Founding partners on networks, demonstrators, and materials made within bioregions.
Jakob and I are founding partners of the bioregional.agency. We are both practising architects and university teachers. Jakob brings experience in initiating and managing bioregional networks and platforms, regional tourism, development, and resource management. I have 14 years’ experience as an engineering consultant and project manager on large timber‑architecture projects.
The bioregional.agency is a non‑disciplined, collaborative practice focused on initiating, assembling, and managing bioregional networks and their hubs through region‑specific formats. By doing so, we weave together architecture, ecology, and communities to create resilient, situated futures.
Early in practice I worked in timber architecture, where material carbon footprint is a key argument. One early project used prefabricated timber with regionally sourced straw insulation for a public sports hall, which sparked an interest in alternatives. Ongoing work with Atelier LUMA, a programme of LUMA Arles, and Jan Boelen deepened and reframed our approach to bioregionally specific materials.
Timber has been the common primary material, especially in Austria where knowledge and resources in that regard are strong. Reasons include low carbon impact, the option for prefabrication and very short construction times, durability, and reusability through dry connections. Some projects reuse regional components—bringing local histories into the work.
For a school renovation and extension in Vienna (DTFLR Architects), I managed all phases using local timber for the primary structure and construction‑site clay for interiors. We avoided carbon‑heavy and oil‑based or toxic products to offer a healthy, pedagogically enriching environment, trusting children with a sensitive material that requires care.
In Austria we are planning a project with bioregional, prototypical materials—including products from local industrial by‑products, reused timber, and other repurposed components. In Germany, three demonstrator buildings are in planning, built entirely from bioregionally sourced materials.
For primary systems: reclamation and reuse of components, timber–adobe hybrids, glueless CLT, and mono‑material assemblies that reduce layered complexity. For renovation: bio‑based, regional insulations (sunflower, wood wool, straw) and adobe applications.
General awareness and technical know‑how are still limited. Physical demonstrators and digital platforms both matter to build confidence and share methods.
Architects imagine spatial and material realities, engineers ensure performance, and makers test at full scale. Policymakers set regulatory and financial frameworks that determine what can be built. Together, these collaborations produce 1:1 prototypes and demonstrators that show how bio‑based materials perform in context.
As many such materials fall outside current standards, collaboration is also key to policy change—supplying data and confidence to update regulations or create targeted exceptions. It’s a long journey.
Yes. Clients and public bodies increasingly recognise carbon impacts and seek low‑carbon and ‘healthy’ materials. Motivations vary: subsidies can incentivise lower‑carbon choices, while other clients simply want to avoid harmful products.
Germany’s introduction of Gebäudeklasse E and new clay‑construction standards suggest ecological building is being taken seriously, while industry partners are interested in shortening supply chains. We also see more bioregional initiatives—from universities, practitioners, communities, and industry—which signals decentralised, local momentum.
Mindset shifts are essential: we must re‑evaluate consumption and ask what is truly necessary in the built environment, including our assumptions about comfort and care. Swapping harmful materials for bio‑based ones is not enough; we must also question the need to build.
Demonstrator buildings are urgently needed so people can see, feel, and even smell what ecological, bioregional architecture is—shaping supply chains, education, and public perception, and convincing clients, investors, contractors, and municipalities.
We need a critical reassessment of how we measure environmental performance—moving beyond CO₂ certificates to broader, visible ecological thinking. We need supportive legal frameworks and real political will; without meaningful incentives, shifting industry behaviour at scale is difficult. Finally, industry should be more open, collaborative, and re‑localised so innovative bioregional materials can move beyond prototypes.
Students are more critically engaged with the planet’s future and willing to challenge conventional practice. Foundational courses in typology, construction, and detailing remain vital to understand the industry and to develop alternatives.
Hands‑on formats are in demand: 1:1 workshops and material sessions where participants handle materials, trace origins and logistics, learn tools, and see how tools influence design decisions.
We often apply seventh‑generation thinking—projecting 100 years forward to frame expectations, then work back in a kind of reverse‑engineering. A material culture in 100 years would favour cosmo‑local production, stronger local industries, and communities working within their bioregions; care for people and environments; the dissolution of silos and borders; and a return to bioregional terroirs.
In ten years, bioregional materials should be more economical than imports with long supply chains. Industry will be shifting toward region‑specific production, built on local material, knowledge, and infrastructure. More clients, municipalities, investors, and contractors will ask for bioregional materials. Numerous demonstrator buildings will be complete, inspiring others to adopt similar approaches. And we would like to see the first consolidation of bioregionally active practices, projects, and materials into a visible network that motivates further change.