 20 24%
Multi family house 16 19%
Education / sports 7 8%
Admin. / commerce / industries 19 22,5%
Public 4 5%
Tourism 6 7%
Agriculture 4 5%
Others 8 9,5%
Dietrich Untertrifäller architekten
Material Absolute Percentage
total of total
Timber 15 37,5%
Plaster 5 12,5%
Steel cladding / timber 6 15%
Steel mesh / timber 2 5%
Concrete / timber 3 7,5%
Steel cladding 2 5%
Glass / steel 2 5%
Glass / steel / plaster 3 7,5%
Corten steel 1 2,5%
Mesh 1 2,5%
Function
Single family house 16 40%
Multi family house 7 17,5%
Education / sports 4 10%
Admin. / commerce / industries 6 15%
Public 3 7,5%
Tourism 1 2,5%
Others 3 7,5%
Cukrowicz.Nachbauer architekten
Material Absolute Percentage
total of total
Timber 6 40%
Plaster 2 13%
Concrete / glass 5 33%
U-glass 1 7%
Natural stone / glass 1 7%
Function
Single family house 2 13%
Multi family house 2 13%
Education / sports 6 40%
Public 4 27%
Religion 1 7%
iv

12. 4: Single family houses
Hermann Kaufmann architekten Dietrich Untertrifäller architekten Cukrowicz.Nachbauer architekten
Haus Morscher Günther, 2007 Haus J., 2005 Haus Nenning, 2004
Mellau Andelsbuch Hittisau
v

13. 5: Case Study Houses
Killingsworth, Brady and Smith Pierre Koenig
Case Study House #25, 1962 Case Study House #21, 1958
Long Beach Los Angeles
vi