Sofia Ceylan, Dr. Katharina Neubauer and Annabelle von Reutern

David Kasparek: Sofia Ceylan, Katharina Neubauer and Annabelle von Reutern, you have recently begun collaborating as TOMAS. We are sure to hear more about the name in a moment, but first up: How did you all get to know each other?

David Kasparek: You’ve worked for various offices, Sofia Ceylan at Kim Nalleweg, Katharina Neubauer at Max Dudler, but also teaching at Berlin Technical University and in Lucerne today, Annabelle von Reutern for Concular. What brought you together again?

Annabelle von Reutern: Age. (laughs) Seriously, I always wanted to freelance and get involved in project development. Now was a good time. It just so happened we were all wanting to change direction at the same time. Katharina suggested we brainstorm on what should happen next and that’s how TOMAS came about.

Katharina Neubauer: We had already considered setting up together straight after our Masters but instead we decided to get some experience working for various offices. Then at some point I asked myself why we had somehow forgotten our original idea. We had worked within fairly rigid structures, something which in my case was interrupted by my taking parental leave. I had a six-month old baby and was sure I didn’t want to return to those male-dominated office structures again. Meeting up in Venice for the final weekend of the last Biennale provided us with the impulse to set up our own office together. And then things really took off and the idea of establishing TOMAS was born.

Sofia Ceylan: Then of course the question was what do we actually want to do. Generally speaking, architecture practices are service providers for investors. Which in itself was a very strong motivation for me to determine who I wanted to be in that process and where we could locate our work.

Annabelle von Reutern: TOMAS takes care of everything. When you think about properties, most people don’t consider them over their entire lifecycle, but often only in sections: initial investment, planning, operations, sale. That way you get things nobody is responsible for, gaps. Which is one reason why some properties become dilapidated and don’t get the appreciation they deserve. The building becomes an asset. We are convinced that you can do things differently. We want to close this gap by taking on responsibility. TOMAS wants to invest, transform, and take care of a property’s entire lifecycle. We identify underrated empty buildings and draw up new concepts for their use that were perhaps unusual previously. In other words, we operate as project developers but also work to preserve or upkeep real estate. And because we like sharing our know-how, we also offer the transformation process for underrated buildings as a service for owners who have no idea what to do with their property.

Sofia Ceylan: We aim to achieve our transformation projects without placing an excessive burden on the planet. That means, for example, preserving what already exists, a sparing use of resources and engaging in circular building. Social tensions are directly linked to the nature of buildings. For us social responsibility means more than ensuring rents are affordable, it’s about generating genuine participation from the investors, who can get involved with small financial contributions via the planners through to the users who would not stand a chance in other properties.

Katharina Neubauer: We were looking for an empty building in NRW for a photoshoot and our photographer Magdalena Gruber suggested it.

Sofia Ceylan:

It was an excellent demonstration for us of how people have to be repeatedly reminded about buildings and what they have to offer. And it’s not even one of these unpopular, seemingly faceless structures but a building by Eiermann, though completely run down and with an uncertain future. There are even people in favor of demolishing it. That’s precisely the kind of thing we have to deal with today. How many times have we been asked about the Eiermann building now? (looks at the others) In this case, the first step has worked, namely getting attention for the property.

Annabelle von Reutern: It’s important to draw attention to these properties, to buildings that are underrated and regarded as worthless by many people. That’s why we have a special interest in abandoned department stores or churches, or railway buildings that have not seen any use for a very long time. We have a preference for buildings from the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, which are all-too-often referred to as eyesores.

Sofia Ceylan:

I come from Duisburg. There are a lot of empty properties there, and that includes apartments, yet at the same time rental prices in Düsseldorf are skyrocketing. So you have an absolute disparity in what is roughly the same area. And simultaneously, terms like "junk properties" are bandied about, suggesting the buildings are rubbish and can no longer be put to any use. A "junk property" is no longer an asset and has a negative impact on the street or the entire quarter. That is also part of TOMAS’ mission: We want to look at how an affordable rental price is achieved. Where is there leverage? Well, in the initial investment by focusing on properties that nobody wants anymore ...
Katharina Neubauer:
See Also
cincinnati | Procter & Gamble
… and by presenting what might initially seem like unusual usages, like in Celle, where we proposed converting a disused department store to a data storage building. Annabelle got it down to a tee: Sometimes you have unusual typologies and then there is always this underlying question of whether residential is really the best use for the typology.

All of this also relates to the topic of climate justice. Anyone looking at your website is struck by another area of justice, namely, gender equality. For one thing you criticize the fact that construction squanders material resources and is responsible for eating up space and generating waste, and you are also very vocal in highlighting the inequality between men and women: while 80 percent of land worldwide is in the hands of men, only two percent of global risk capital goes to women. So is the name TOMAS an acronym, or a reference to the Thomas cycle, according to which there are fewer women than men on boards in German companies?

Katharina Neubauer: It’s a backronym. TOMAS existed first– because of the unequal distribution you just mentioned – and then the meaning of the individual words.

Annabelle von Reutern:

If there are more Thomases (men) on the boards of DAX companies than women then evidently you need to be a Thomas to be successful.
Katharina Neubauer:
What’s more, we weren’t aware just how drastic some of the figures were that we got together. If 80 percent of the world’s land is owned by men, then they also decide what happens to it. That definitely needs to be highlighted and in the very best case – and this is our long-term goal. That figure will alter somewhat because we enable other women to join forces and buy a property.
Sofia Ceylan:
The decisive point is being involved in shaping things. If we only have a 20 percent stake, then we only have a 20 percent chance to help shape things – and, as we said, we want to alter that. That’s why we want to encourage women to engage with this topic. That begins with the wording: "asset", until now I saw this as the extent of my work as an architect. From the outside, this entire real estate industry always seemed so unfathomable. For us it’s also about breaking through the divide between architecture and the property industry.

Annabelle von Reutern: It’s enough to be a woman and to come up against boundaries that no man would have to deal with. And presumably there’s no need for me to explain how we encountered the subject of climate justice. It’s more a question of our wondering how people can not care what consequences their own actions and behavior will have.

Sofia Ceylan:

Although this is 2024 and we are three women engineers who studied at leading universities and operate in a privileged environment there is a gender-pay-gap. There are men among my circle of friends who own a property or have already launched their third start-up. That’s no coincidence. And in this context, you need to talk about your own doubts and how you address them. Should I give up an open-ended contract to set up a business? What about family planning or providing myself with an old-age pension? Why do I need to ask these questions, and why is it that my male friends don’t seem to share my worries as intensely as I do?Annabelle von Reutern:
The more I explored the topics of patriarchy and capitalism the more angry I got. Today, I understand the system that underpins the exploitation of our planet but also of many people. This anger drives me on and I channel it into something positive. I don’t want to be against something but for something: for a world with more social justice. For a world in which not only the old white man has the right to interpret things but a diverse democratic society.

Annabelle von Reutern: Thanks to our experience as architects, we’ve built up a broad network on which we can now draw. We found out about the two objects we just mentioned from this network, something that is a real strength for us as we don’t have to start from scratch. And it has always been one of our core values to take the initiative. If we want something then we go for it. But we have also already taken part in two competitions. And we even received a distinction for one of those.

Sofia Ceylan:

There is a huge need for existing buildings to be converted. I recently attended a meeting for district development and got talking to a district manager of a municipal housing association. She told me that they need help in developing their existing properties. This is exactly the kind of thing we want to support. Katharina Neubauer:
And then of course you get enquiries from friends and acquaintances. For example, we are helping with the conversion of an empty three-sided farmyard in Brandenburg. By our intervention we can prevent small properties from falling into disrepair or being demolished.

David Kasparek: Finally, I’m interested in the question of aesthetics. Not in the conventional sense of beauty but rather with a view to sensuality or meaningfulness. Sandra Meireis and Daniel Martin Feige recently published an anthology that attempts to outline aesthetics purely from the perspective of architecture. In your opinion, does the twofold architectural turnaround that you seem to have in mind also go hand in hand with a different aesthetic? Does architecture that draws solely on the urbane mine look different than it did previously? And should it look different to express its perhaps altered meaningfulness with a different sensuality?

Sofia Ceylan: Yes, I think so. The basic principle of circular building and bio-based-architecture is never at odds with design and the goal of producing something beautiful. For example, one aspect of sustainable building is being able to disassemble it, so it requires different kinds of joints. That is a fundamental topic of architecture. The way that I join something together alters the design. I’m not a great fan of this ostentatious, patchwork-like architecture, which is currently being realized repeatedly in the name of the building turnaround. By contrast, the TU Braunschweig student house by Gustav Düsing and Max Hacke can be completely dismantled, is sustainable and modular. Its design is based on these principles and produces a certain appearance.

Katharina Neubauer:

I come across it in teaching: You really have to take a very differentiated view of the aesthetics of our time, which is produced by processes that purport to be or actually are different. As regards participatory design processes or spaces that are dealt with in a processual way I do believe that they can look different, but that doesn’t mean they should be considered inferior in terms of aesthetics. The fact that they look different is not the result of a fad, but stems from a fundamentally different approach to creating space.
Annabelle von Reutern:
The question of aesthetics is also about justification. Who decides what is considered beautiful? Like so many people, Sofia and I watched the opening ceremony of the Olympic Games. And now racists, anti-feminists and people hostile to the queer movement are getting upset because the show didn’t fit in with how they see the world. A group of people who previously set the tone are realizing that their influence is waning. One reason we were so enthusiastic about the event is because it was diverse and showed us what a world could be like. It’s essential that we can endure things even if we don’t find them beautiful but without having to devalue these things for being different. I consider it important in all areas of life – including building culture to accept that there my idea of what constitutes beauty is not unique. For me things are beautiful if they don’t overtax the planet and nobody needs to suffer because of them.

Sofia Ceylan, Dr. Katharina Neubauer and Annabelle von Reutern | STYLEPARK (2024)