• Get Inspired
  • Design Matters
  • Luxembourg Matters
  • About Me
Menu

Foundations & Facades

Design Thoughts
From the Edge
Of Luxembourg
Design - Property - Urban Spaces

Your Custom Text Here

Foundations & Facades

  • Get Inspired
  • Design Matters
  • Luxembourg Matters
  • About Me

Stucco: The Art of Plaster and a Little Bit of Showing Off

April 27, 2025 Helen Krauss

Stucco at its best: a little bit of showing off, a lot of patience, and a ceiling worth craning your neck for.

Walk through the older quarters of Luxembourg City, around Place Guillaume II or near the cathedral, and you’ll find façades quietly flexing their decorative muscles. Look up. Window frames edged with floral swirls, doorways crowned with plaster curls. Stucco. Still there. Still holding the line between function and a bit of drama.

There’s something about stucco that feels almost too elegant for its own good. Swirling rosettes, leafy borders, the occasional cherub balancing awkwardly on a ribbon of scrollwork. All of it carefully modeled from what is, if we’re honest, just an upgraded mix of lime, sand, and water.

But stucco has never been just decoration. It’s status. It’s ambition. It’s a way of saying look at me, but with a little more poetry than simply shouting.

So, where does stucco actually come from?

Like so many design ideas that refuse to die quietly, stucco has its roots in the ancient Mediterranean. The Greeks and Romans were already smoothing out walls with lime-based plaster, sometimes polished until it almost looked like marble. Did they know they were starting a trend that would last a couple of millennia? Probably not. But here we are.

That early plasterwork was clean, simple, structural. But the version of stucco we tend to think of the swirling acanthus leaves, the ceiling medallions, the theatrical flourishes, arrived much later, and with considerably more flair.

Cue the Renaissance and Baroque periods. Suddenly, walls and ceilings weren’t just surfaces. They were stages. And stucco was the star performer.

In Italy, Germany, Austria, and France, stucco turned interiors into three-dimensional canvases. Forget plain white walls, here were angels, shells, garlands, mythological scenes practically somersaulting out of the architecture. Baroque stucco didn’t know how to do subtle. But it did know how to impress.

Later, when the Neoclassical period took a deep breath and calmed itself down, stucco stayed on. Less gymnastic cherubs, more dignified panels and quiet friezes. Still beautiful. Just with better self-restraint.

What is stucco actually made of?

The recipe hasn’t changed much. Traditional stucco is lime, sand, and water, sometimes with marble dust added for extra smoothness. In Northern Europe, gypsum-based plasters joined the mix, especially for interiors where people were a little less patient about waiting for things to dry.

But as always, it’s not just about the material. It’s about the hands that shape it. Good stucco takes time. Layer after layer, each one needing to set before the next can go on. Reliefs modeled by hand or pressed from molds, depending on the client’s budget and the craftsman’s mood.

The stuccatori’s toolkit hasn’t changed much either. Trowels, spatulas, templates — and the one thing you can’t fake: patience. Watch someone working real stucco, and you’re looking at the same movements their predecessors made when decorating palaces three hundred years ago. A slow, careful choreography that hasn’t needed much updating.

So - is stucco still around, or did we leave it behind with powdered wigs?

Actually… yes, it’s still here. And it might just be having a moment.

After decades of flat white walls and bare-bones minimalism, ornamentation is creeping back in. Ceiling roses, cornices, decorative plaster panels, they’re showing up again in high-end interiors. But not just there. Younger designers are flirting with texture and detail, mixing clean lines with bits of historic bravado. A stucco medallion over a sleek concrete wall? Absolutely. A conversation between centuries.

Because here’s the thing about stucco: it doesn’t need to shout. It just sits there quietly, waiting for you to notice. It invites you to slow down. To look a little closer.

And in a world where everything feels like it’s designed to scroll past at high speed, that feels almost revolutionary.

The next time you’re wandering Luxembourg’s historic center or any other place where the past hasn’t been completely plastered over: glance up. Those medallions, those moldings? They’re more than just decoration. They’re a handshake across time.

It is a conversation between past and present, between craftspeople separated by centuries but united by the same materials, techniques, and desire to transform the everyday into something worth looking at twice.

And they’re still standing.

written by Helen M. Krauss


In Get Inspired Tags Stucco
Comment

Human Storage: A Luxembourg Housing Story (Part IV)

April 24, 2025 Helen Krauss
Split watercolour illustration showing the glossy promise of “Premium Living in Luxembourg” with champagne glasses, contrasted with the reality of overcrowded colocation houses, messy parking, and overflowing bins.

Why pay Champagne prices for a living experience that feels more like warm flat beer in a plastic cup!

“Premium living in Luxembourg”?

The phrase sounds lovely until your next-door neighbour turns their house into a micro-hostel and your peaceful Sunday becomes a tour of suitcase traffic and overflowing bins.

This four-part series takes a closer look at how Luxembourg’s growing room rental market is reshaping our neighbourhoods - and what it means for the quality of life and the future of community life.

1. Livability for Sale

In planning debates, it’s the mantra you hear again and again: density is good. And to be fair, there’s truth in that.

Density supports bakeries, cafés, bus lines, local shops. It’s what allows a place to function without everyone needing to drive ten kilometres for a litre of milk. Done right, density means walkable streets, vibrant squares, chance encounters. Done right, it’s beautiful.

But there’s a thin - very thin - line between density and plain old overcrowding.

Density is what happens when you plan for people. Overcrowding is what happens when you just count them.

Good density comes with infrastructure. It thinks about mobility, waste, water systems, sound insulation. It adds public space as it adds people.

Overcrowding, on the other hand, is what happens when your only real plan is to squeeze as many bodies as possible into spaces never meant to hold them, and hope for the best.

And this is exactly where the colocation / Café Zemmeren model crosses the line.

When a single-family house morphs into a pseudo-hostel, none of the things that make good density work are actually in place:

• No allocated parking for the extra vehicles.

• No soundproofing between rooms.

• No communal kitchens designed to serve ten people.

• No shared agreements, no community-building mechanisms, no neighbours you might recognise three months from now.

The house still looks like a family home from the outside.

But functionally? It’s human storage.

And here’s the thing about storage: you don’t tend to ask the boxes how they’re getting along.

When places become transactional - a bed, a bin, a bathroom slot - the social fabric frays fast. Because why would anyone invest in relationships, in neighbourhoods, in shared responsibility, if they’re gone before the next lease cycle?

But the real kicker is that the logic of real estate is relentless:

• Why stop at six renters if no one is counting?

• Why not seven? Eight?

• Why not double occupancy discounts and a bunk bed special?

Call it flexible living if you want. But the math doesn’t lie.

Densification, when done well, supports community.

But this isn’t densification. It’s extraction.

And no one ever fell in love with a town because of how many people they could pack into one house.

2. Why This Matters (And Why People Are Leaving) or Why Pay Champagne Prices to Live Next Door to a Hostel?

It’s easy to dismiss these things as minor irritations. A bit of extra noise, some parking hassle, the occasional overflowing bin. Nothing serious. Certainly not the stuff of housing policy debates.

Until, of course, you start asking the uncomfortable question:

Why would anyone pay over a million euros to live next to this?

Why spend the better part of your working life financing a home, only to find that the house attached to yours has quietly morphed into what’s essentially a budget hostel with worse management?

Because here’s the thing:

People will pay high prices for beautiful places.

People will pay high prices for well-functioning places.

But very few are happy to pay top euro for what feels like student dorm conditions, minus the campus nostalgia.

And once that perception takes hold, it doesn’t just sit quietly in the corner. It spreads.

The local reputation suffers. The property values follow. And the very landlords who were so eager to squeeze every last drop of rent out of the neighbourhood might one day find themselves struggling to sell, because even desperate tenants eventually get tired of queueing for the bathroom.

Meanwhile, many others are already voting with their feet.

Across the border in France, Germany, Belgium, you’ll find people who once considered themselves part of Luxembourg’s long-term story , until they started wondering why they were paying Champagne prices for a living experience that felt more like warm flat beer in a plastic cup.

It’s not just about affordability. It’s about livability.

Because here’s the harder truth:

Livability isn’t something you can fake with a glossy property brochure. It’s not achieved through floorplans or square metre calculations. It comes from a sense of place. From continuity. From people who know each other, stay long enough to care, and maybe even argue about the hedge height for a decade or two.

Luxembourg has long positioned itself as a place of stability, safety, and quality - not just in finance, but in daily life.

But these things don’t maintain themselves. They require care. They require boundaries.

Because once livability goes, it doesn’t just quietly sneak away. It packs up, moves across the border, and takes your future tax base with it!

3. The Hostel Next Door Might Be Legal, But Is It What We Want?

The thing about bad models is that they spread fast. Especially when they’re profitable. And by the time a community realises what’s happening, the damage is usually well underway and hard to reverse.

The Colocation/Café Zemmeren model thrives in exactly this kind of vacuum:

Where legislation lags.

Where enforcement is timid.

Where responsibility gets passed around like an unwanted side dish at a family dinner: national law blaming local communes, communes blaming national law, and everyone quietly hoping the neighbours don’t make too much noise.

Meanwhile, the ads stay online. The room rentals continue. The “flexible living” narrative rolls on undisturbed.

And with every house that flips from home to business model, the neighbourhood loses just a little more of what once made it worth living in.

But It doesn’t have to be this way.

This isn’t about banning colocation. It’s not about demonising shared living. It’s about setting limits, the kind that protect both tenants and neighbours, that make room for people without turning living spaces into bunk-bed profit zones.

Other places have done it. Even within Luxembourg, a few communes are starting to wake up, realising that waiting until the street is already full of frustration (and illegally parked vehicles) is not a housing strategy.

But too often, action only comes after the complaints pile up. After the character of a neighbourhood has already been hollowed out. After the decent, long-term renters have quietly left, taking their community spirit, their tax returns, and their recycling habits with them.

The choice is still there. But the window is closing.

And the real question Luxembourg should be asking itself is simple:

Do we want homes, or just beds for rent?

Do we want communities, or crowd control?

Because once the hostel vibe takes over, it’s hard to put the genie back in the bottle. And even harder to convince people to stay.

If you’d like to share your thoughts or personal experiences, I would be happy to hear from you.

written by Helen M. Krauss

Comment

Human Storage: A Luxembourg Housing Story (Part III):

April 24, 2025 Helen Krauss
Watercolour illustration of a commune employee sitting at a desk with their hands tied, under a sign reading “Commune” — symbolizing the lack of legal tools and communal helplessness in regulating shared living spaces in Luxembourg.

“Our hands are tied”.

How Communes Lost Control of The Rental Game

This four-part series takes a closer look at how Luxembourg’s growing room rental market is reshaping our neighbourhoods, and what it means for the quality of life and the future of community life.

1. The Policy Gap: Regulate the Hedge, Ignore the Hostel?

The interesting thing is: on paper, the problem shouldn’t exist at all.

Luxembourg has rules. There’s a law. There are regulations. Minimum square metres per person, hygiene standards, safety requirements, registration obligations. All nicely written down, neatly printed, properly filed.

But here’s the catch: laws only work when someone checks.

And if no one’s particularly eager to enforce those rules, if the inspection capacity of the commune consists of one overworked staff member and an excel list gathering dust, then those beautiful regulations remain exactly where they started: on paper.

Meanwhile, landlords play the game with the creativity of a tax consultant in Panama.

• Register the house as a single-family home (because technically, it is).

• Omit the small detail about the six rooms rented separately (because why make life complicated?).

• Let the tenants work out their own pecking order for the bathroom queue.

• Count on the commune not asking too many questions.

And very often, the commune doesn’t.

Not because the mayors and councils want to see their villages hollowed out into rotating-door rental machines. But because the tools to prevent it are blunt, the political appetite for conflict is low, and the preferred strategy is “if no one complains, maybe it’s not happening.”

It’s a stunning approach, really - like refusing to check smoke alarms because the building hasn’t caught fire yet.

Even in communes where concern exists, where officials quietly admit that this model could wreck the character of their neighbourhoods, the fallback excuse is almost always the same:

“Our hands are tied.”

And to be fair, they’re not entirely wrong. The national law does leave some generous grey zones. Unless a property crosses into an official “change of use”, say, converting into classified multi-unit housing, enforcement gets tricky. Add to that the fact that tenants themselves may be reluctant to complain (especially if they’re unsure of their rights or their status), and voilà: the perfect regulatory blind spot.

The result? Most communes operate in reactive mode. Wait for the neighbours to get angry. Hope for the best. Respond when the noise gets too loud - literally and politically.

No proactive caps on rentable rooms per property. No serious checks on parking feasibility. No regular spot inspections to see what’s really happening behind the neatly painted façades.

It’s not about being against colocation.

It’s about being against chaos.

Because if the commune can tell you exactly how high your fence should be and what colour your shutters mustn’t be, surely it should be able to tell you how many unrelated people are allowed to share a bathroom in house intended to be a one-family home.

2. But It’s Affordable Housing! (Or Is It?)

Now, to be fair, there’s always that one argument:

“But isn’t this exactly what we need right now? Affordable housing! Shared living! A flexible solution for people who can’t afford Luxembourg’s insane rental prices!”

It’s a seductive line. It sounds caring. Progressive. Almost noble.

But let’s take a moment to unpack the reality behind the buzzwords.

Because in practice, the “colocation / Cafe zemmeren model” rarely delivers anything resembling affordability, and certainly not dignity. These aren’t friendly flatshares with agreed house rules and communal fondue nights.

They’re overcrowded rooms rented out at eye-watering prices to whoever is desperate enough to say yes.

The going rate? Somewhere between €800 and €1,200 per month. Per person. For a bedroom. Sometimes shared, sometimes with just enough space for a mattress and a suitcase. Sometimes with a mini fridge if you’re lucky, sometimes with the privilege of queueing for the one bathroom alongside seven others.

By the time the so-called “all-inclusive service charges” are tacked on, i.e. electricity, cleaning (if any), Wi-Fi - many tenants end up paying not far off what they could get a small apartment for across the border.

And over there, the toilet is likely to be your own.

Still, the rooms get filled. Not because they’re affordable. But because Luxembourg’s housing market leaves a lot of people with no real choice.

• Temporary workers.

• Seasonal staff.

• People between jobs, between leases, between options.

• Those new to the country, still collecting the golden paperwork: work contract, three payslips, and that magical garantie bancaire.

It’s not affordable housing. It’s housing as last resort, wrapped in the glossy language of “flexibility.”

Let’s call it what it is: monetising the housing crisis.

Like all business models that rely on desperation, it works best when regulation is vague, oversight is absent, and the risk of anyone asking questions stays low.

Because real affordable housing requires structure. Safety. Oversight. Not just four walls and a price per square metre that makes your eyes water.

This? This is something else entirely.

Still curious? The story continues in [Part IV →]

If you’d like to share your thoughts or personal experiences, I would be happy to hear from you.

written by Helen M. Krauss

Comment

Human Storage. A Luxembourg Housing Story (Part II):

April 24, 2025 Helen Krauss
Watercolour illustration of a colocation house with overcrowded parking, overflowing bins, and a messy barbecue, contrasting with a neat neighbour’s home and tidy garden — visual commentary on Luxembourg’s shared living trend.

The hidden costs for the neighbourhood: More cars, more noise, more rubbish, less social cohesion, less security.

From Family Home to Human Storage: A Luxembourg Real Estate Journey.

This four-part series takes a closer look at how Luxembourg’s growing room rental market is reshaping our neighbourhoods - and what it means for the quality of life and the future of community life.

1. Good for the Landlord, Bad for the Neighbourhood

On paper, it’s brilliant. A landlord’s dream. Minimum effort, maximum return.

Why rent your lovely three-bedroom home to one family, when you could turn it into six individual income streams? Why settle for €3,000 a month when you could rake in €6,000 or more, without so much as a nod to insulation, parking, or the neighbours’ sanity?

It’s not difficult to see the attraction. Especially when the law doesn’t ask too many questions, and when the commune’s main strategy for managing the issue is hoping nobody calls to complain.

And so, the room-by-room rental model is cheerfully sold as flexible, modern, even socially responsible:

• It provides housing!

• It’s good for young people!

• It’s an efficient use of space!

All of which sounds terribly noble, until you actually visit one of these places.

Because here’s the uncomfortable truth: these aren’t happy, harmonious flat shares full of friends taking turns cooking organic lentil stews. They’re overcrowded bedrooms rented to whoever is desperate enough to take them. New arrivals. Seasonal workers. People between jobs. People between options. Sometimes two to a room, sharing a single bathroom with six, seven, eight others.

This isn’t a housing solution. It’s a business model that works best when the tenants can’t say no.

It’s also one of the few investment strategies where the neighbours end up paying the hidden costs:

The cars, because single-family houses were never designed to accommodate eight adults with vehicles. The noise, because ten people generate a bit more life than one family of four, even if they’re all relatively well-behaved. The rubbish, because more bodies mean more bins or, in many cases, rubbish bags neatly stacked next to the bins because they won’t all fit. And, of course, the slow vanishing of any real sense of who actually lives on your street.

It’s passive income. Very active nuisance.

The perfect business model, unless, of course, you’re the one trying to park your car, get a decent night’s sleep, or raise your children next door to it.

2. The Hidden Costs (for the Rest of Us)

Passive Income, Active Nuisance: Who Really Pays for the Colocation Boom?

It’s easy to get dazzled by the numbers. The landlord’s income doubles, maybe triples. The housing crisis looks - on paper - just a little bit solved. More people housed, fewer vacancies. What’s not to like?

Well… everything, if you happen to live anywhere near it.

Because while the spreadsheet looks beautiful, the street view tells a different story.

Parking? Good luck.

Single-family houses weren’t built with the expectation that six adults, or eight, or ten, would all arrive with their own vehicles. Add those cars to streets already struggling with limited parking, and you get what urban planners like to call “increased demand for shared mobility.”

In practice? Endless circling. Pavements blocked. Bin day turning into an obstacle course. Green spaces mysteriously paved over, all in the name of passive income.

Noise? Naturally.

One family of four makes the usual human sounds. Ten unrelated adults with unpredictable schedules, rotating in and out like flight crews on layover? That’s a different soundtrack altogether.
It’s not about bad behaviour, it’s just maths. Bodies make noise. Multiply the bodies, and the noise follows.

Waste and Infrastructure? Overloaded.

More bins. More rubbish. More strain on the water systems, sewerage, waste collection. And not much incentive, in many cases, for individual tenants to care whether the paper goes into the blue bag or the glass into the green one - why would they, if they might only be there for a couple of months and the bins are already full?

Safety? Optional.

Many of these setups dodge fire safety upgrades by simply not admitting what they really are. Officially, it’s one household. In practice, it’s six, maybe eight, depending on how many mattresses can be wedged in.
Fire exits? Sometimes blocked by bikes. Electrical circuits? Doing their best. Smoke detectors? Let’s not get bogged down in detail.

And perhaps worst of all: the quiet erosion of social fabric.

The neighbourly nod. The friendly wave across the street. The simple fact of knowing who actually lives around you. Because when tenants come and go like hotel guests, the sense of place goes with them. And once it’s gone, it’s hard to get back.

Colocation done well - thoughtfully, legally, with proper agreements and respect for the space - can be part of a healthy housing landscape.

But the profit-maximised version? The one that treats homes as revenue streams and neighbours as collateral damage?

That’s not urban living. That’s human storage.

Still curious? The story continues in [Part III →]

If you’d like to share your thoughts or personal experiences, I would be happy to hear from you.

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Urban Observations
Comment

Human Storage: A Luxembourg Housing Story (Part I)

April 24, 2025 Helen Krauss
Watercolour illustration of sardines packed into a tin labeled ‘Flexible Living,’ referencing the colocation housing model in Luxembourg.

The Sardine Tin Model of Luxembourg colocation.

How the “Room Rental” Boom is Reshaping Luxembourg

Luxembourg real estate promises premium living. But what happens when your neighbour’s family home quietly morphs into a sardine can for strangers?

This four-part series takes a closer look at how Luxembourg’s growing room rental market is reshaping our neighbourhoods - and what it means for the quality of life and the future of community life.

1. The New "Hostel" Next Door

In Luxembourg, we regulate the height of your garden fence to the millimetre, but how many strangers can share a bathroom before it qualifies as a public facility? The answer, apparently, is more flexible than you’d think.

Here’s the business plan:

Take a regular single-family home. Don’t bother with renovations (too costly). Skip the permits (too complicated). Simply cut it up on paper. Forget families. Forget long-term tenants. Instead, rent out each bedroom individually. Charge each occupant between €800 and €1,200 a month. Don’t worry about the parking - the street will absorb the cars somehow. Call it colocation.

Because nothing says neighbourly warmth quite like coming home to a house full of strangers who weren’t there yesterday and might not be there next week.

And no, this isn’t a theoretical scenario. It’s a business model. One that’s spreading through Luxembourg’s towns and villages faster than election season promises. Family home on Monday, micro-hostel by Friday.

If you think this is just a problem for the big city, think again. It's not limited to Berlin, Brussels, or Barcelona.

It's happening beyond Luxembourg City and Esch-Sur-Alzette (the second largest town in Luxembourg).

You'll also find it in Bettembourg, Dudelange, Remich, and even smaller villages close to Luxembourg City - places where you'd expect a bit of tranquility, unless, of course, the rental math says otherwise.

All the charm of small-town life, but with the parking situation of a festival campsite.

The logic is simple: when rental prices are high and regulations are vague, squeezing maximum profit out of every square metre becomes irresistible. Why rent your house to one family, when you can rent it by the slice?

Never mind the neighbours. Never mind the infrastructure. Never mind the question of what happens to a place when homes stop being homes and start becoming revenue streams.

Because here’s the thing: density alone doesn’t destroy a neighbourhood. But turning your street into a loosely supervised collection of bed factories? That just might.

2. What Is Colocation (And Why It’s Not What You Think)?

Let’s clear something up right away: not every shared flat is a “Café Zemmeren Model”. And not every colocation is a problem.

True flat shares - students renting together, friends co-living by choice, a couple subletting their spare room to make ends meet - are not what this is about. Those situations come with a shared contract, shared responsibility, and, most importantly, some kind of social glue. You know your flatmates. You share a kitchen, not just a Wi-Fi code. Maybe you even argue about the right way to load the dishwasher. That’s normal. That’s life.

The model we’re talking about here has very little to do with this idea of home-sharing.

It’s what happens when a landlord looks at a single-family house and sees not a home, but a spreadsheet.

The business plan is brutally efficient:

• Take a family house.

• Don’t split it into apartments - that would require permits.

• Keep the structure exactly as it is.

• Chop it up on paper instead: rent out each bedroom separately, sometimes even with double occupancy.

• Charge per head.

Congratulations! You’ve just unlocked the next level of passive income. Forget soundproofing, parking spaces, or neighbour relations. You don’t even need to know who’s living there next month, as long as the rent keeps landing in your account.

This isn’t co-living. It’s crowd-living. Sardine-style.

Calling this colocation is like calling a sardine can spacious studio living with fellow fish enthusiasts.

And here’s where the local flavour comes in: In Luxembourg, this model has a name with history “Café Zemmeren”. A nod to the old practice of renting out rooms above cafés, often in dismal conditions, to whoever was desperate enough to say yes. Hygiene optional, fire exits negotiable.

Today, the practice has simply moved upstairs, and out into the suburbs.

It’s not just a city issue. Even in those postcard villages where the shutters are freshly painted and the facades still whisper “respectability.” The maths works wherever the demand is high enough, and the oversight low enough.

Why rent your house once when you can rent it six times over?

Still curious? The story continues in [Part II →]

If you’d like to share your thoughts or personal experiences, I would be happy to hear from you.

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Urban Observations
Comment

Shared Living - or Human Storage?

April 24, 2025 Helen Krauss
Watercolour illustration of a sardine tin converted into a shared living space with bunk beds and several tenants inside. A bright yellow sign hangs on the outside reading “For Rent! Affordable Rooms! Flexibile Living! A  satirical take

Yes, “flexibile.” Not a typo - just truth in advertising. This housing model may bend the rules, the living standards, and occasionally your patience.

Sharing space can be a beautiful thing.

Flatshares. Co-living communities. Multi-generational homes. Done well, shared living creates connection, affordability, flexibility - and sometimes even friendship.

But what happens when sharing stops being about community and starts being about cramming as many bodies as possible into houses never designed to hold them?

In Luxembourg, this isn’t just a theoretical question. It’s called “Café Zemmeren” or “Colocation” - the quietly booming business model of renting out single-family homes room by room, often to six, eight, or more unrelated tenants. No structural changes. No additional parking. No real oversight.

The ads call it “flexible living” - or, in one particularly honest typo we spotted, “flexibile living.” Which feels oddly accurate, given how often the concept stretches definitions (and sometimes neighbourly goodwill) beyond recognition.

Good for landlords. Less so for neighbours, tenants, and the long-term livability of our towns and villages.

Because density doesn’t have to mean degradation. But when houses turn into bed factories, we all pay the price.

In my four-part series “Human Storage: A Luxembourg Housing Story,” I take a closer look at this trend - where it came from, why it’s thriving, and what it’s really costing us. Not just in rent, but in quality of life.

Read the full series here: Link to Part I

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Get Inspired Tags colocation Luxembourg shared living Luxembourg room rental Luxembourg Café Zemmeren overcrowded rentals housing crisis Luxembourg neighbourhood impact quality of life Luxembourg livability
Comment

The Golden Ratio: When Numbers Make Things Beautiful

April 22, 2025 Helen Krauss

Balanced by Numbers: A living room layout where the Golden Ratio quietly guides the eye and creates harmony.

Somewhere between chaos and control, between wild creativity and ruthless geometry, lies a number.

Roughly 1.618.

The Golden Ratio.

Φ. Phi. Divine proportion. Call it what you like, it’s the math behind why certain things just feel right.

The ancient Greeks knew it. Renaissance artists swore by it. Le Corbusier tried to standardize it. And even today, it keeps showing up in places where beauty happens quietly.

It’s there in sunflowers and seashells. In the Parthenon and the pyramids. In the spirals of galaxies and the curve of a nautilus shell. A strange, mathematical thread tying together nature, art, and design - a cosmic flex, if you will.

But let’s be honest: is the Golden Ratio always intentional?

Probably not.

Leonardo da Vinci may have known what he was doing. The sunflower almost certainly did not.

Yet there’s something undeniably satisfying about the way the Golden Ratio seems to stitch the world together. Not too symmetrical. Not too chaotic. Just balanced enough to keep things interesting.

I experienced this mathematical magic myself when redesigning my study last year. After weeks of frustration with a layout that never felt quite right, I applied the Golden Ratio to determine the ideal desk placement in relation to the window wall. The result was immediate: a sense of balance that had eluded me through dozens of other arrangements. What changed wasn't the furniture itself, but the mathematical relationship between the elements. That's the quiet power of proportion.

So How Do You Use It?

If you're working on a space, whether it’s choosing art for a wall, planning a bookshelf, or designing a facade, here’s the simplest Golden Ratio hack:

Divide the total length by 1.618.

The result? Your smaller, “golden” section. The leftover? The larger, “golden” complement.

Example:

• Have a 2-meter wide wall? 2 ÷ 1.618 ≈ 1.24 meters.

• That means your focal artwork could be around 1.24 meters wide, with the remaining space acting as natural breathing room.

It works for layouts, spacing, furniture placement, even table settings. Aywhere proportion matters more than you might think.

And here’s another easy trick:

The Golden Rectangle.

Draw a rectangle where the long side is 1.618 times the short side. Cut a square from it, and what’s left? Another Golden Rectangle. This self-repeating elegance is why the Golden Ratio shows up in classical architecture, Renaissance paintings, and occasionally, very good websites.

The ratio works elegantly for three-dimensional spaces too. When arranging furniture in a living room, try this: if your sofa is 2 meters long, place your coffee table approximately 1.24 meters away from the centre of your seating area (2 ÷ 1.618). This creates a conversation zone that feels neither cramped nor disconnected, just right for both intimacy and comfort. The same principle works for dining tables, reading nooks, and garden pathways.

Think of the Golden Ratio as nature's rhythm section: It creates a visual beat that feels neither rushed nor dragging, but perfectly timed. Like the satisfying pause between musical phrases or that perfect moment when a chef knows the dish needs nothing more added, the Golden Ratio is the point where adding or subtracting would only make things worse.

Golden Myths

It's worth noting that not every spiral in art history was consciously designed using the Golden Ratio. Many modern claims about its presence in famous works (like the Mona Lisa or the Great Pyramids) involve rather creative measurements and generous interpretations. Artists throughout history have used many compositional tools and the Golden Ratio being just one.

What matters isn't whether Leonardo was calculating 1.618 on his canvas, but that the proportional relationships that please the human eye often approximate this ratio, whether by mathematical intention or intuitive feeling. The most beautiful designs often arrive at similar proportional conclusions, regardless of their starting point.

So, Design, But Make It Divine

In architecture and interiors, the Golden Ratio is just one way to create proportions that feel… calm. Human. It guides where we place windows, how we shape doorways, even how we arrange furniture. It whispers: step back, this is the right amount of space between things.

It’s not about perfection. It’s about harmony.

A well-proportioned room doesn’t shout. It doesn’t need to. It makes you feel at ease without knowing why.

Proportions: The Quiet Power Move

When proportions are right, you don’t notice them. You just feel the calm. The balance.

When they’re wrong, you can’t put your finger on it, but you sigh. Or frown. Or leave.

Spotting the Absence (a Modern Epidemic)

And speaking of proportions not playing nice…

Look around most new builds. Spot any graceful ratios? Probably not.

Because here’s the thing: the Golden Ratio demands space, patience, and attention. Three things that don’t fit well into the spreadsheet logic of many modern projects and developers driven primarily by profit margins, or planning and urbanism offices focused more on density than dignity and quality of life.

In the rush to maximize square meters and minimize costs, proportions get squeezed. Windows too small. Facades too flat. Floor plans that feel like someone Tetris-ed them five minutes before the deadline.

The result? Spaces that technically function but never feel good.

Good design works invisibly on the nervous system.

The Golden Ratio isn’t the only way to get there. But it’s one of the oldest, and still one of the best.

This mathematical relationship between design and natural patterns points to something deeper: our homes and spaces feel most harmonious when they echo the proportional wisdom of the natural world.

Just as biomimicry (which I explore in another piece) looks to nature's solutions for functional design problems, the Golden Ratio offers nature's solution to aesthetic balance.

Both approaches recognize that millions of years of evolution might have something to teach our relatively young design studies.

Next time you find yourself drawn to a particular space without knowing exactly why, a room that feels perfectly balanced, a building that seems to "just work," or even a simple shelf arrangement that pleases the eye, look for the hidden mathematics. The Golden Ratio might be quietly working its proportional magic, speaking a numerical language that your intuition understands perfectly, even if your conscious mind never does the math.

What spaces in your world feel most harmonious to you? The answer might be as close as 1.618.

Because even the best design ideas often start with a simple question: What if we listened to the mathematics of beauty?

If this kind of thing fascinates you as much as it fascinates me, you might also enjoy:

Design Lessons from Nature: How Biomimicry is Shaping Our Homes

written by Helen M. Krauss



In Get Inspired
Comment

Terrazzo: The Floor That Took Its Time. A Short History of Patience, Pattern, and Pebbles.

April 21, 2025 Helen Krauss

Old-world artistry in every chip - terrazzo as it once was, where even the smallest fragments told a story.

Our first house in Luxembourg, built in 1912, had one of those floors that made you pause mid-step. Cool underfoot, shimmering in the sunlight, colours of the different floral patterns shifting with the light, and somehow more expressive than the walls around it. A terrazzo floor. Original. Worn. Glorious.

When we had it restored, the craftsman told me something that stuck: "Back then, they worked on a terrazzo floor for months. Today? A few days, max." The restoration process was fascinating as well. They used whenever possible original little stones in the same colours we had, so most often, these were antique stones, salvaged from other terrazzo floors which could not be rescued. 

And just like that, I saw it differently, not just as a beautiful surface, but as a forgotten monument to time.

The terrazzo floor looked even more stunning after it was restored. After the final polish, I could not believe it, the vibrant colours, all came back to life, more intense, and I could imagine how it must have looked the day it was first completed, over a hundred years ago.

A Brief History in Stone and Cement

Terrazzo has been around since the Venetians swept their marble scraps into patterns and sealed them with goat’s milk (yes, really). It was the humble by-product of opulence, an elegant way to reuse what the grander palaces discarded.

Over the centuries, it evolved. By the early 20th century, it had made its way into bourgeois foyers and institutional hallways alike. In the 1920s and 30s, it was prized for its durability and Deco flair. In the post-war years, it became a staple of modernist architecture: sleek, hygienic, democratic.

But somewhere along the way, terrazzo got a reputation problem. Too cold. Too utilitarian. Too… public school corridor.

Until now.

The Comeback of Terrazzo

Terrazzo is back. Not just on floors, but on countertops, tiles, lamp bases, and even wallpaper. Sometimes it’s real, sometimes it’s a pixelated print. Sometimes it’s heartbreakingly beautiful. Sometimes, let’s be honest, it looks like confetti after a bad party.

But when it’s good , really good, it’s a reminder of what design can be: durable, decorative, and deeply rooted in craftsmanship.

Today’s terrazzo is mostly fast and flexible. But the old floors? They were laborious compositions. Marble, quartz, and granite fragments, hand-placed, hand-polished, and sealed in cement. Not just a finish, but a philosophy. A commitment to time.

Why It Still Matters

In a world obsessed with instant transformation, terrazzo whispers a slower truth. It’s not just a surface - it’s a memory map. A celebration of patience. A meditation in minerals.

I still think about our 1912 floor. How it outlasted every owner and every trend. How it held its history in chips and specks and swirls.

And I wonder what we’re leaving behind now - in a world of click-and-go tiles and weekend renovations.Because some things… are worth waiting for. And I savoured every minute I could spend with that terrazzo floor.

It was a joy to walk on every day and I very much miss it and hope that the new owners of our former house,  treasure it as I did.

The original terrazzo floor in our 1912 former home, restored with antique stone and immense care - a reminder that some things are worth preserving.

written by Helen M. Krauss


In Get Inspired
Comment

Why Is There a Lion at Your Door? A Short Investigation into the Suburban Jungle.

April 20, 2025 Helen Krauss

Orange lion with streaks of bird poo. Guarding the threshold between public life and private sanctuary.

The other day I was walking through a quiet neighbourhood in the vineyards of the Moselle. The paving was clean, the lawns trimmed. And then - boom. There he is.

An orange lion. At the doorstep. Staring at me like I owe him tribute.

In Luxembourg (and neighbouring regions), this curious species of decorative guardian is far from endangered. In fact, he seems to thrive. Perched on plinths, flanking doorways, occasionally with a matching sibling on the opposite side - lions are everywhere.

But why? I was wondering. So, I did a bit of brainstorming:

Let's start with the obvious. The lion is a classic symbol of strength, dignity, and territorial dominance. Historically, they guarded temples, palaces, and tombs. In modern-day Moselle, they obviously guard… tile staircases and mailbox number 11.

This is not Versailles. And yet the lion roars on.

Of course, there's a social signalling theory to all this. Nothing says "I am sovereign of my semi-detached castle" quite like a stone (or plastic, or fiberglass) lion in full regalia. It whispers, "Yes, this is a 1970s bungalow, but also possibly the seat of a forgotten dynasty". Much like oversized garage doors or meticulously arranged garden gnomes, these lions serve as suburban status symbols,  though perhaps with a touch more historical gravitas.

The design choices vary wildly: weathered stone for the classically inclined, seen a lot in the small town where I live, white glossy resin for the spiritually ambiguous, and then… this one. 

Neon orange terracotta with streaks of bird poop. A design statement if ever there was one. Equal parts Narnia and nightmare fuel, like if Aslan had an unfortunate encounter with a traffic cone and then was left to weather the elements for a decade.

Is it art? Is it irony? Or is it simply a result of the Luxembourgish DIY spirit gone rogue?

We may never know.

The vibrant orange of this particular specimen is what caught my eye initially – a blazing sentinel impossible to ignore against the muted tones of the neighborhood. It's somehow both wildly out of place and perfectly at home, a contradiction in terracotta.

What's fascinating is how this tradition seems particularly entrenched in the Luxembourg-Moselle region. While garden statuary exists worldwide, the lion doorkeepers here appear with a frequency that borders on cultural requirement rather than mere decoration.

However, this orange Lion stays with me. It is an unforgettable example of the cultural expression in this part of the world.

But one thing's for sure: the doorstep lion is less about the creature itself and more about the need to be seen. To add weight - literal and symbolic - to the threshold between public life and private sanctuary.

It says: "Beyond this point, my rules apply. Step carefully. And maybe, just maybe, bow."

What suburban guardian stands watch at your threshold? And what might it reveal about your own territorial instincts?

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Get Inspired
Comment

Pickets, Prisons and Hedges: A Design History of Exclusion

April 18, 2025 Helen Krauss

Ornate, slightly too tall, and quietly judging you. Fences know things.

Last week I read an article in Wort.lu about an Agricultural Engineer, working for a European Institution in Luxembourg, who ended up in a bureaucratic legal battle with the Luxembourgish environmental agency. His crime? Wanting to build a garden fence, a simple “Staketenzaun” out of wood, very ecological, very sustainable. A fence, which was then apparently classified as a “building” which needed a permit and this permit was denied.

This, naturally, escalated into a “Kleinkrieg”.

And it got me thinking: when did fences become so… emotional?

The answer, as with most quietly insane design legacies, lies in the Neolithic period. Roughly 12,000 years ago, humans began trading their nomadic lifestyles for fields, crops, livestock - and, with them, the need to mark space.

To say: This wheat is mine.

These goats are mine.

This mud hut with the broken roof - also mine.

The fence, then, was never just a barrier. It was the first architectural assertion of possession. A primitive line in the soil that said: I was here. You stay there.

Fast forward twelve millennia and we’ve perfected the art of fencing people out and signaling just the right amount of hostility while doing it.

There’s the classic picket fence, whispering I’m approachable, but please don’t test it.

The chain-link fence, beloved by schoolyards and post-apocalyptic films alike.

The gabion wall, used by architects who want to feel edgy while hiding behind rocks.

The tall manicured hedge, perfect for people who want to say I’m not rude, just deeply private.

Each fence is a design choice, but also a psychological one.

Are you protecting something? Hiding something? Trying to look expensive, or just… safe?

I, for instance, think about fencing in our very small patch in front of the house. I feel surprisingly territorial about it. It is ridiculously small and yet I feel that intense desire to fence it in, to protect it (or us?), since the day we moved in.

Currently, it is a simple “fence-line” done with very primitive looking rough big stones. It feels rather medieval, in a Stonehenge or Flintstone’s way. It really must be changed to something more refined, something more effective. Perhaps: Laser-activated garden perimeters or motion-detecting sprinklers?

And don’t get me started on anti-burglar fences with floral detailing, or the tiny 30cm decorative barriers that politely suggest you could step over me, but we both know you shouldn’t.

In cities, fences reveal who trusts their neighbours, and who believes the world is one bad Tuesday away from chaos. In rural areas, they divide property, and occasionally friends, over five-metre stretches of hedgerow with territorial ambitions.

And yet, the design of fences is rarely discussed in architectural circles. They’re seen as too minor. Too functional. Too… petty.

But minor things can carry major meaning.

And sometimes, a fence is all it takes to turn civilisation back into tribe.

Want more on how public space reveals what we value (or pretend to)?

Read and Explore the Battle for Public Space series → Urban Observations

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Get Inspired
Comment

The Design History of Dog Poo Bags

April 17, 2025 Helen Krauss

Poo Bags and Power Plays: What Your Dog’s Deposits Say About You.

Somewhere between the invention of the flush toilet and the rise of the luxury SUV, someone decided that walking a dog should also involve carrying its warm feces in a thin plastic sack. The dog poo bag - humble, horrifying, oddly political - has quietly become one of the most significant civic tools of the 21st century.

But I was wondering where did it begin?

A Short History of Sh*t Control

I found that the modern dog poo bag emerged in the 1970s, not in a design studio, but as a public health intervention. First in the UK, then in parts of the US and Germany, municipalities began issuing free bags to encourage dog owners to pick up after their pets, a radical shift from the previous norm of simply… looking away. Although I witness this kind of behaviour still occasionally when the dog walker thinks no one is looking.

At first, the bags were nothing more than flimsy grocery bags with a new purpose. But over time, they evolved. Dispensers appeared in parks. Rolls were designed to fit in branded canisters. And the bags themselves?

Black: for discretion. Green: for eco-guilt relief. Pink: for the cheerful nihilists. Here in Luxembourg they tend to be dark grey.

Form, Function, and Performative Morality

Carrying a roll of poo bags clipped to your leash says something. So does pulling one out with flair in front of strangers. It’s not just hygiene. It’s signaling. Proof that you’re a good citizen. A person who obeys invisible contracts - at least as long as someone is actually looking.

But the signaling doesn’t stop there.

There’s also the tie-and-leave brigade, those who diligently bag the waste, knot it into a neat parcel… and then leave it on a tree branch or trail post like a cursed Christmas ornament.

It’s unclear whether this is a failed act of protest, a spatial misunderstanding, or just wishful thinking that the Bag Fairy will collect it. In any case, it is rather disgusting and one of these bags just very nearly missed me during stormy weather the other day when I was out and about. It was a near death experience. I have a very sensitive olfactory perception and usually already almost lose consciousness when I have to clean the cat toilet (normally my husband does it for that reason).

Urban Behaviours and the Illusion of Order

In cities, the dog poo bag becomes a litmus test for how we negotiate shared space. Sidewalks, grassy patches, the tree pit in front of your house, all become contested zones. And the presence (or absence) of little black bags tells us more about urban trust than any town hall ever could.

The bag is design at its most invisible. Disposable. Functional. Slightly humiliating. And yet, it carries the weight of public expectation and private shame.

That’s a lot for a 12-micron sack.

Want more on how public space reveals what we value (or pretend to)?

Read and Explore the Battle for Public Space series → Urban Observations

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Get Inspired
Comment

The Fibonacci Sequence in Design

April 16, 2025 Helen Krauss

A Fibonacci spiral superimposed on a winding staircase - a perfect union of nature’s math and architectural beauty.

Some numbers just… feel right. The Fibonacci sequence is one of them.

You’ve seen it, even if you don’t know its name. It appears in pinecones, pineapples, spiral staircases, seed patterns, and seashells. And when applied in design, it makes things look natural, even when they’re not.

So what is it, exactly?

The Fibonacci sequence is a simple pattern of numbers: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21…

Each number is the sum of the two before it. But here’s the twist: as the numbers increase, the ratio between them approaches the Golden Ratio, that mysterious 1.618 that seems to make things pleasing to the eye.

Interior designers, architects, and artists have quietly used this sequence for centuries. Not because it’s trendy or spiritual or mathematically elegant (though it’s all three), but because it works. It feels balanced. It calms the chaos. I always use it myself when I design a room.

Fibonacci in Action: A Living Room Example: Want to try using the Fibonacci sequence in your own space? Here's a simple way to start:

Imagine you're designing a living room wall with a combination of artwork and shelving. Using the Fibonacci numbers (0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21...), you could:

- Choose a base unit of measurement (let's say 20,32cm)

- Hang your main artwork at 86,36 cm wide (8 × 4.25, approximating the Golden Ratio)

- Place a shelf that's 53,34 cm wide beneath it

- Add two smaller decorative pieces that are 33,02 cm and 20,32 cm wide respectively

- Space these elements 12,7 cm apart

This creates a composition where each element relates to the others following nature's proportions. The largest piece draws the eye first, while the smaller elements create a natural visual flow.

In a room, this might mean proportions between furniture and wall space. In a building, it might shape the relationship between height and width. In a layout, it might guide where your eye lands first, second, and third - and whether it feels satisfying or slightly... off.

The Fibonacci spiral - often seen in nautilus shells or sunflower heads - has also inspired furniture, lighting, and even garden layouts. Not because someone had a geometry textbook open, but because nature’s proportions make instinctive sense. Experiment and you will feel it.

And maybe that’s what we’re always chasing in design: the illusion of inevitability.

That sense that a space couldn’t be any other way. That it fits. Exactly. And it can take a while until you reach this state. In our last house it took 2 years until everything seemed perfect. We sold it in a week despite difficult circumstances.

If you’ve ever walked into a room and felt it just worked, without knowing why, the Fibonacci ratio may be quietly behind it.

Curious how nature shapes our interiors in ways we rarely notice?

Read: Design Lessons from Nature – How Biomimicry Is Shaping Our Homes

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Get Inspired
Comment

Stop Calling it Old Stock! Alte Bausubstanz, Please Exit Left.

April 11, 2025 Helen Krauss

A row of historic townhouses in Luxembourg City, their façades richly detailed with natural stone, red brickwork, and floral window boxes. Beautiful and a reminder that so-called “old stock” often outshines its newer, flashier neighbours.

1. Cold Ceilings, Warm Memories

I once lived in a modern 95 sqm flat in Limpertsberg, an upscale quartier in Luxembourg City. It had underfloor heating, large windows, a garage, and the kind of low ceilings that made me question most of my life choices. After about a year and a half of trying to breathe horizontally, we moved out.

Before that, we had a flat in London. Five-metre ceilings, stucco molding like whipped cream on a good day, and wood panelling that whispered quiet tales of the 1860s. It was a former villa, later sliced into apartments with more grace than most modern buildings muster when they’re built from scratch. Even the air was better in there. I’ve always gravitated toward older homes, spaces that breathe, rooms with proportions that don’t make you feel like you’re living in a shoe box. There’s a continuity in thick walls and squeaky floors. A soul. A story. A ceiling you can look up to - quite literally.

When we arrived in Luxembourg, we started in that modern box in Limpertsberg. And as lovely as the location was, I couldn’t help but feel we were living in a space optimised for storage, not for living. So we bought a house in Esch-sur-Alzette, drawn, of all things, by the historical architecture. And we weren’t the only ones. We met others, many of them expats, who had fallen for the same romantic notions: the original staircases, the old parquet floors, the terrazzo in the hall, the stucco that makes you believe the world once cared about beauty.

2. Shiny, New, and Spiritless

There’s a particular kind of building going up all over Luxembourg, a beige, grey or white cube with exactly three architectural features: a balcony, a door, and a vague sense of resentment. You’ll find them in village centres, replacing the houses that once stood there with dignity and shutters. They are often advertised as “contemporary luxury living”, though the only thing luxurious about them is the speed at which they appear to age.

This is the national aesthetic: maximum buildability, minimum soul. A celebration of insulation panels and investment potential. There’s a kind of quiet war going on here, not fought with bulldozers, but certainly negotiated through them.

The logic is always the same. On the footprint of one charming, slightly crumbling house, you can squeeze in six apartments, a mailbox wall, and the promise of community spirit. It’s not personal. It’s just… optimal.

Sometimes, they try to dress it up. Add a half-hearted zinc roof. Maybe a facade in “architect grey.” The result is less modernist clarity and more municipal melancholy. You can almost hear the marketing pitch:

“Live in the future, where sunlight is optional and everything smells faintly of fresh plaster and disillusionment.”

Meanwhile, the old houses, the ones with carved lintels, slanted roofs, and crooked charm, are either bulldozed or stripped of their personality one PVC window at a time. And let’s not forget the new local favourite: rendering over old stone and painting it in a sad pastel tone best described as bureaucratic taupe.

There are, of course, exceptions. Sometimes a house survives. Sometimes a period building gets repurposed into something tasteful. But more often, they get the “Cafe Zemmeren” treatment: turned into rentable rooms with Ikea lighting.

Because here’s the thing: in Luxembourg, if it’s new, it’s perceived as good. If it’s big, it’s successful. If it’s old, it’s a problem waiting to be monetised.

3. Expats, Architects, and the Folly of Falling for Old Houses

When we bought our house in Esch-sur-Alzette, we thought we were being clever. The city was getting a university campus. The centre was full of beautifully neglected period homes. And the prices were, by Luxembourg standards, almost reasonable.

It all made sense. If you squinted, you could see it: Esch was Hackney in 2004. Prenzlauer Berg in 1998. Brooklyn before the beard oil.

We weren’t alone. Robert and Anne, she an artist from New York, he a former United Nations PR officer from London, moved to Esch around the same time. Culturally fluent, well-travelled, aesthetically ambitious. They saw what we saw: a city with good bones. Architecture with patina. A place where you might still find a carved staircase under a decade of dust and despair.

They looked at Esch the way people used to look at Berlin: rough, but with potential. And crucially, still affordable, the final frontier before the gentrification wave hit. In any other country, that logic would have been solid.

In Luxembourg, it mostly got us confused looks.

Because here, investing in heritage buildings is like showing up to a tech convention with a typewriter. You might get a polite nod. But everyone else is buying the latest digital glass box and wondering what’s wrong with you.

There’s a strange and rather brutal pattern in Luxembourg:

The old buildings, the ones with the tiled halls, the tall windows, the decorative lintels are often concentrated in the hands of two groups: those who can’t afford to live elsewhere, and expats who don’t know better. And the unspoken logic is quietly ruthless: if a building isn’t worth much, put people inside who aren’t either. That way, no one gets too attached.

The reaction from locals was always telling. When we mentioned our house, people would smile in that polite way you do when someone tells you they’ve adopted a three-legged cat. Some were baffled we hadn’t bought something new. Others warned us about “that area”. One kindly suggested we wait until we could “upgrade” to something modern.

And yet, to us, and to many others, it was beautiful. We met a surprising number of architects who had fallen for the same madness. Nearly all of them were foreigners. French, German, British, Italian etc. They’d walk into these dusty hallways and light up like they were in an architectural dig. Terrazzo floors. Original stucco. Iron railings hand-forged before anyone cared about building codes. Their eyes would gleam.

These were not people who bought old houses because they had no options. They chose them. Passionately. Many of us had the budget for something sleek and white in a development named after a tree. But we turned that down in favour of soul, structure, and stories.

One Italian architect we met had bought a house that was, objectively, in questionable condition. “It has good proportions,” he said with reverence, as if discussing a sculpture. A Spanish urbanist we knew went out of her way to find a 1920s flat with Art Deco balconies, a space full of strange angles and elegance. A couple, Lily, an architect from Serbia and Marjan, her IT academic husband, bought a flat in a period house on the same street opposite from us.

What united us all was a kind of quiet defiance. We weren’t trying to preserve the past for the sake of it. We weren’t hoarding nostalgia. We were choosing depth over surface. Character over convenience. Texture over trend.

Of course, in Luxembourg, this attitude is seen as eccentric at best, and wildly impractical at worst. But elsewhere, in London, Amsterdam, New York, it would be obvious. People buy old houses not because they’re perfect, but because they matter. Because something in them endures. Because they feel like they were made for human beings, not Excel spreadsheets.

It’s not that Luxembourgers are immune to charm. Put them in Paris for a weekend and they’ll photograph shutters like it’s a religious experience. But somehow, when it comes to their own architectural heritage, the love stops at the border.

And that’s the real irony. In many other countries, old houses are seen as desirable. Valuable. Even luxurious. Here, they’re often considered transitional. Something you tolerate until you can afford the good stuff, the fresh render, the underground parking, the brand-new everything. The result? An entire architectural language slowly being erased, because we’ve convinced ourselves it has nothing left to say.

But for those of us who still hear the music in creaky floors and weathered stone, the logic remains. Old houses might be inconvenient. They might be imperfect. But they are never soulless.

And that’s more than you can say for most things being built today.

4. Final Thoughts: Stop Calling It Old Stock

Let’s get something straight. Alte Bausubstanz is not “just old stock.”

It is not waste material. It is not dead weight. It is not a mistake that somehow hasn’t yet been corrected by a digger and a line of ceramic tiles from Bauhaus.

It is culture.

And culture, inconvenient as it may be for urban planners and real estate developers, does not improve when flattened. It doesn’t thrive in a new build with fake cornices and underfloor heating that only works on Wednesdays. It thrives in the quiet persistence of places that have survived not by accident, but because someone, somewhere, refused to give up on them.

So let’s stop pretending this is a question of efficiency. It isn’t. It’s a question of values.

Do we want cities that are legible? Repeatable? Predictable? Do we want to live in places where you could replace the name on the street sign and not notice a difference? Where every building has the same square footage, the same balcony, the same artificial soul?

Or do we want places that breathe?

Do we want creaky floors and high ceilings and window handles that feel like they belong to a different century? Do we want imperfection, glorious, inconvenient, beautiful imperfection, because it reminds us we’re not just tenants of the present, but stewards of a much longer story?

This isn’t about nostalgia. It’s about perspective.

Because when you call a building old stock, you’re not just mislabelling architecture. You’re betraying a mindset, one that sees only utility, never memory. One that measures worth by energy ratings, square metres and the number of parking spaces, not by what a building gives back when you walk through its door.

Luxembourg can keep polishing itself into oblivion, one demolition at a time. Or it can start seeing its past as something to work with, not wipe out.

The choice is cultural.

The choice is political.

But most of all, the choice is also ours.

And if it’s up to me, I’ll always choose the house with the slightly cracked ceiling rose, the whisper of stories in the staircase, and the room that still remembers what it was built for.

[Read the full post on how heritage protection works, here →]

written by Helen M. Krauss



In Design Matters, Heritage
Comment

Heritage as a Minority Sport in Luxembourg

April 11, 2025 Helen Krauss

Stone arch and cobbled street in the historic old town of Luxembourg City.

If heritage protection were a sport in Luxembourg, it would be curling. Niche. Mysterious. Played in silence. And usually witnessed by no one.

In 2020, during the European Heritage Days, a protest was held in the capital to draw attention to the slow-motion massacre of architectural heritage across the country. Eighteen associations joined forces. The press turned up. There were signs, slogans, and even hope.

Fifty people came.

Fifty.

In a country of over 600,000. That’s less than the turnout at a poorly advertised cheese festival. And yet, there they stood, civil society groups, preservationists, historians, and a few mildly annoyed homeowners who discovered too late that their façade was about to be “updated.” They held signs like “Rett eise Patrimoine” and “Embauen, net ofrappen” which roughly translate to: “Please stop bulldozing the past, thank you very much.”

It was heartfelt. It was civil. And, as with most things heritage-related in Luxembourg, it was mostly ignored.

Because let’s be honest: preserving buildings is not a popular pastime here. It doesn’t win votes. It doesn’t generate headlines. It’s not shiny. It doesn't photograph well on social media, unless you’re selling it with artisanal sourdough and a linen apron.

The dominant logic is brutal in its simplicity:

• Old buildings are inefficient.

• Poor people live in them.

• They’re best replaced with something that matches the budget forecast and the kitchen showroom catalogue.

The result is a curious urban landscape where the less a building is valued, the more likely it is to house the people society values the least. You see it again and again, in Esch, in Ettelbruck, in villages across the country. Beautiful old houses, assigned to decay or to “social use,” because somewhere along the line, it was decided that heritage is not good enough for the rich.

Which brings us back to the protest. The Lëtzebuerger Denkmalschutz Federatioun, newly founded at the time, pointed out what everyone sort of knew already: the protection system doesn’t really work. The national and communal levels don’t coordinate. The inventories gather dust. The will, politically, socially, culturally, is simply not there.

And yet.

People still protest. People still care. Not many, but enough to keep showing up with their hand-painted signs and their encyclopedic knowledge of sandstone cornices. They come because they know something important: when you lose a historic building, you don’t just lose bricks and plaster. You lose context. You lose identity. You lose a piece of the story that tells you where you are.

And when you lose enough of those stories, you start to forget what the place even meant in the first place.

[Read the full post on heritage protection here →]

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Get Inspired, Heritage
Comment

How Heritage Protection Works in Luxembourg (Or Doesn’t, But Pretends To)

April 10, 2025 Helen Krauss

A close-up of a weathered green wooden door, its peeling paint revealing layers of past colours and time

A small note before you read:
This piece was written with a mixture of affection, frustration, and a deep sense of care for the built heritage of Luxembourg. The tone is deliberately satirical, sometimes sharply so, not to diminish the importance of the subject, but to bring light to it in a way that might spark thought, discussion, and perhaps even a smile.

Behind the humour lies genuine admiration for those working in heritage preservation, often quietly, and against the odds. If you read a certain sharpness between the lines, I hope you’ll also feel the warmth. This is, in the end, a love letter to the buildings that still stand, and to the people trying to keep them standing.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

So. You’ve fallen for a beautiful old house in Luxembourg. The kind with peeling shutters, original floors, and a crooked soul. You want to renovate it lovingly, preserve its character, maybe even contribute to the cultural landscape of the country.

How adorable.

Let’s walk you through how heritage protection works here, assuming, of course, you have a strong constitution and a casual relationship with hope.

Step One: National Protection (The Glamorous Mirage)

In 2022, Luxembourg updated its Loi sur le patrimoine culturel. On paper, this law is magnifique: it protects buildings of historical or architectural value, offers subsidies, and sets up a clear process for classification and preservation.

In reality, it’s a bit like spotting a Michelin-star menu in a restaurant where the chef is on indefinite sabbatical. The tools are there, but someone’s hidden the instructions and unplugged the stove.

If your building does manage to get officially listed as a national monument, you may receive:

• Modest subsidies (if the paperwork gods smile upon you),

• Technical guidance from the INPA (assuming they’re not busy elsewhere),

• And the honour of entering a very exclusive club of people whose houses are legally beautiful.

Step Two: Communal Protection (Hide and Seek)

But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Most heritage decisions in Luxembourg happen not nationally, but locally, through the communes and their Plans d’Aménagement Général (PAGs). These plans include lists of buildings deemed “worthy of preservation.”

Now, here’s the plot twist: no one enforces them.

The buildings are listed. The lists exist. Sometimes, they’re even printed in colour. But they spend most of their lives in drawers, silently ageing, just like the buildings they’re meant to protect. The mayor knows about them. The technical service knows. But when the bulldozers show up, everyone suddenly gets a case of collective administrative amnesia.

As Paul Ewen of the Lëtzebuerger Denkmalschutz Federatioun put it so politely:

“The local politicians know what’s in them, they just don’t act on it.”

Which is bureaucratese for: “We could protect it, but that might upset someone with a concrete mixer and friends in the CSV.”

Step Three: A Tale of Two Systems (Spoiler: They Don’t Talk)

Luxembourg has two systems for heritage protection:

• The national, which is selective, slow, and slightly mythological.

• The communal, which is flexible, widespread, and wildly uninterested in being applied.

Together, they form a beautiful example of what happens when nobody wants to be responsible but everyone wants plausible deniability. It’s the architectural equivalent of a custody battle where the child is a building and both parents want it… demolished.

Step Four: Bureaucratic Olympics (Good Luck!)

Say you’re still determined. You want to renovate your charming wreck of a house correctly. You love history. You respect the process. You are, frankly, a hero.

Here’s what awaits:

• Wait for decisions from three different authorities with unrelated email addresses.

• Discover that you need permission to touch the windows, but not the roof.

• Realise that subsidies are theoretically available, but in practice awarded through what appears to be interpretive dance and divine intervention.

All of this while trying to find a contractor who doesn’t think “stucco” is a disease and who won’t quietly replace your original tiles with something “more hygienic.”

And yet, miraculously, people still do it.

Because behind all the red tape and the tragicomic logic, there’s something worth saving. Not just for the aesthetics. Not just for the resale value. But because standing in a room with cracked plaster and a ceiling rose, you feel something.

You feel the presence of another time. You feel that this place has a story. That it mattered to someone, and that maybe, just maybe, it should still matter.

And that’s a feeling no amount of beige render and underground parking can replicate.

So Why Bother?

At this point, you might be thinking, why would anyone willingly sign up for this ordeal? The red tape, the political shrugging, the communal “lists” that live in filing cabinets with a fear of daylight. Wouldn’t it be easier to just buy a fresh new shoebox with zero character and a balcony that looks directly into someone else’s living room?

Sure. It would be easier. But so is eating cereal for dinner every day. That doesn’t make it nourishing.

Here’s why heritage protection is still worth fighting for, even in a country that treats old buildings like mildly embarrassing relatives.

Because Beauty Still Matters

There’s something about walking into a room with high ceilings and worn wood floors that makes you pause. It’s not just aesthetics. It’s atmosphere. It’s memory. It’s the feeling that someone once built something to last, with care, and maybe even joy.

Modern builds tend to aim for efficiency. Heritage buildings? They aim for grace. And somewhere along the way, we’ve been tricked into thinking the latter is optional.

Because Erasing the Past Makes for Very Boring Cities

Cities without history are like novels without plot. Luxembourg is small enough as it is. We really can’t afford to be this forgettable.

Heritage buildings are the anchors of identity. They give character to a street, tell stories to passers-by, and provide texture in a world increasingly made of drywall and regret. Lose enough of them and you end up with towns that feel more like real estate portfolios than places people love.

Because it Actually Makes Economic Sense

Strangely, heritage protection is often framed as a luxury. Something sentimental. An indulgence for architects and daydreamers. In reality, it’s one of the smartest urban investments a country can make.

Restored historical districts attract visitors, boost tourism, increase property values, and support local economies. In other countries, this is common knowledge. In Luxembourg, it’s still considered radical to suggest that an old building might be worth more than its plot ratio.

Preserving heritage isn’t a cost. It’s cultural capital. With compound interest.

Because You Can’t Build Patina

You can try. You can distress wood. You can add “character” with vintage lighting and overpriced reclaimed beams from somewhere that definitely wasn’t your own village. But it’s never the same.

There is no architectural trick, no renovation budget big enough, to replicate the quiet elegance of something that aged honestly. You can’t fake soul.

Because Future Generations Might Actually Thank You

It’s easy to assume no one will care. That once you’re gone, your beautifully preserved staircase and painstakingly restored terrazzo will be torn out in favour of something grey and self-cleaning.

But then again, maybe not.

Maybe someone will walk through your hallway decades from now and stop. Maybe they’ll run a hand along the old wooden bannister and feel a connection. Maybe they’ll realise someone once chose not to demolish. Someone chose to protect, to preserve, to pass something on.

And maybe, just maybe, they’ll say thank you.

[Read the full post on heritage protection here →]

written by Helen M. Krauss







Comment

Alte Bausubstanz: A National Disgrace?

April 10, 2025 Helen Krauss

Vianden: A weathered townhouse façade in soft pink, with boarded-up windows, a black wrought-iron bench, and a dark wooden door framed by faded ornamentation. Once grand, the building now shows signs of neglect.

In Luxembourg, historic buildings are often referred to as “alte Bausubstanz”. Old building substance. Which is a bit like calling your grandmother “leftover genetic material.” Technically correct, but lacking a certain… reverence.

I once praised the beautiful architecture in the centre of Esch to a highly educated local urban planner. Sculpted façades, elaborate stonework, elegant proportions. Her response?

“Das ist doch nur alte Bausubstanz.” Just old building stock. As in: inconvenient, inefficient, best ignored.

That phrase has stayed with me. It captures something essential about the country’s uneasy relationship with its architectural past. If it’s old, it’s in the way. If it doesn’t sparkle, it’s suspect. And if you dare suggest otherwise, someone will remind you that Luxembourg used to be poor, and poor countries don’t have time for nostalgia.

But is that really true? Must history be treated as an obstacle? Can beauty only be brand-new?

It’s worth asking. Because once you’ve labelled something “old stock,” the next step is usually a crane, a permit, and a fresh coat of developer grey.

Curious how this mindset plays out and why some of us still think it’s worth resisting?

[Read the full post on heritage protection here →]

written by Helen M. Krauss



Comment

The Real Battle for Public Space (Part III): The Air we Breathe

March 29, 2025 Helen Krauss

A short reflection on particulate matter and the joys of “fresh” air.

I used to think opening a window was a wholesome act. A symbol of fresh starts. Morning light, crisp air, a hint of birdsong. When I open my window these days, I inhale a curious blend of exhaust fumes, cement dust, and what I can only describe as eau de construction fatigue.

It turns out “fresh air” is more of a nostalgic concept. Like handwritten letters or neighbours who don’t guard parking spots like medieval fiefdoms.

And so we arrive at part three of the “Battle for Public Space” saga. First came the pavements (turf wars via turds), then the streets (parking roulette with bonus emotional damage), and now we ascend to the skies, or what remains of them between scaffolding and exhaust pipes.

PM2.5: The Polite Term for "You’re Inhaling That"

Let’s talk about PM2.5. Sounds vaguely like a building regulation or an IKEA screw, but it’s much more intimate. It stands for particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns. For scale: a human hair is about 70 microns thick. These particles are microscopic. They bypass your nose, your throat, and settle deep in your lungs.

Unlike dog poo, they don’t smell. They don’t leave a mark on the pavement. But they’re linked to: Asthma, heart disease, strokes, reduced life expectancy, and cognitive decline.

Moderate Pollution Levels

According to my AirVisual tracker by IQAir, a Swiss company, recognised as a global leader in air quality monitoring technology, we regularly clock in at moderate to high pollution levels.

“Moderate” sounds reassuring. Balanced. Reasonable. The kind of word you’d want describing your wine intake or emotional reactivity. But when it comes to air quality, it’s a bit like being told the water’s only mildly toxic.

The World Health Organization doesn’t mince words. Long-term exposure to even moderate PM2.5 levels increases your risk of serious health problems. The latest WHO air quality guideline (AQG) states that annual average concentrations of PM2.5 should not exceed 5 µg/m³. 24-hour average exposures should not exceed 15 µg/m3 more than 3 - 4 days per year. Mondorf floats above that far more often than one might expect for a spa town.

The Yoga-Mat Paradox

There’s a peculiar cultural contradiction in all this. We buy organic tomatoes. We detox. We journal about mindfulness. Then we step outside and breathe in ultrafine dust like it’s a wellness ritual.

There’s a man here who jogs past my house every morning, stoic, purposeful, breathing deeply as the traffic roars by. I admire the discipline. But sometimes, when a delivery truck idles too long, or when fine dust hangs heavy in the still air, I want to stop him and say: You’re not running, you’re marinating.

Air as a Mirror

Here’s the truth no one wants to admit: bad air is not just pollution. It’s neglect. It means no one’s paying attention. That health and quality of life have been traded for “development” and pass-through commuter traffic. We wouldn't accept a broken sewage system. But somehow, when it comes to air, the thing we take into our bodies 20,000 times a day, we shrug.

We beautify streets while pretending the air is neutral. We hold public consultations about landscaping while the air itself carries silent warnings. But air is part of the built environment too. It may be invisible, but it tells you a great deal about what kind of place you live in.

And right now? The air says: It’s complicated.

What Now?

You can’t block PM2.5 with a flowerpot. You can’t shoo it away with passive-aggressive signage. It flows through public and private space alike, democratic in the most depressing sense.

But maybe it’s time to name it. Talk about it. Measure it.

Maybe the next urban design conversation should include not just where we build and where we park, but what we breathe while living and standing there.

Perhaps it’s time for air quality monitors to become as commonplace as traffic signs. For pollution levels to feature as prominently in urban planning as parking spaces. For our definition of “livability” and “quality of life” to include not just what we see, but what fills our lungs each day.

After all, the real battle for public space isn’t just what’s visible. Sometimes, it’s what seeps in through the cracks.

Note on Air Quality Data: Like moody houseguests, PM2.5 levels don’t follow a fixed schedule. Air pollution level, especially PM2.5, can fluctuate significantly depending on the time of day, season, weather conditions, nearby construction, and traffic volume. Calm, windless days often lead to higher particle concentrations, while rainfall or strong winds can temporarily clear the air. One rainy afternoon won’t fix a year of fine dust. So if you're checking the air: don't just peek, watch the trend.

Want to check the air quality in Mondorf-les-Bains? Click here to view live data.

About IQAir: IQAir is a Swiss-based company and global leader in air quality monitoring and purification. In collaboration with the United Nations, they operate the world’s largest real-time air quality data platform. Their annual reports are widely cited as authoritative sources on global pollution.

written by Helen M. Krauss


In Urban Observations

The Real Battle for Public Space (Part II) - I Thought I Was Civilised Until the Hatchet Made Sense

March 28, 2025 Helen Krauss

There was a time when I considered myself quite civilised. I recycle. I drink green tea. I use words like "communal”. But then came the parking wars.

Nothing extravagant. Just the slow, creeping realisation that in certain neighbourhoods, public parking isn’t public at all. It’s claimed through silent rules, unspoken rituals, and long-standing acts of territorial theatre. Your garage is for hoarding. Your car belongs in front of someone else’s house.

At first, I was confused. Then mildly irritated. Then I found myself standing at the window like a hawk, watching who parked where and how often, muttering things I won’t repeat here.

And then one day, while reading yet another grim news story about a neighbour dispute escalating to full-blown madness - something involving a chainsaw or a hatchet - I felt... understanding. Not approval, of course. Just... empathy.

It turns out we are all just a few blocked driveways away from a moral rebrand.

Some discover their primal side in the wilderness. I found mine between a flowerpot, a tyre mark, and the sound of an idling engine just a bit too close to my kitchen window.

So no, I didn’t wield a hatchet. But I did contemplate how many potted plants it would take to create a “decorative boundary” that coincidentally blocks a car. Which, frankly, is step one.

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Urban Observations
Comment

The Real Battle for Public Space (It Starts with a Turd)

March 27, 2025 Helen Krauss

A short reflection on cracked pavements, civic pride, and where the real urban planning wars are fought.

There are many ways to measure the health of a city. Some count green spaces. Others, bike lanes. A few, more optimistically, count start-ups per square metre. But if you ask me, the real test lies in something far more humble: the presence of uncollected dog poo.

I learned this not in theory, but in practice on a grey morning, back when we lived in Luxembourg’s second largest city. Our expat neighbour, who lived in the same quartier as we at the time, a man of quiet intensity and almost feral civic pride, was known to rise at 5:30 a.m. to sit in his car in total silence. He wasn’t meditating. He was waiting. For a specific woman. With a specific dog. And a very specific agenda involving his doorstep.

This wasn’t personal. It was territorial. The battle for public space had begun.

You see, dog poo isn't just waste. It’s a message. A declaration. Sometimes defiance, sometimes neglect, occasionally revenge. But always a form of interaction with the built environment.

City signage may say "Bienvenue!" but a turd on the pavement says, "No one cares." It tells you something about where you are, and more importantly, who holds power there. Because wherever dog poo accumulates, someone has stopped believing that space belongs to anyone or that anyone is watching.

The irony is, we design cities for movement, beauty, and efficiency, but they are negotiated on a much more primal level. We think of public space as grand piazzas and modernist parks. But it’s also cracked pavements, bin placement, and the choreography of dog owners ducking behind hedges when they think no one’s looking.

There is dignity in clean pavements. Not because it's hygienic, but because it means someone still gives a damn.

The real battle for public space? It's not being fought at urban planning conferences or in 3D renderings of future eco-districts. It’s happening quietly, messily, just outside your front door.

And sometimes it starts with a turd.

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Urban Observations
Comment

Question everything!

March 27, 2025 Helen Krauss

Eileen Gray, Interior Designer and Architect

“To create, one must first question everything.”
— Eileen Gray

Eileen Gray (1878-1976), a trailblazer in modern design and architecture, understood that creativity begins with curiosity. Her philosophy - “To create, one must first question everything” - speaks to the heart of innovation. For Gray, true design was never about accepting the status quo but about challenging assumptions and exploring new possibilities.

Take her iconic E-1027 table, for example. This seemingly simple piece wasn’t designed for the sake of aesthetics alone. It was crafted to adapt, its adjustable height allowed it to meet the needs of the moment, whether serving as a functional bedside table or a sophisticated accent in a living room. Gray’s work questioned the rigidity of traditional furniture design, pushing boundaries to create pieces that were as dynamic as the lives they were meant to enhance.

Her words remind us that great design doesn’t start with answers, it starts with questions. Why do we use this material? Why does this object function this way? Why not try something new? By questioning the “rules,” we open the door to innovation, discovering not only what design can be but what it should be.

Gray’s legacy is a call to action for all creatives: dare to ask, dare to doubt, and dare to redefine the world through design.

written by Helen M. Krauss

In Get Inspired
Comment
← Newer Posts Older Posts →
Summary Block
This is example content. Double-click here and select a page to feature its content. Learn more
Featured
Cursus Amet

The Newsletter

Occasional dispatches on design, space and culture. No spam. Just substance.

We respect your privacy.

Subscribed.
Thoughtful dispatches will find you - when it matters.

Contact: hi@foundationsandfacades.com