These annual rankings were last updated on June 6, 2025. Want to see your firm on next year’s list? Continue reading for more on how you can improve your studio’s ranking. Traversing the German nation, one will encounter a similar historic program to other European capitals — Romanesque churches, Renaissance monuments and more — blended with functionalist and modernist structures. Early twenty-first-century Germany gave rise to the thriving Bauhaus. Founded by Walter Gropius, this school introduced brand-new architectural thinking, an ideology rooted in function, clarity and mass production. Materials like concrete and glass were favored, socially progressive housing blocks were constructed, and a newfound appreciation for modernism emerged. The spirit of the great Bauhaus teachers — Mies van der Rohe, for example — vigorously lives on and inspires contemporary designers today. Additionally, modern industrial architecture took off post-war and has played a prominent role in the nation’s economic growth, continuing to do so today. The architectural devastation from WWII resulted in mass reconstruction efforts. The post-war restoration and rebuilding embraced a functional attitude, which continued the legacy of the Bauhaus movement despite its closing over a decade prior. Today, German architecture continues to champion the nation’s modernist brilliance through innovative designs that push technological boundaries and celebrate culture. With so many architecture firms to choose from, it’s challenging for clients to identify the industry leaders that will be an ideal fit for their project needs. Fortunately, Architizer is able to provide guidance on the top design firms in Germany based on more than a decade of data and industry knowledge. How are these architecture firms ranked? The following ranking has been created according to key statistics that demonstrate each firm’s level of architectural excellence. The following metrics have been accumulated to establish each architecture firm’s ranking, in order of priority: The number of A+Awards won (2013 to 2025) The number of A+Awards finalists (2013 to 2025) The number of projects selected as “Project of the Day” (2009 to 2025) The number of projects selected as “Featured Project” (2009 to 2025) The number of projects uploaded to Architizer (2009 to 2025) Each of these metrics is explained in more detail at the foot of this article. This ranking list will be updated annually, taking into account new achievements of Germany architecture firms throughout the year. Without further ado, here are the 30 best architecture firms in Germany: 30. Format Elf Architekten © Format Elf Architekten Simple and touching. Format Elf Architekten is an architecture firm that focuses on residential architecture. Some of Format Elf Architekten’s most prominent projects include: Longhouses, Bad Birnbach, Germany FORMSTELLE, Töging am Inn, Germany House B, Munich, Germany Die Basis, Munich, Germany The following statistics helped Format Elf Architekten achieve 30th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 4 29. Bruzkus Batek Architects © Jens Bösenberg | Whitelight Studio GmbH BRUZKUS BATEK Since 2007, this internationally active office specialised in designing hotels, offices, shops, restaurants and private housing – and particularly in the detailing of high-quality interiors. After 10 successful years, it is time for a change. As of 2018, Bruzkus Batek is splitting into BATEK ARCHITECTS and ESTER BRUZKUS ARCHITECTS. Some of Bruzkus Batek Architects’ most prominent projects include: Razorfish, Berlin, Germany Office Ester Bruzkus Architekten, Berlin, Germany Colette Tim Raue Munich, Munich, Germany Apartment PP, Berlin, Germany Dean, Berlin, Germany The following statistics helped Bruzkus Batek Architects achieve 29th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Finalist 1 Featured Projects 3 Total Projects 28 28. Ester Bruzkus Architekten © Ester Bruzkus Architekten Founded in 2002 in Berlin, Ester Bruzkus Architekten is an architecture and interior design practice with global ties: Berlin, New York, Paris, Tel Aviv, Boston, Dubai, Moscow, Vladivostok, Tenerife. We have extensive experience with design at many scales: from the design of tables and furniture to exquisite residences and workspaces to international theaters, restaurants and hotels. Straight lines, precise planning, material contrasts – and plenty of surprises. The architecture of Ester Bruzkus and her team makes use of contrasts of thick and thin, sharp and soft, curved and straight, rough and smooth, common and opulent, colorful and restrained, playful and well-resolved. Special projects result from a dialogue of space and light, materiality and color, existing constraints and new opportunities – and especially a synergy between the needs of the client, the space and the aspirations of great design. Some of Ester Bruzkus Architekten’s most prominent projects include: Razorfish, Berlin, Germany Office Ester Bruzkus Architekten, Berlin, Germany Colette Tim Raue Munich, Munich, Germany Apartment PP, Berlin, Germany Dean, Berlin, Germany The following statistics helped Ester Bruzkus Architekten achieve 28th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Finalist 1 Featured Projects 3 Total Projects 34 27. Architekten Wannenmacher + Möller © Architekten Wannenmacher + Möller GmbH Architects Wannenmacher + Möller, based in Bielefeld Germany, has been in practice for almost 60 years. Today the office is run by second generation Andreas Wannenmacher and Hans-Heinrich Möller. It was founded by Gregor Wannenmacher in Düsseldorf, Germany in 1955. Over the years the office grew continuously and became one of the largest architectural firms in the German region Eastern Westfalia. Most of the activities were focused in this region. During the last years, however, the office had the opportunity to design buildings and control their realization outside this region, some of them in foreign countries throughout Europe, Asia, and the USA. Some of Architekten Wannenmacher + Möller’s most prominent projects include: Ford Hagemeier Halle , Germany Wohnhaus Möllmann, Bielefeld, Germany House P+G, Weinheim, Germany House in Paderborn, Paderborn, Germany Borchen Sports Hall, Borchen, Germany The following statistics helped Architekten Wannenmacher + Möller achieve 27th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Finalist 1 Featured Projects 4 Total Projects 14 26. Design.Develop.Build – GA Tech | PBSA | RWTH © Design.Develop.Build - GA Tech | PBSA | RWTH Students from the Georgia Institute of Technology, RWTH Aachen University and PBSA Düsseldorf design, develop and build civic architecture. Some of Design.Develop.Build’s most prominent projects include: Guga S’Thebe Children’s Theatre, Cape Town, South Africa The following statistics helped Design.Develop.Build achieve 26th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Winner 2 A+Awards Finalist 1 Featured Projects 1 Total Projects 1 25. Ecker Architekten © Ecker Architekten Ecker Architekten is an architecture and design firm based in Germany. Ecker Architekten’s design portfolio includes a variety of architectural projects, such as cultural, commercial, government and health, educational, and more. Some of Ecker Architekten’s most prominent projects include: The Forum at Eckenberg Gymnasium, Adelsheim, Germany Field Chapel, Buchen (Odenwald), Germany Kindergarten Dandelion Clock, Germany Kanzlei Balkenhol, BW, Germany Branch Bank in Hettingen, Hettingen, Germany The following statistics helped Ecker Architekten achieve 25th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 4 Total Projects 8 24. Sehw Architektur © Helin Bereket “Sehw stands for meaningfulness, emotion, attitude and change.” Our mission: building architecture sustainably, thinking innovatively and creating social added value. “Sehw stands for an aesthetic of sustainability in architecture.” // Sustainability // Acting sustainably We are not just planning for today but for the generation of tomorrow and beyond. For us, sustainable architecture means forward-looking planning and the development of future-proof utilization concepts. In times of rapid climate change, we are committed to resource-conserving construction methods and the use of renewable energies. Recyclable building materials and circular economy are the basis for a long life cycle and corresponding sustainability certifications of our buildings. We value and protect existing structures and materials. Some of Sehw Architektur’s most prominent projects include: KIT, Karlsruhe, Germany Weitblick Innovation Campus, Augsburg, Germany Inclusive School Centre Döbern, Döbern, Germany The Copper Coil, Rostock, Germany Around the Corner – Student Apartment Building, Berlin, Germany The following statistics helped Sehw Architektur achieve 24th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 5 Total Projects 18 23. PHILIPPARCHITEKTEN Anna Philipp © PHILIPPARCHITEKTEN Anna Philipp A passion for houses. There’s nothing more significant to describe what our architecture office is about: houses — simple, yet complex. The archetype of all construction is our passion. That’s what we stand for. On this we work holistically with a team of architects and engineers. Center of our designing is the human being. We understand architecture as a second skin, which must be tailored. At the same time it’s essential to reflect the unique character of the location. The goal is a harmonious triad of mankind, nature and architecture. The focus and specialization on houses and villas is faced by a wide diversification in the range of services offered. Some of PHILIPPARCHITEKTEN Anna Philipp’s most prominent projects include: Villa Philipp, Waldenburg, Germany Villa Lombardo, Lugano, Switzerland A monastery of modernity, Augsburg, Germany Villa Schatzlmayr, Passau, Germany Villa Mauthe, Bahlingen, Germany The following statistics helped PHILIPPARCHITEKTEN Anna Philipp achieve 23rd place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 5 Total Projects 22 22. KRESINGS © Roman Mensing KRESINGS is a studio for architecture, interior design, urban planning and product design with offices in Munster and Dusseldorf. Since its founding by Rainer Maria Kresing in 1985 four further partners joined the management: Kilian Kresing, Christian Kawe, Matthias Povel and André Perret. More than 60 employees — architects, designers, planners and engineers — guarantee a broad range of creative and qualified services. Experience meets creative ease. The studio has been awarded with national awards like those of the BDA (Bund Deutscher Architekten) and the DAM (Deutsches Architektur Museum). KRESINGS: Experts and team players in areas of office and industrial buildings, facilities for research, education and culture as well as individual designs for residential buildings. Some of KRESINGS’ most prominent projects include: Student Residence Boeselagerstraße, Münster, Germany Headquarters Mitsubishi Electric Europe, Ratingen, Germany Petting Zoo, Öhringen, Germany Freiherr-vom-Stein-High-School, Münster, Germany Residential Building Hoher Heckenweg, Münster, Germany The following statistics helped KRESINGS achieve 22nd place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 5 Total Projects 33 21. 3deluxe © 3deluxe The interdisciplinary design collective 3deluxe, consisting of about 30 individuals centered around Dieter Brell, Peter Seipp and Andreas and Stephan Lauhoff, has been creating groundbreaking impulses in the fields of architecture and interior design, graphic and media design. In creative synergy hybrid forms of two and three dimensional design are created: graphic works develop a spatial impact, while architectural drafts are based on communication principles. In this way, complex collages are contrived, so called ‚multilayered atmospheres‘, that foster multiple sensory experiences and allow for a multitude of potential interpretations. Paramount is the broadening of an absolute understanding of space and image towards a dynamic, processual approach. Some of 3deluxe’s most prominent projects include: V- Plaza Urban Development, Kaunas, Lithuania Kaffee Partner Headquarters, Osnabrück, Germany Butterfly Pavilion, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates Leonardo Glass Cube, Bad Driburg, Germany Cyberhelvetia The following statistics helped 3deluxe achieve 21st place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Finalist 2 Featured Projects 3 Total Projects 20 20. Christoph Hesse Architects © Deimel und Wittmar Christoph Hesse Architects was founded in 2010 by Christoph Hesse, has offices in Korbach and, since 2018, in Berlin. The architectural practice currently employs an international team of 15 people and has won numerous awards. Some of Christoph Hesse Architects’ most prominent projects include: VITOS Outpatient psychiatric clinic for traumatized refugees, Korbach, Germany Villa F / the off-the-grid house in the central highlands of Germany, Medebach, Germany StrohTherme, Medebach, Germany Room of Silence, Korbach, Germany The following statistics helped Christoph Hesse Architects achieve 20th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Winner 2 Featured Projects 2 Total Projects 4 19. Zeller & Moye © Zeller & Moye Zeller & Moye is a design studio based in Mexico City and Berlin that works at the intersection of architecture, arts, design and latest technology through an experimental, multidisciplinary and collaborative working culture. Some of Zeller & Moye’s most prominent projects include: HAUS KÖRIS, Brandenburg, Germany SANDRA WEIL Store, Mexico City, Mexico TROQUER FASHION HOUSE, Mexico City, Mexico CASA VERNE, Mexico City, Mexico CASA HILO, Mexico The following statistics helped Zeller & Moye achieve 19th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 5 Total Projects 12 18. Ippolito Fleitz Group – Identity Architects © Ippolito Fleitz Group - Identity Architects Ippolito fleitz group is a multidisciplinary, internationally operating design studio based in Stuttgart.We are identity architects. We work in unison with our clients to develop architecture, products and communication that are part of a whole and yet distinctive in their own right. This is how we define identity.With meticulous analysis before we begin.With animated examination in the conceptional phase. With a clarity of argument in the act of persuasion.With a love of accuracy in the realisation.With a serious goal and a lot of fun along the way. Working together with our clients.As architects of identity, we conceive and construct buildings, interiors and landscapes; we develop products and communication measures. Some of Ippolito Fleitz Group – Identity Architects’ most prominent projects include: Das GERBER, Stuttgart, Germany Hunke – Jewellers and Opticians, Ludwigsburg, Germany Bella Italia Weine, Stuttgart, Germany ippolito fleitz group | Residential Building, Denkendorf, Germany WakuWaku Dammtor, Hamburg, Germany The following statistics helped Ippolito Fleitz Group - Identity Architects achieve 18th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Finalist 1 Featured Projects 4 Total Projects 26 17. VON M © Zooey Braun VON M is an architecture and design firm based in Germany. VON M’s design portfolio includes a variety of architectural projects, such as cultural, residential, educational, commercial, hospitality and sport, and more. Some of VON M’s most prominent projects include: Museum Luthers Sterbehaus, Eisleben, Germany BHM Pavillon, Wolfegg, Germany Kinder- und Familienzentrum, Ludwigsburg, Germany Hotel Bauhofstrasse, Ludwigsburg, Germany HS77, Stuttgart, Germany The following statistics helped VON M achieve 17th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 6 Total Projects 11 16. Plastique Fantastique © Plastique Fantastique Plastique Fantastique is a collective for temporary architecture that samples the performative possibilities of urban environments. Established in Berlin in 1999, Plastique Fantastique has been influenced by the unique circumstances that made the city a laboratory for temporary spaces. Plastique Fantastique’s synthetic structures affect surrounding spaces like a soap bubble does: Similar to a foreign body, it occupies and mutates urban space. Their interventions change the way we perceive and interact in urban environments. By mixing different landscape types, an osmotic passage between private and public space is generating new hybrid environments.Regardless the way people view a bubble, walk around its exterior or move inside it, the pneumatic structure is a medium to experience the same physical setting in a temporary extraordinary situation. Some of Plastique Fantastique’s most prominent projects include: LOUD SHADOWS, Terschelling, Netherlands Blurry Venice, Venice, Italy Aeropolis, Copenhagen, Denmark superKOLMEMEN, Helsinki, Finland MOBILE PPS (Personal Protective Space) for Doctors The following statistics helped Plastique Fantastique achieve 16th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 5 Total Projects 5 15. 4a Architekten © 4a Architekten GmbH Shaping atmosphere, lending identity, creating quality of space — these are the values that characterize the buildings of 4a Architekten. The starting point and guiding principle of our work is the concept of architecture as living space. Our buildings come into being through intensive team work shaped by interdisciplinary thinking and action. What characterizes a location in terms of its culture and history? What are the client’s expectations and objectives? What is viable within the budget and what are the benefits for users? These questions and this approach bring us to solutions with an individual character — and they apply just as much to the planning of buildings as to the design of interior spaces. Some of 4a Architekten’s most prominent projects include: Therme Lindau on Lake Constance, Lindau, Germany Balingen Civic Hall, Balingen, Germany Emser Thermal Baths, Bad Ems, Germany Spreewald Spa Hotel, Burg, Germany Stegermatt Aquatic Centre, Offenburg, Germany The following statistics helped 4a Architekten achieve 15th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 7 Total Projects 15 14. schneider+schumacher © schneider+schumacher / Frankfurt - Vienna - Tianjin Our architectural approach is characterized by the enjoyment we have in finding solutions to the complex demands of today’s buildings. We adapt our buildings to fit into their surroundings, yet we also create landmarks. Pragmatic poetry, nurtured not only by design clarity and a conscientious attitude towards the task in hand, but also by a delight in fine details. This design process is constantly informed by the dialogue that takes place on a daily basis between the various professional disciplines in all our specialized divisions – architecture, construction and project management, design, a.o. — and international offices. schneider+schumacher is headquartered in Frankfurt (GE), and has two branches in Vienna (AU) and Tianjin (CN). Some of schneider+schumacher’s most prominent projects include: Autobahn Church, Wilnsdorf, Germany Oil Harbour Bridge, Raunheim, Germany DOXX – Quayside Development at Mainz Customs Port, Mainz, Germany Städel Museum Extension, Frankfurt, Germany Siegerland Motorway Church, Wilnsdorf, Wilnsdorf, Germany The following statistics helped schneider+schumacher achieve 14th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Winner 1 A+Awards Finalist 2 Featured Projects 5 Total Projects 12 13. ingenhoven associates © ingenhoven associates Celebrating 40 years of excellence since 1985, the studio is pioneer in sustainable architecture, designing and delivering projects of all sizes and typologies across nearly every region of the world, adhering to the highest green building standards, including LEED, Green Star, Minergie, BREEAM, DGNB and CASBEE. With a tailored approach to each location, the multinational, interdisciplinary team creates nuanced architectural solutions with added value and positive social impact. Some of ingenhoven associates’ most prominent projects include: Düsseldorfer Schauspielhaus, Düsseldorf, Germany Freiburg Town Hall, Freiburg, Germany Kö-Bogen 2, Düsseldorf, Germany Marina One, Singapore, Singapore Daniel Swarovski Corporation, Männedorf, Switzerland The following statistics helped ingenhoven associates achieve 13th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Finalist 2 Featured Projects 5 Total Projects 28 12. gmp · Architects von Gerkan, Marg und Partner © HG Esch Photography The architects von Gerkan, Marg and Partners (gmp) are an architectural practice that was founded in Hamburg and has branches worldwide. With our generalist approach and more than 50 years of experience, we complete projects in dialogue with our clients and the participating planning disciplines, at all scales and cultural contexts, covering all design phases and working on all continents. The range of our projects extends from family residences to high-rise buildings, from stadiums to concert halls, from office buildings to bridges, and from door hardware to urban planning. With holistic sustainability in mind, we aim to create new and refurbished architecture that is long-lasting and goes beyond temporary fashions, taking into account the global challenges and issues of urbanization, digitalization, and mobility. Some of gmp · Architects von Gerkan, Marg und Partner’s most prominent projects include: Guna Villa, Jūrmala, Latvia Universiade 2011 Sports Center, Shenzhen, China Olympic Stadium, Kiev, Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine Olympic Stadium, Berlin, Germany Twin Towers, Commodity Exchange Plaza, Dalian, China The following statistics helped gmp · Architects von Gerkan, Marg und Partner achieve 12th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 8 Total Projects 36 11. kadawittfeldarchitektur © kadawittfeldarchitektur We are kadawittfeldarchitektur. Originally founded in Aachen in 1999, we today stand for more than just architectural design. The interdisciplinary approach of our work, linking architecture, interior and product design on the one hand and at the interface of town planning and urban projects on the other hand, reflects the full range of our creative output. kadawittfeldarchitektur develops added value space. In a team of more than 170 persons, we create architecture with added value space for living, communication and work environments. In the way we deal with volumes, materials, structures and functions, we strive to integrate our schemes into their surroundings with the objective of creating contemporary and sustainable architecture and meeting the needs of both the users and the general public. Some of kadawittfeldarchitektur’s most prominent projects include: CELTIC MUSEUM, Glauburg, Germany ADIDAS LACES, Herzogenaurach, Germany SPZ, HALLEIN, Hallein, Austria SENIOR CITIZENS RESIDENCE ALTENMARKT, Altenmarkt im Pongau, Austria SALZBURG CENTRAL STATION, Salzburg, Austria The following statistics helped kadawittfeldarchitektur achieve 11th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 8 Total Projects 32 10. GRAFT © GRAFT What is graft? The English word ‘graft’ provokes a variety of meanings and multiple readings. It stands for transplants in the field of medicine, for cheating, but also for hard work.  In the terminology of botany, grafting is described as the addition of one shoot onto a genetically different host. Some of GRAFT’s most prominent projects include: Ice Stadion “Arena Schierke”, Wernigerode, Germany Show Palace Munich, Munich, Germany Autostadt Roof and Service Pavilion, Wolfsburg, Germany Eiswerk, Berlin, Germany Villa M , Berlin, Germany The following statistics helped GRAFT achieve 10th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Finalist 2 Featured Projects 7 Total Projects 17 9. HENN © HENN HENN is an international architecture studio with over 75 years of experience in designing innovative work environments across office, science, healthcare, industry, education, and culture. An interdisciplinary team of 400 professionals works from offices in Munich, Berlin, Frankfurt am Main, and Shanghai. The design process is collaborative and driven by curiosity. HENN draws from the rich expertise of three generations and a global network of partners. All three generations share a common mindset: openness and curiosity. This spirit drives the studio to continuously question and redefine architectural typologies. HENN was founded in 1947 by Walter Henn in Dresden. Early on, he specialized in industrial buildings and played a key role in establishing the Braunschweig School through his academic work. Some of HENN’s most prominent projects include: Porsche Pavilion, Wolfsburg, Germany Zalando Headquarters Berlin, Berlin, Germany Bugatti Atelier, Molsheim, France MobileLife Campus, Wolfsburg, Germany The CUBE, Dresden, Germany The following statistics helped HENN achieve 9th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Winner 2 A+Awards Finalist 2 Featured Projects 6 Total Projects 30 8. Auer Weber © Aldo Amoretti Photography Founded in 1980, we are an internationally active architectural firm with offices in Stuttgart and Munich. We employ around 150 people from 20 countries and work on projects of various sizes and tasks from initial design through to completion. Each year, we create entries for between 30 and 40 competitions in our two offices, from which we generate a large proportion of our orders. These range from buildings for the community to educational and administrative buildings, sports and leisure facilities and large infrastructure projects. The diversity of our architecture is the result of in-depth study of the building tasks and where these tasks originate. Some of Auer Weber’s most prominent projects include: Aquatic Centre “Aquamotion” Courchevel , Saint-Bon-Tarentaise, France Arena du Pays d’Aix, Aix-en-Provence, France Extension of the District Office in Starnberg, Starnberg, Germany ESO Headquarters Extension, Garching, Germany Olympic Aquatics Stadium, Route de Torcy, France The following statistics helped Auer Weber achieve 8th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Winner 2 A+Awards Finalist 1 Featured Projects 9 Total Projects 24 7. Peter Ruge Architekten © Peter Ruge Architekten GmbH Identity+Sustainability=Architecture Peter Ruge Architekten is a locally and internationally active planning office based in Berlin. Our mission is simple: to develop and build sustainable architecture of the future. The agenda of the team along with three partners Peter Ruge, Kayoko Uchiyama and Matthias Matschewski includes new buildings, optimization of existing properties and urban planning designs. The projects are holistic, i.e. adapted to the climate, culture and needs of the users, and have received numerous awards and certifications. Our detailed understanding of sustainable design processes supports the decisions of our clients. In education field, Prof. Ruge shares our knowledge with a global design community at DIA, Anhalt University of Applied Sciences in Dessau, Shenyang Jianzhu University in China and Kyoto Seika University in Japan. Some of Peter Ruge Architekten’s most prominent projects include: Busan Opera House, South Korea, Busan, South Korea Congress Center Hangzhou, Hangzhou, China House O, Germany, Potsdam-Mittelmark, Germany LTD_1 Hamburg, Germany, Hamburg, Germany Muzeum Lotnictwa Krakow, Poland The following statistics helped Peter Ruge Architekten achieve 7th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 12 Total Projects 18 6. HPP Architects © Christa Lachenmaier Photography HPP Architects is one of Europe’s leading architectural partnerships with a full range of architectural and master planning services. Since its foundation by Professor Hentrich, the 4th generation of HPP partnership today includes a global team of more than 25 nationalities and 480 architects, engineers, urban designers and specialists. Today it comprises 13 offices including 8 regional offices in Germany and 5 international branches in Turkey, China and Netherlands. HPP Architects’ headquarter is located in the Düsseldorf Media Harbor, further offices are located in Amsterdam, Beijing, Berlin, Cologne, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Istanbul, Leipzig, Munich, Shanghai, Shenzhen and Stuttgart. HPP completed more than 1200 buildings worldwide and aspires to create architectural quality of lasting value beyond the here and now: timeless and yet clearly part of their time, innovative and equally grounded in history. Some of HPP Architects’s most prominent projects include: LVM 5 , Münster, Germany Medical Library Oasis (O.A.S.E.), Düsseldorf, Germany Hochschule Ruhr West, Mülheim, Germany Henkel Asia-Pacific and China Headquarters, Shanghai, China Dreischeibenhaus, Düsseldorf, Germany The following statistics helped HPP Architects achieve 6th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Finalist 3 Featured Projects 12 Total Projects 25 5. Behnisch Architekten © David Matthiessen The Stuttgart-based practice known today as Behnisch Architekten was founded in 1989 under the leadership of Stefan Behnisch. Originally established as a branch office of Günter Behnisch’s practice Behnisch & Partner, it became independent in 1991 and has subsequently developed into an international practice with offices in Stuttgart, Munich, Los Angeles/California (1999 – 2011), and Boston. These offices are directed by Stefan Behnisch and his partners in varying combinations. The Partners are Robert Hösle, Robert Matthew Noblett and Stefan Rappold. Stefan Behnisch is involved in all three offices. From the outset, the social dimension of architecture has been a fundamental aspect of the firm’s design philosophy. Some of Behnisch Architekten’s most prominent projects include: SC Workplaces, California City of Santa Monica Public Parking Structure #6, Santa Monica, California Primary School Infanteriestrasse, München, Germany Harvard University Science and Engineering Complex, Boston, Massachusetts John and Frances Angelos Law Center, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, Maryland The following statistics helped Behnisch Architekten achieve 5th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Finalist 9 Featured Projects 8 Total Projects 24 4. wulf architekten © Tobias Vollmer wulf architekten emerged from the architecture practice established 1987 in Stuttgart by Tobias Wulf. Currently the office is managed by Tobias Wulf, Jan-Michael Kallfaß, Ingmar Menzer and Steffen Vogt. From 1996 to 2018, Kai Bierich and Alexander Vohl were partners of Tobias Wulf at wulf architekten. Currently, the company has about 140 employees, nine of them being senior architects. With three office locations – Stuttgart, Berlin and Basel (CH) – wulf architekten is also working on projects abroad. Some of wulf architekten’s most prominent projects include: Parking Garage Facade P22a at the Cologne Exhibition Centre, Cologne, Germany Four primary schools in modular design, Munich, Germany School Center North, Stuttgart, Germany Canteen and Media Center for North vocational school center, Darmstadt, Germany Chamber of Industry and Commerce, headquarters, Stuttgart, Germany The following statistics helped wulf architekten achieve 4th place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Winner 1 A+Awards Finalist 1 Featured Projects 11 Total Projects 18 3. TCHOBAN VOSS Architekten © TCHOBAN VOSS Architekten GmbH TCHOBAN VOSS Architekten design, plan and build for national and international clients in the public and private sectors. The company, with offices in Hamburg, Berlin and Dresden, is named after Sergei Tchoban, architect BDA, and his partner Ekkehard Voss, architect BDA (1963-2024). With over 150 highly qualified, interdisciplinary employees and many years of experience, it offers architecturally and functionally sustainable solutions for a wide range of building projects in Germany and abroad. TCHOBAN VOSS Architekten is member of the Association of German Architects (BDA), the Chambers of Architects in Hamburg, Berlin and Saxony, the Förderverein Bundesstiftung Baukultur e.V. as well as of the European Architects Network (EAN). Some of TCHOBAN VOSS Architekten’s most prominent projects include: EDGE Suedkreuz Berlin, Berlin, Germany SKF Test Centre for large-scale bearings, Schweinfurt, Germany Seestraße, Berlin, Berlin, Germany Koenigstadt-Quartier, Berlin, Germany EMBASSY – Living alongside Koellnischer Park, Berlin, Berlin, Germany The following statistics helped TCHOBAN VOSS Architekten achieve 3rd place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Winner 1 A+Awards Finalist 6 Featured Projects 12 Total Projects 29 2. Barkow Leibinger © Barkow Leibinger The scope of Barkow Leibinger’s work spans from cultural projects to industrial ones. Their focus on industrial architecture includes master planning and building representational and functional buildings for production, logistical and office spaces. Some of Barkow Leibinger’s most prominent projects include: Production Hall Trumpf, Hettingen, Germany Stadthaus M1 – Green City Hotel, Freiburg, Germany Harvard ArtLab, Boston, Massachusetts Production Hall, Grüsch, Switzerland Fraunhofer Research Campus, Waischenfeld, Germany The following statistics helped Barkow Leibinger achieve 2nd place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: Featured Projects 12 Total Projects 17 1. J.MAYER.H © J.MAYER.H J. MAYER H’s studio, focuses on works at the intersection of architecture, communication and new technology. From urban planning schemes and buildings to installation work and objects with new materials, the relationship between the human body, technology and nature form the background for a new production of space. Some of J.MAYER.H’s most prominent projects include: MIAMI MUSEUM GARAGE, Miami, Florida n.n. Residence, Moscow, Russia Hasselt Court House , Hasselt, Belgium Highway Rest Stops, Tbilisi, Georgia Rest Stops, Gori, Georgia Featured image: Tram Stops, Kehl, Germany The following statistics helped J.MAYER.H achieve 1st place in the 30 Best Architecture Firms in Germany: A+Awards Winner 5 A+Awards Finalist 3 Featured Projects 19 Total Projects 30 Why Should I Trust Architizer’s Ranking? With more than 30,000 architecture firms and over 130,000 projects within its database, Architizer is proud to host the world’s largest online community of architects and building product manufacturers. Its celebrated A+Awards program is also the largest celebration of architecture and building products, with more than 400 jurors and hundreds of thousands of public votes helping to recognize the world’s best architecture each year. Architizer also powers firm directories for a number of AIA (American Institute of Architects) Chapters nationwide, including the official directory of architecture firms for AIA New York. An example of a project page on Architizer with Project Award Badges highlighted A Guide to Project Awards The blue “+” badge denotes that a project has won a prestigious A+Award as described above. Hovering over the badge reveals details of the award, including award category, year, and whether the project won the jury or popular choice award. The orange Project of the Day and yellow Featured Project badges are awarded by Architizer’s Editorial team, and are selected based on a number of factors. The following factors increase a project’s likelihood of being featured or awarded Project of the Day status: Project completed within the last 3 years A well written, concise project description of at least 3 paragraphs Architectural design with a high level of both functional and aesthetic value High quality, in focus photographs At least 8 photographs of both the interior and exterior of the building Inclusion of architectural drawings and renderings Inclusion of construction photographs There are 7 Projects of the Day each week and a further 31 Featured Projects. Each Project of the Day is published on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram Stories, while each Featured Project is published on Facebook. Each Project of the Day also features in Architizer’s Weekly Projects Newsletter and shared with 170,000 subscribers.     We’re constantly look for the world’s best architects to join our community. If you would like to understand more about this ranking list and learn how your firm can achieve a presence on it, please don’t hesitate to reach out to us at editorial@architizer.com. The post 30 Best Architecture and Design Firms in Germany appeared first on Journal.

Forward-looking: Antimatter consists of particles with properties opposite to those of regular particles. It plays a central role in modern physics research and forms naturally through cosmic collisions or radioactive decay. However, studying it is difficult, as contact with normal matter results in instant annihilation. The European Organization for Nuclear Research, better known as CERN, is one of the few places on Earth capable of routinely producing antimatter from high-energy collisions with particle accelerators. Researchers there have now developed a novel method to transport small quantities of antimatter to external laboratories. This world-first achievement could enable more precise studies of the elusive antiparticles described in the Standard Model of particle physics. CERN researchers developed a two-meter containment device capable of temporarily trapping antimatter particles. They even trucked the device around the facility for four kilometers before returning it to the lab, where they confirmed the antiparticles were still intact. The brief trip required no external power source, proving that antiparticles can theoretically travel far beyond a few kilometers. It also demonstrated that antimatter can be safely transported to distant laboratories using nothing more than a standard vehicle and Europe's public road network. CERN facilities lie near Geneva, on the France – Switzerland border. Judging by the truck's route carrying the experimental containment device, the researchers likely crossed the border from France into Switzerland and back. Physicists have explained the practical application of antimatter transport in a recent study, which revealed limits to precision measurements using low-energy protons produced exclusively at CERN's Antimatter Factory. Magnetic field fluctuations from the facility's decelerators interfere with experiments, while dedicated off-site laboratories could enable more accurate results. // Related Stories Now that CERN has proven it can safely transport antiparticles beyond its grounds, it is preparing the next phase of its antimatter project. A new, state-of-the-art facility at Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf in Germany will soon receive the first batch of antimatter cargo. The particles will travel nearly 800 kilometers to reach their destination.

Scientific publication T. M. Lange, M. Gültas, A. O. Schmitt & F. Heinrich (2025). optRF: Optimising random forest stability by determining the optimal number of trees. BMC bioinformatics, 26(1), 95.Follow this LINK to the original publication. Random Forest — A Powerful Tool for Anyone Working With Data What is Random Forest? Have you ever wished you could make better decisions using data — like predicting the risk of diseases, crop yields, or spotting patterns in customer behavior? That’s where machine learning comes in and one of the most accessible and powerful tools in this field is something called Random Forest. So why is random forest so popular? For one, it’s incredibly flexible. It works well with many types of data whether numbers, categories, or both. It’s also widely used in many fields — from predicting patient outcomes in healthcare to detecting fraud in finance, from improving shopping experiences online to optimising agricultural practices. Despite the name, random forest has nothing to do with trees in a forest — but it does use something called Decision Trees to make smart predictions. You can think of a decision tree as a flowchart that guides a series of yes/no questions based on the data you give it. A random forest creates a whole bunch of these trees (hence the “forest”), each slightly different, and then combines their results to make one final decision. It’s a bit like asking a group of experts for their opinion and then going with the majority vote. But until recently, one question was unanswered: How many decision trees do I actually need? If each decision tree can lead to different results, averaging many trees would lead to better and more reliable results. But how many are enough? Luckily, the optRF package answers this question! So let’s have a look at how to optimise Random Forest for predictions and variable selection! Making Predictions with Random Forests To optimise and to use random forest for making predictions, we can use the open-source statistics programme R. Once we open R, we have to install the two R packages “ranger” which allows to use random forests in R and “optRF” to optimise random forests. Both packages are open-source and available via the official R repository CRAN. In order to install and load these packages, the following lines of R code can be run: > install.packages(“ranger”) > install.packages(“optRF”) > library(ranger) > library(optRF) Now that the packages are installed and loaded into the library, we can use the functions that these packages contain. Furthermore, we can also use the data set included in the optRF package which is free to use under the GPL license (just as the optRF package itself). This data set called SNPdata contains in the first column the yield of 250 wheat plants as well as 5000 genomic markers (so called single nucleotide polymorphisms or SNPs) that can contain either the value 0 or 2. > SNPdata[1:5,1:5] Yield SNP_0001 SNP_0002 SNP_0003 SNP_0004 ID_001 670.7588 0 0 0 0 ID_002 542.5611 0 2 0 0 ID_003 591.6631 2 2 0 2 ID_004 476.3727 0 0 0 0 ID_005 635.9814 2 2 0 2 This data set is an example for genomic data and can be used for genomic prediction which is a very important tool for breeding high-yielding crops and, thus, to fight world hunger. The idea is to predict the yield of crops using genomic markers. And exactly for this purpose, random forest can be used! That means that a random forest model is used to describe the relationship between the yield and the genomic markers. Afterwards, we can predict the yield of wheat plants where we only have genomic markers. Therefore, let’s imagine that we have 200 wheat plants where we know the yield and the genomic markers. This is the so-called training data set. Let’s further assume that we have 50 wheat plants where we know the genomic markers but not their yield. This is the so-called test data set. Thus, we separate the data frame SNPdata so that the first 200 rows are saved as training and the last 50 rows without their yield are saved as test data: > Training = SNPdata[1:200,] > Test = SNPdata[201:250,-1] With these data sets, we can now have a look at how to make predictions using random forests! First, we got to calculate the optimal number of trees for random forest. Since we want to make predictions, we use the function opt_prediction from the optRF package. Into this function we have to insert the response from the training data set (in this case the yield), the predictors from the training data set (in this case the genomic markers), and the predictors from the test data set. Before we run this function, we can use the set.seed function to ensure reproducibility even though this is not necessary (we will see later why reproducibility is an issue here): > set.seed(123) > optRF_result = opt_prediction(y = Training[,1], + X = Training[,-1], + X_Test = Test) Recommended number of trees: 19000 All the results from the opt_prediction function are now saved in the object optRF_result, however, the most important information was already printed in the console: For this data set, we should use 19,000 trees. With this information, we can now use random forest to make predictions. Therefore, we use the ranger function to derive a random forest model that describes the relationship between the genomic markers and the yield in the training data set. Also here, we have to insert the response in the y argument and the predictors in the x argument. Furthermore, we can set the write.forest argument to be TRUE and we can insert the optimal number of trees in the num.trees argument: > RF_model = ranger(y = Training[,1], x = Training[,-1], + write.forest = TRUE, num.trees = 19000) And that’s it! The object RF_model contains the random forest model that describes the relationship between the genomic markers and the yield. With this model, we can now predict the yield for the 50 plants in the test data set where we have the genomic markers but we don’t know the yield: > predictions = predict(RF_model, data=Test)$predictions > predicted_Test = data.frame(ID = row.names(Test), predicted_yield = predictions) The data frame predicted_Test now contains the IDs of the wheat plants together with their predicted yield: > head(predicted_Test) ID predicted_yield ID_201 593.6063 ID_202 596.8615 ID_203 591.3695 ID_204 589.3909 ID_205 599.5155 ID_206 608.1031 Variable Selection with Random Forests A different approach to analysing such a data set would be to find out which variables are most important to predict the response. In this case, the question would be which genomic markers are most important to predict the yield. Also this can be done with random forests! If we tackle such a task, we don’t need a training and a test data set. We can simply use the entire data set SNPdata and see which of the variables are the most important ones. But before we do that, we should again determine the optimal number of trees using the optRF package. Since we are insterested in calculating the variable importance, we use the function opt_importance: > set.seed(123) > optRF_result = opt_importance(y=SNPdata[,1], + X=SNPdata[,-1]) Recommended number of trees: 40000 One can see that the optimal number of trees is now higher than it was for predictions. This is actually often the case. However, with this number of trees, we can now use the ranger function to calculate the importance of the variables. Therefore, we use the ranger function as before but we change the number of trees in the num.trees argument to 40,000 and we set the importance argument to “permutation” (other options are “impurity” and “impurity_corrected”).  > set.seed(123) > RF_model = ranger(y=SNPdata[,1], x=SNPdata[,-1], + write.forest = TRUE, num.trees = 40000, + importance="permutation") > D_VI = data.frame(variable = names(SNPdata)[-1], + importance = RF_model$variable.importance) > D_VI = D_VI[order(D_VI$importance, decreasing=TRUE),] The data frame D_VI now contains all the variables, thus, all the genomic markers, and next to it, their importance. Also, we have directly ordered this data frame so that the most important markers are on the top and the least important markers are at the bottom of this data frame. Which means that we can have a look at the most important variables using the head function: > head(D_VI) variable importance SNP_0020 45.75302 SNP_0004 38.65594 SNP_0019 36.81254 SNP_0050 34.56292 SNP_0033 30.47347 SNP_0043 28.54312 And that’s it! We have used random forest to make predictions and to estimate the most important variables in a data set. Furthermore, we have optimised random forest using the optRF package! Why Do We Need Optimisation? Now that we’ve seen how easy it is to use random forest and how quickly it can be optimised, it’s time to take a closer look at what’s happening behind the scenes. Specifically, we’ll explore how random forest works and why the results might change from one run to another. To do this, we’ll use random forest to calculate the importance of each genomic marker but instead of optimising the number of trees beforehand, we’ll stick with the default settings in the ranger function. By default, ranger uses 500 decision trees. Let’s try it out: > set.seed(123) > RF_model = ranger(y=SNPdata[,1], x=SNPdata[,-1], + write.forest = TRUE, importance="permutation") > D_VI = data.frame(variable = names(SNPdata)[-1], + importance = RF_model$variable.importance) > D_VI = D_VI[order(D_VI$importance, decreasing=TRUE),] > head(D_VI) variable importance SNP_0020 80.22909 SNP_0019 60.37387 SNP_0043 50.52367 SNP_0005 43.47999 SNP_0034 38.52494 SNP_0015 34.88654 As expected, everything runs smoothly — and quickly! In fact, this run was significantly faster than when we previously used 40,000 trees. But what happens if we run the exact same code again but this time with a different seed? > set.seed(321) > RF_model2 = ranger(y=SNPdata[,1], x=SNPdata[,-1], + write.forest = TRUE, importance="permutation") > D_VI2 = data.frame(variable = names(SNPdata)[-1], + importance = RF_model2$variable.importance) > D_VI2 = D_VI2[order(D_VI2$importance, decreasing=TRUE),] > head(D_VI2) variable importance SNP_0050 60.64051 SNP_0043 58.59175 SNP_0033 52.15701 SNP_0020 51.10561 SNP_0015 34.86162 SNP_0019 34.21317 Once again, everything appears to work fine but take a closer look at the results. In the first run, SNP_0020 had the highest importance score at 80.23, but in the second run, SNP_0050 takes the top spot and SNP_0020 drops to the fourth place with a much lower importance score of 51.11. That’s a significant shift! So what changed? The answer lies in something called non-determinism. Random forest, as the name suggests, involves a lot of randomness: it randomly selects data samples and subsets of variables at various points during training. This randomness helps prevent overfitting but it also means that results can vary slightly each time you run the algorithm — even with the exact same data set. That’s where the set.seed() function comes in. It acts like a bookmark in a shuffled deck of cards. By setting the same seed, you ensure that the random choices made by the algorithm follow the same sequence every time you run the code. But when you change the seed, you’re effectively changing the random path the algorithm follows. That’s why, in our example, the most important genomic markers came out differently in each run. This behavior — where the same process can yield different results due to internal randomness — is a classic example of non-determinism in machine learning. Taming the Randomness in Random Forests As we just saw, random forest models can produce slightly different results every time you run them even when using the same data due to the algorithm’s built-in randomness. So, how can we reduce this randomness and make our results more stable? One of the simplest and most effective ways is to increase the number of trees. Each tree in a random forest is trained on a random subset of the data and variables, so the more trees we add, the better the model can “average out” the noise caused by individual trees. Think of it like asking 10 people for their opinion versus asking 1,000 — you’re more likely to get a reliable answer from the larger group. With more trees, the model’s predictions and variable importance rankings tend to become more stable and reproducible even without setting a specific seed. In other words, adding more trees helps to tame the randomness. However, there’s a catch. More trees also mean more computation time. Training a random forest with 500 trees might take a few seconds but training one with 40,000 trees could take several minutes or more, depending on the size of your data set and your computer’s performance. However, the relationship between the stability and the computation time of random forest is non-linear. While going from 500 to 1,000 trees can significantly improve stability, going from 5,000 to 10,000 trees might only provide a tiny improvement in stability while doubling the computation time. At some point, you hit a plateau where adding more trees gives diminishing returns — you pay more in computation time but gain very little in stability. That’s why it’s essential to find the right balance: Enough trees to ensure stable results but not so many that your analysis becomes unnecessarily slow. And this is exactly what the optRF package does: it analyses the relationship between the stability and the number of trees in random forests and uses this relationship to determine the optimal number of trees that leads to stable results and beyond which adding more trees would unnecessarily increase the computation time. Above, we have already used the opt_importance function and saved the results as optRF_result. This object contains the information about the optimal number of trees but it also contains information about the relationship between the stability and the number of trees. Using the plot_stability function, we can visualise this relationship. Therefore, we have to insert the name of the optRF object, which measure we are interested in (here, we are interested in the “importance”), the interval we want to visualise on the X axis, and if the recommended number of trees should be added: > plot_stability(optRF_result, measure="importance", + from=0, to=50000, add_recommendation=FALSE) The output of the plot_stability function visualises the stability of random forest depending on the number of decision trees This plot clearly shows the non-linear relationship between stability and the number of trees. With 500 trees, random forest only leads to a stability of around 0.2 which explains why the results changed drastically when repeating random forest after setting a different seed. With the recommended 40,000 trees, however, the stability is near 1 (which indicates a perfect stability). Adding more than 40,000 trees would get the stability further to 1 but this increase would be only very small while the computation time would further increase. That is why 40,000 trees indicate the optimal number of trees for this data set. The Takeaway: Optimise Random Forest to Get the Most of It Random forest is a powerful ally for anyone working with data — whether you’re a researcher, analyst, student, or data scientist. It’s easy to use, remarkably flexible, and highly effective across a wide range of applications. But like any tool, using it well means understanding what’s happening under the hood. In this post, we’ve uncovered one of its hidden quirks: The randomness that makes it strong can also make it unstable if not carefully managed. Fortunately, with the optRF package, we can strike the perfect balance between stability and performance, ensuring we get reliable results without wasting computational resources. Whether you’re working in genomics, medicine, economics, agriculture, or any other data-rich field, mastering this balance will help you make smarter, more confident decisions based on your data. The post How to Set the Number of Trees in Random Forest appeared first on Towards Data Science.

Rejected by Museums Around the World, This New Art Exhibition Explores the Historical Roots of the Term ‘Homosexual’ “The First Homosexuals: The Birth of a New Identity, 1869-1939” is a sprawling collection of more than 300 works at Chicago’s Wrightwood 659 gallery An 1890 photo by Alice Austen titled The Darned Club Collection of Historic Richmond Town / Wrightwood 659 In 1868, the Hungarian writer and activist Karl Maria Kertbeny coined the terms “homosexual” and “heterosexual” in a letter to his friend, the pioneering sexologist Karl Heinrich Ulrichs. Kertbeny was arguing against a German anti-sodomy law that made sexual contact between members of the same gender punishable by up to four years in prison. He reasoned that humans had innate desires—some homosexual, some heterosexual—that could not be regulated by the state. Although Kertbeny had just used the terms for what scholars believe is the first time, the language was already charged with the same imprecision that exists today. An expansive label like “homosexual” could describe actions; desires; and, crucially, an entire identity. The artistic and social “sea change” that accompanied the birth of the term “homosexual” is the subject of “The First Homosexuals: The Birth of a New Identity, 1869-1939,” a sprawling, ambitious exhibition at the Wrightwood 659 gallery in Chicago’s Lincoln Park neighborhood. It is on view until July 26.The scale and scope of the exhibition is staggering. It gathers more than 300 works by 125-plus artists from 40 countries, on loan from private collections and major institutions like the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Musée d’Orsay. “It is the kind of exhibition that a massive institution like the Met regularly pulls off,” curator Jonathan D. Katz, an art historian at the University of Pennsylvania, tells the Chicago Sun-Times’ Courtney Kueppers. “But for a small, fairly new institution like Wrightwood 659 to pull off, [it] is kind of extraordinary.” “Before the Binary,” the first of eight sections in the exhibition, begins decades before Kertbeny’s letter. Its focus is on longstanding cultural, sexual and romantic practices that modern language occludes. Dance to the Berdash is an 1835-1837 oil painting by George Catlin, a 19th-century artist known for his paintings of Indigenous life and the American frontier. It depicts a real feast Catlin witnessed in which members of the Sac and Fox tribe paid tribute to a Two-Spirit leader, a person who was born male but who dressed, performed and lived as a woman. Non-Indigenous observers applied the term “berdache,” now considered derogatory, to identities and practices they considered foreign. Catlin’s painting depicts what language could not capture. Dance to the Berdash, George Catlin, 1835-1837 Smithsonian American Art Museum “Art can tell this story uniquely well,” Katz says in a statement. “While written narratives must necessarily use specialized words to describe ideas, visual imagery is more elastic, allowing for coincident layers of meaning.” More modern works by well-known artists like Jean Cocteau, the Lumière Brothers, Gustave Moreau, John Singer Sargent, Egon Schiele and Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec also convey those nuances with tact across the seven other sections of the exhibition. In “Portraits,” Katz and associate curator Johnny Willis assemble a 1907 portrait of Gertrude Stein, the only full-size portrait of Oscar Wilde painted in his lifetime and Thomas Eakins’ celebrated oil portrait of Walt Whitman. Some portraits explore sexuality more overtly than others, but all can be read in the spirit of the exhibition. Where do actions become identity? Do modern audiences have the right to retroactively apply labels to celebrated past figures who may have never embraced them? Another section of the show explores relationships through the photography of Alice Austen, a Victorian-era photographer in New York City who trained her lens on women’s lives. Still others examine how nude portraits have shifted with changing understandings of sexuality and how same-sex desire converged with colonialism and resistance. Gertrude Stein, Félix Vallotton, 1907 The Baltimore Museum of Art / Mitro Hood / Wrightwood 569 Wrightwood 659’s ability to land an exhibition like “The First Homosexuals” is in part due to its controversial subject matter. “Queer art is the third rail of the art realm,” Katz tells Block Club Chicago’s Web Behrens. “One very highly placed museum director told me, ‘This is exactly the exhibition I want to show, and therefore exactly the exhibition I can’t.’” Katz estimates that between 80 and 90 percent of the museums and art collectors he asked to contribute art to the exhibition rejected his requests, per Fast Company’s Grace Snelling. Later, nearly all of the museums Katz approached to host the multimillion dollar exhibition declined, even when he offered it to them for free, the Sun-Times reports. Besides Wrightwood 659, the only museum to express interest was the Kunstmuseum Basel in Switzerland, which is in talks to bring part of the show to Art Basel 2026. Despite enduring prejudice toward queer art, the exhibition at Wrightwood 659 has been a roaring success, with the gallery selling more advance tickets to it than any other show in its seven-year history. The final piece in the exhibition is an archway full of photographs of the Nazis burning thousands of books at Berlin’s Institute for Sexual Science, the first sexology research center in the world, in 1933. “The idea that everything that flowers over the course of the exhibition can so quickly be destroyed, is, of course, a metaphor for where we are now,” Katz tells Fast Company. While Kertbeny’s terms became twisted into means of isolating “homosexuals” from the rest of the population, as the persecution and mass murder of queer people during World War II exemplifies on a horrific scale, the exhibition strikes a unified note about belonging, even in the midst of confusion and fear. “We wanted to show how art offered numerous positions along that spectrum, positions that literally had no words to describe them,” Katz tells Block Club. “Art could figure what language could not.” “The First Homosexuals: The Birth of a New Identity, 1869-1939” is on view at the Wrightwood 659 in Chicago through July 26. Get the latest stories in your inbox every weekday.

A new art exhibition in Chicago uses more than 300 works of art to trace the historical origins of the word “homosexual,” mapping how it’s shaped our modern perception of queer identity. According to its lead curator, museums around the world have refused to show the exhibition due to the current political climate—even when it’s offered to them for free. The exhibition, titled The First Homosexuals: The Birth of a New Identity, 1869-1939, is currently on view at the Wrightwood 659 museum in Chicago through July 26. It’s the first time that the exhibition—a passion project of over eight years for lead curator Jonathan D. Katz—has been shown in its entirety. Installation view of The First Homosexuals: The Birth of a New Identity, 1869-1939, at Wrightwood 659, 2025. [Photo:Daniel Eggert/@DesigningDan] Through sculptures, paintings, prints, and other media from the late 19th and early 20th centuries, it explores early, oft-overlooked expressions of queer culture. Further, it examines how the coining of the term “homosexual” created a binary understanding of sexuality that we’re still grappling with today. The First Homosexuals sold more advance tickets than any other show since the Wrightwood 659 opened in 2018. But Katz says that after pitching the exhibition to many other museums, he’s been faced with one rejection after another.  Marie Laurencin, Le bal élégant or La danse à la campagne (The Elegant Ball, or The Country Dance), 1913, Oil on canvas, 112 x 144 cm, Musée Marie Laurencin, Tokyo. [Image: courtesy Wrightwood 659] A career in queer studies  Katz, who is a professor of queer art history at the University of Pennsylvania, began his career in queer studies during the Reagan administration. “When I started, my field was just being born,” Katz wrote in a biography for Northwestern University, where he received his PhD. “Reagan was in office, AIDS was being instrumentalized by the Right to justify the most odious forms of discrimination, and I had been kicked out of the University of Chicago (among other universities) for pursuing the relationship between art and sexuality.” In the decades since, Katz has gone on to teach queer studies at several different universities, including Yale, and cocurated a queer exhibition called Hide/Seek Difference and Desire in American Portraiture at Smithsonian’s National Portrait Gallery. Katz’s new exhibition is inspired by a question that’s followed him throughout his years of research.  “The minute you go outside of Europe and its colonies, questions of sexual difference assume a completely different meaning—which is to say that, very often, there’s absolutely no issue associated with same-sex sexuality, and it’s often understood as part of a continuum of sexualities,” Katz says. “I was interested, therefore, in trying to decenter the assumptions that we have about sexuality by reference to other cultural norms. That’s what motivated this exhibition, as well as a careful investigation of what, literally, the earliest representations look like.” The first use of the word “homosexual” Katz’s curiosity led him back to what’s believed to be the first-ever use of the word “homosexual,” found in a letter exchange between two queer activists, Karl Heinrich Ulrichs and Karl-Maria Kertbeny, in 1868. 1868 Letter. National Széchényi Library, Manuscript Collection. [Image: courtesy Wrightwood 659] In the letters, Kertbeny takes issue with Ulrichs’s relegation of queer individuals to its own class of people (or a “third sex.”). Instead, Kertbeny argued, everyone has the capacity for both “homosexual” and “heterosexual” desire. “What’s striking is that we use Kertbeny’s language [today], but we have unfortunately held fast to Ulrichs’ deeply minoritizing identity category,” Katz says. Andreas Andersen, Interior with Hendrik Andersen and John Briggs Potter in Florence,, 1894, Oil on canvas, 128.5 x 160 cm. Under licence from MiC – Direzione Musei Statali della Città di Roma – Photographic Archive; by kind permission of the National Museums Directorate of the City of Rome – Hendrik Christian Andersen Museum. [Image: courtesy Wrightwood 659] Both before and after Kertbeny and Ulrichs’s debate, queer sexuality existed on a spectrum—and it was captured by countless artists. The First Homosexuals includes works by 125 of them, from well-known artists like Jean Cocteau and the Lumière Brothers to lesser-known creatives like Jacques-Émile Blanche. They were pulled from an extensive list of sources, including both private collectors and institutions like MOMA.  Works include an 1820s depiction of men dressed as women on the streets of Lima, Peru; a series of scrolls from Japan in 1850 exploring the sexual education of a young man, who’s shown sleeping with both men and women in a variety of positions; and an 1891 photograph showing four women in a romantic embrace. The exhibition is divided into eight sections, each dedicated to peeling back a layer of a story that’s largely gone untold in the mainstream.  Alice Austen, The Darned Club, 1891, Original glass plate negative, 4 x 5 in, Collection of Historic Richmond Town. [Image: courtesy Wrightwood 659] The final portion of the exhibition is an archway wallpapered with photos of Nazis burning books at the Institute for Sexual Research, the world’s first queer rights organization. It’s a dark closing note that reminds viewers of the many archives of queer history that have been purposefully and violently hidden. “The idea that everything that flowers over the course of the exhibition can so quickly be destroyed, is, of course, a metaphor for where we are now,” Katz says. Since the exhibition opened on May 2, audience reactions have been striking. “It’s been profound,” Katz says. “Lots of emotion, tears, real delight, and a sense of a robbed history that’s being restored.” Elisàr von Kupffer, La danza, 1918, Oil on canvas with painted frame, 197 x 99 cm (framed). [Image: © Municipality of Minusio/Centro Elisarion, Claudio Berger (photo)/courtesy Wrightwood 659] A “terrible sign” for museums For now, though, that history might only be available to a select few.  When Katz first began outreach for collecting the art to be included in The First Homosexuals six years ago, he says 80 to 90% of his requests to museums and collectors were rejected—the highest rate of rejection he’s ever encountered. “There were a number of pieces that didn’t come because when you mount an exhibition about the first homosexuals, you know right going in that there are going to be places that just will not want to play with you,” Katz says. “And that was indeed the case.” Ida Matton, La Confidence (The Secret), 1902, Plaster, 65 x 56 cm, Photo: Joel Bergroth/Hälsinglands Museum. [Image: courtesy Wrightwood 659] Since then, rejections have continued to plague the exhibition. Katz has been pitching the finished show to museums around the world for nearly four years, in some cases even offering the exhibition for free despite its multimillion-dollar valuation, he told the Chicago Sun-Times. So far, he’s received near-universal rejections, with the exception of the Kunstmuseum Basel in Switzerland, which is currently in talks with Katz to display part of the exhibition at Art Basel 2026. Time and time again, Katz has received the same standard rejection notices from over 100 museums, including the Tate Britain. (The Tate did not respond to a request for comment by publication) Saturnino Herrán, Nuestros dioses antiguos, 1916, Oil on canvas, 101 x 112 cm, Colección Andrés Blaisten, México. [Image: courtesy Wrightwood 659] “I wish I knew more—I just get the rejection letters,” Katz says. “What I hear is, generally, ‘It doesn’t fit our programming,’ or ‘We’re fully scheduled,’ or some typical excuse.” But one director of a major museum, whose name Katz declined to share, did choose to elaborate further. “They said to me, ‘It’s exactly the kind of exhibition I want to show, and therefore it’s the exhibition I can’t show.” In several cases, Katz adds, the initial reception of the proposal was very promising, but it was ultimately turned down, leading him to wonder whether the museums’ boards were issuing the final “no.” In part, Katz attributes this reaction to a “hangover” from photographer Robert Mapplethorpe’s 1988 exhibition The Perfect Moment, which was cancelled by the Corcoran Gallery of Art in Washington, D.C., after conservative leaders heavily criticized the exhibition for containing homoerotic content. In the midst of the Reagan presidency, federal funding for the arts had become a hot-button issue, especially as it pertained to work that right-wing pundits labeled indecent.  It’s a period in history that feels like an uneasy echo of the arts scene today, as the Trump administration has moved to dismantle funding for local museums and libraries, canceled National Endowment for the Humanities grants, and blocked federal arts funding from going to artists who promote so-called “gender ideology,” a vague term that the government appears to be using as a dog whistle for any kind of gender expression outside of the binary. While Katz sent out most of his art loan requests and exhibition pitches before Trump’s election, he says this pattern of rejection is a familiar narrative that’s plagued the museum world for years. Tomioka Eisen, kuchi-e (frontispiece) with artist’s seal Shisen, c. 1906, Woodblock print, 23.2 x 31.6 cm, Tirey-van Lohuizen Collection. [Image: courtesy Wrightwood 659] “It may not be Trump’s horrific politics, but it is still horrific politics,” Katz says. “It’s the age old prejudicial politics that animates the museum world.” More generally, as a queer studies expert who faced repeated instances of institutional homophobia during the Reagan years, Katz feels that the current political attitude toward the queer community is “worse than a regression.” Tamara de Lempicka, Nu assis de profil, 1923, Oil on canvas, 81.2 x 54 cm, Döpfner Collection, Germany. [Image: Sotheby’s/courtesy Wrightwood 659] “Homophobia was actually bizarrely less naked under Reagan than it is under Trump,” Katz says. “They still hated us, but they talked about the idea of an inclusive culture. There’s no discourse of an inclusive culture now. There are clearly drawn borders and boundary lines in every sense of the word, and a profound sense of us against them.” For museums that are brave enough to speak out, Katz believes there could be an opportunity to build trust with new audiences by choosing to platform queer stories instead of silencing them. “I think that museums actually have a remarkable opportunity to build their audience and relevance if they seize it,” Katz says. “There is a large population that is not a veteran museum-going population that can become a veteran museum-going population by speaking to the social and political issues that haunt this country. That many museums try to avoid that desperately is a terrible sign. What museums need to do is frankly engage with it.”

Casa De Blas | © Hisao Suzuki Set on a hillside in Sevilla la Nueva, a town southwest of Madrid, Casa De Blas is a distilled expression of the architectural dialectic between weight and lightness, earth and sky. Designed in 2000 by Spanish architect Alberto Campo Baeza, the house is both an act of landscape intervention and a metaphysical construct, a spatial meditation on essential form and material logic. Casa De Blas Technical Information Architects1-3: Alberto Campo Baeza Location: Sevilla la Nueva, Madrid, Spain Area: 250 m2 | 2,690 Sq. Ft. Project Year: 2000 Photographs: © Hisao Suzuki This house aims to be a literal translation of the idea of the tectonic box upon the stereotomic box. Like a distillation of the most essential in architecture. Once again, more with less. – Alberto Campo Baeza Casa De Blas Photographs © Hisao Suzuki © Hisao Suzuki © Hisao Suzuki © Hisao Suzuki © Hisao Suzuki © Hisao Suzuki The Architecture of Duality: Ground and Sky Campo Baeza’s work consistently revolves around a search for architectural clarity. In Casa De Blas, this clarity manifests as two boxes: a grounded concrete volume that holds the domestic program and a glass pavilion above that elevates the act of looking. The house is not merely built on the landscape; it is in dialogue with it. The conceptual strategy of Casa De Blas is rooted in a tectonic-syntactic opposition between the stereotomic base and the tectonic roof. The lower portion consists of a robust concrete platform embedded in the earth like a carved podium. This base supports a lighter glass structure above, where steel elements define the enclosure with minimal mass. The house engages the site with careful restraint. Rather than dominate the hilltop, it accepts the slope and turns its attention to the northern view of the Sierra de Guadarrama. This orientation informs light and shadow’s spatial organization and phenomenological qualities. Inside the concrete base, the architecture follows a precise logic. A service band is located toward the rear, while primary living spaces occupy the front, facing the landscape. Square window openings, deeply set into the thick walls, frame views with the intentionality of a camera obscura. These apertures do not merely let in light; they shape perception, creating a sense of distance and inwardness. The Pavilion as Apparatus for Contemplation Above this grounded core, the transparent upper volume serves as a lookout. Reached from the interior by ascending stairs, the glass box sits lightly on the podium, offering a counterpoint to the cave-like enclosure below. There is no visible carpentry, just frameless glazing and a white steel canopy, which shades the upper level while preserving its airy, open quality. The north-facing glass stretches toward the edge, embracing the panoramic view. On the southern side, the volume recedes to create a shaded void, regulating solar gain. This sectional asymmetry allows the architecture to perform environmentally without compromising its compositional purity. Campo Baeza describes the house as a literal translation of the idea of a tectonic box upon a stereotomic box. The reference is not metaphorical but structural and spatial. The upper pavilion is not a symbol of transparency but a mechanism for perception. In this way, the house operates as a philosophical instrument as much as a dwelling. Casa De Blas Proportion and Compositional Rigour The power of the project lies in the spatial sequence from the heavy to the light, from the shaded to the luminous. The contrast between these two atmospheres creates a duality of experience: shelter and openness, introspection and projection. The structural order contributes to this sense of serenity. Steel supports are arranged in double symmetry, reinforcing the composition’s static quality. Nothing feels arbitrary. Every gesture is reduced to its essential nature. The palette is limited to concrete, glass, and steel, yet the result is rich in meaning. The interior is equally restrained, avoiding superfluous detailing. It is architecture as a frame, a backdrop for landscape and thought. Campo Baeza’s work here touches the territory of the poetic, not through expressionism but through control and abstraction. Casa De Blas Plans Concept | © Alberto Campo Baeza North Elevation | © Alberto Campo Baeza East Elevation | © Alberto Campo Baeza Upper Level | © Alberto Campo Baeza Floor Plan | © Alberto Campo Baeza Section | © Alberto Campo Baeza Casa De Blas Image Gallery About Alberto Campo Baeza Alberto Campo Baeza is a Spanish architect born in 1946 in Valladolid. Renowned for his minimalist and essentialist approach, he emphasizes the interplay of light, gravity, and proportion in his designs. His notable works include the Casa Turégano, Casa de Blas, and the Caja de Granada headquarters. Campo Baeza was a full-time design professor at the Escuela Técnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid (ETSAM) from 1986 until his retirement in 2017. He has received numerous accolades throughout his career, such as the RIBA International Fellowship and the Heinrich Tessenow Gold Medal, recognizing his contributions to contemporary architecture. Credits and Additional Notes Design Team: Alberto Campo Baeza, Alfonso González Gamo Structural Engineer: Julio Martínez Calzón, MC-2 Collaborators: Teresa Campos