DATAPOLIS | A Hyperscale Datacenter for Rotterdam by thearchitecturecircus

DATAPOLIS

Justin Agyin

DATAPOLIS A Hyperscale Datacenter for Rottedam

Abstract With the westward move of the port activities, from the 1970s onwards, Rotterdam and its port have become disentangled. As a result, port terrains on the south bank of the Meuse river had become vacant and have been redeveloped in various ways into residential neighborhoods or large scale urban waterfront developments, of which the Kop van Zuid and the Wilhelminapier are most exemplary. The peninsula, and neighborhood, Katendrecht is next in line of this type of large-scale area redevelopment and serves as the next stepping stone in the unrolling of the inner-city milieu in Rotterdam South. This graduation project, however, aims to reengage Katendrecht with the water in a more sensitive and multilayered way, rather than the often superficial context specificity of waterfront developments that merely exploit the visual qualities of the river and former port basins. In order to do so, research has been conducted in the form of site visits, observational methods, documentation and interpretation, historical analyses, by means of literature, and spatial analyses. The results of this research have informed the subsequent design experiment, which entails an intervention on an urban scale and is comprised of five architectural objects in and around Katendrecht that manipulate the set architecture-quay-water. The architectural objects have been dubbed moderators as they are positioned in-between morphological fragments and/or the functional domains of dwelling, work/leisure, tourism/entertainment and new industry/ Next Economy. In doing so, they reconnect Katendrecht to the water in various ways and on different scale levels, ranging from the local to the level of the city and potentially on a global level. One of the five architectural objects has been worked out in more detail, which is DATAPOLIS. DATAPOLIS is a water cooled, hyperscale, tier IV datacenter, which is positioned in the water of the Meuse river north of Katendrecht. DATAPOLIS is a building as an island and forms the culmination of the research on reengaging with the water by means of the ultimate manipulation of the set architecture-quay-water.

DATAPOLIS

A Hyperscale Datacenter for Rotterdam Graduation thesis prepared for the master’s degree in architecture at the Eindhoven University of Technology. Graduation Studio Intermediate Size IV 2018 - 2019 Author: J.N.K.F. (Justin) Agyin 0811421 Graduation Committee: Dr. Dipl.-Ing. H.H. (Hüsnü) Yegenoglu Ir. J. (Jochem) Groenland J.J.M.P. (Sjef) van Hoof arch. avb. Prof. dr. ir. P.J.V. (Pieter) van Wesemael Unit AUDE Chair of Urbanism and Urban Architecture Department of the Built Environment Second, revised edition, October 2019 First edition, June 2019

Table of Contents Introduction

PART A - Research I. The waves of the Meuse

1.1 Multisensory and Spatial Qualities of the Presence of Water in Rotterdam 1.2 Historical Development

II. Beyond the quays: Katendrecht 2.1 The Position of Katendrecht in Rotterdam 2.2 Spatial Characteristics of the Interaction Between Architecture-Quay-Water

III. Rotterdam Metropolis

PART B - Design Experiment: Urban intervention IV. The Playing Field and Five Moderators 4.1 Abridgement 4.2 Urban Interventions in Response to the Playing Field 4.3 The Urban Intervention: Five Moderators

PART C - Design Experiment: Architectural object V. Datacenters in the Netherlands 5.1 The Emergence of the Datacenter Industry in the Netherlands 5.2 Datacenter Differentiation and Geographical Parameters 5.3 The Ubiquity of the Datascape in the (Urban) Landscape

VI. DATAPOLIS

pages 4 - 79 6 21 23

30 49 64

pages 80 - 109 82 85 86 92

pages 110 - 205 112 139 145 154

172

Acknowledgements

206

Summary

207

References

208

Illustrations

212

Introduction

Rotterdam Havenstad is no more. At least not in the sense where economic activities related to the water, i.e. the port, are spatially, economically and culturally inextricably and integrally interwoven in all facets of daily life within the city. With the port expanding ever westward, city and port have increasingly grown further apart and operate seemingly independent from each other. Therefore, the once natural and most explicit connection of Rotterdam to its waters is no more. The bare land left behind by the equalization of the former port terrains from the late1970s onwards offered opportunities for the city to reengage with the water in a multitude of ways. Initially, this resulted in almost purely residential developments along the south bank of the Meuse during the urban renewal period of the 1970s and 80s. From the late 1980s however, large scale area transformation projects as the Kop van Zuid, of which the waterfront development on the Wilhelminapier is most exemplary, started being developed. In response to the current strain on the city of Rotterdam to densify and accommodate an increasing number of residents within its city limits, the remainder of former port, or soon to be former port terrains, in close proximity to the inner city are under pressure. Large scale redevelopment schemes have already been drawn up for areas as Merwe-Vierhaven, Katendrecht and Sluisjesdijk. With the waterfront development of the Wilhelminapier nearing completion, the inner-city milieu has been successfully extended across the river and has started to both spatially and mentally alleviate the historically grown dichotomy between Rotterdam North and Rotterdam South. Katendrecht is the next stepping stone in line for the “recolonization” of the south bank - in contrast to the initial “colonization” of the south bank for port expansion from the second half of the 19th century onwards - in this line of area redevelopment and unrolling of the inner-city environment towards the south. The transformation of Katendrecht has however been ongoing from the late 1980s, starting with social housing in urban renewal projects, and from the early 2000s with housing aimed at a target demographic with a higher income and level of education, in contrast to the port laborers for which the neighborhood was once built around 1910. Over the past five years the redevelopment of Katendrecht has however been kicked into high gear with the appropriation of Fenix Loods II, the transformation of Fenix Loods I, but also the demolition and rebuilding of entire building blocks of Katendrecht’s “historic core”. The latest and currently being realized act in this step by step transformation process comes in the form of the project Entree-Katendrecht. The area redevelopment project Entree-Katendrecht supposedly aims to cater to higher income residents of Rotterdam, which is in great contrast with the older residential areas on Katendrecht that for a large part still provides social housing for lower income groups. The developments awaiting Katendrecht, however, exert pressure on those groups as they potentially entail increased rent prices, which has already proven in the past to push those people out who had any genuine connections to Katendrecht’s - infamous - historic development. Paradoxically, these type of area redevelopments in former industrial sites or infamous parts of the city, often strongly rely on the specific historically grown character of the location in terms of branding and the architectural relics that have remained in the abandoned wasteland as carriers of memory. However, these developments themselves do not contribute in any way to reaffirm or enrich this specific character, but are rather expressions of large financing streams of area transformations happening globally in a similar way in which the historic is spectacularized, preserved or transformed with great effort to eventually house similar program, with similar interior decorations and accompanied by ‘anywhere’ architecture. This study, however, does not necessarily aim to condemn these developments, but rather probes into how by strategically inserting a number of architectural interventions that operate on an urban scale and the manipulation of the set architecture-quay-water, the “other half” of Katendrecht could be transformed and reengaged with the water in a more sensitive and site-specific way.

Therefore, the following research question has been posed: How can Katendrecht reengage with the water by means of architectural interventions at an urban scale and the manipulation of the set architecture-quay-water? The terms architecture, quay and water within the set architecture-quay-water, have been defined as follows: Architecture: buildings either on land or in the water or a combination of the two. Quay: the outermost edge of the land, directly facing the water and forming the manmade border between land and water. Water: the water of the Meuse river, as well as the port basins. In order to provide an answer to the main question, a number of sub-questions have been posed. These sub-questions will be elaborated on in the ensuing three chapters of Part A. On the basis of site visits, observational methods, documentation and interpretation, historical analyses, by means of literature, and spatial analyses, these chapters provide insight into the topics addressed within the totality of the project and as such build a framework for the design experiment, which is elucidated in Parts B and C. The sub-questions for the research preceding the design experiment are: Chapter I 1. What are the qualities of the presence of water in Rotterdam? 2. How has the relationship between the city and the port, as the most dominant expression of Rotterdam’s entanglement with the water, developed up to the emergence of the peninsula Katendrecht? Chapter II 3. What has Katendrecht’s position been within the city of Rotterdam from a social, political, cultural and spatial perspective? 4. What are the spatial characteristics of the interaction between architecture and water on Rotterdam’s south bank in general and on Katendrecht specifically?

Chapter III 5. How has the interaction between city and port expressed itself in terms of architecture and urbanism, with architecture and urbanism considered as expressions of the culture of Rotterdam? In Parts B and C, the design experiment will be elucidated. Part B addresses the intervention on an urban scale, which consists of five architectural objects, or moderators, within the playing field. One of these five moderators has been worked out in more detail and is presented in Part C. Graduation studio Intermediate Size IV 2018-2019 The graduation project presented in this book is positioned within the context of the graduation studio Intermediate Size IV 2018-2019. This graduation studio was set-up to research the development of the city of Rotterdam and its port at five specific locations along the Meuse river. This ranged from Oud-IJsselmonde to Merwe-Vierhavens, in an attempt to understand how the infrastructure related to Rotterdam’s modern port and its urban fabric has developed over time, what types of spaces and spatial qualities could be identified in the in-between water and city and if any intermediary spaces could be identified that negotiate between the logic of the infrastructure of the modern port and the city. We have concluded that in the historical development of the city and the port the two have grown apart physically, which has resulted in in-between spaces as a resultant, rather than as (active) intermediary spaces, and has also led to city and port growing apart programmatically and mentally. After identifying a number of key moments within this development we have stated that with the development of the Petroleum ports on Vondelingenplaat and Hoogvliet as a satellite city, the spatial development of the city and port was definitely broken.

Introduction

Part A

Research

I The Waves of the Meuse

The Waves of the Meuse On the multisensory qualities of the presence of water in Rotterdam and the disentanglement of port and city

Near the estuary of the Rotte river and around the Rotte-dam in that very same river, a humble settlement emerged towards the end of the 13th century. This settlement effectively formed the birth of present-day Rotterdam. From the inception of Rotterdam, the city has been inextricably linked with the water in a multitude of ways. Spatially, for instance, the water has been petrified and translated in neighorhoods, streets and architecture. This is clearly legible in the morphology of neighborhoods as the Oude Westen where the former pattern of ditches has been translated into the street pattern of the urban fabric, as the streets were laid over the closed-up ditches. The streets were lined with conjoined houses on either side, which provided the former ditch also with a third dimension. On the other hand, economically, Rotterdam has strongly exploited its position at the intersection of the Rotte river and Meuse river, which has led to the development of an elaborate port apparatus that has always most directly and explicitly expressed the entanglement of the city with the water. To a certain extend this is still perpetuated until the present day. However, most of the port related activities currently take place far beyond the reach of the urban fabric and activities of the city itself, but rather on port terrains several kilometres removed from the city center. This disentanglement of the city and the port has occurred over the final quarter of the previous century and in conjunction most former abandoned port terrains have been redeveloped and filled in. With the near completion of the Kop van Zuid, and explicitly the Wilhelminapier as most prominent feature of the Kop van Zuid, the redevelopment of the waterfronts on the south bank of the Meuse has reached the peninsula Katendrecht as the next stepping stone in the “recolonization” of the south-bank of the Meuse river after the initial “colonization” of the south bank for the port expansion. After a consideration of the qualities of the water from the perspective of the flaneur, this chapter will pertain to the port developments on the south bank of the river. This has led to an invasive reconfiguration of the landscape and particular spatial interactions between the set architecture-quay-water.

1.1 Multisensory and Spatial Qualities of the Presence of Water in Rotterdam In the words of Charles Baudelaire, the skill of the flaneur is to observe aspects of everyday life, the beauty and quality of places in our built-environment that others might not notice.1 In short, the perspective of the flaneur offers a way of discovering, experiencing and documenting the city from the ground. Michel de Certeau contrasts the perspective of the flaneur with that of the voyeur, who sees everything from a great height and distance, and has a larger overview of a place or an overview of the city as a whole. He uses the World Trade Center in New York as such an instance of providing an overview of the city: To be lifted to the summit of the World Trade Center is to be lifted out of the city’s grasp. One’s body is no longer clasped by the streets that turn and return it according to an anonymous law; nor is it possessed, whether as player or played, by the rumble of so many differences and by the nervousness of New York traffic. When one goes up there, he leaves behind the mass that carries off and mixes up in itself any identity of authors or spectators. An Icarus flying above these waters, he can ignore the devices of Daedalus in mobile and endless labyrinths far below. His elevation transfigures him into a voyeur. It puts him at a distance.2 De Certeau uses the World Trade Center merely as one of the most prominent examples of the totalizing scope and knowledge from which one can see the city as a whole, making the complexity of the city readable by means of abstracting it and by extracting the onlooker from it. Walking and observing, flaneuring, can however provide an alternative reading of the city that has everything to do with being in a specific place at a specific time. By means of walking, with no specific predetermined goal or destiny and without too many preconceived assumptions and knowledge, one can discover aspects of the city in a vastly different, and

1. Baudelaire, C. (1986). In J. Mayne (trans.) The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays. New York: Da Capo Press. p. 9. This paragraph does not aim to provide an expansive overview of the rise and historic development of the flaneur, however it serves to provide a perspective or a way to look at the city. For more on the flaneur, see for instance Murail, E. (n.d.). Beyond the flâneur: Walking, passage and crossing in London and Paris in the Nineteenth Century. Kings College London. Retrieved December 8, 2018

2. Certeau, M. de. (1984). Chapter 7. Walking in the City in The Practise of Everyday Life. Berkley: University of California Press. pp. 91-93.

The waves of the Meuse

more subjective manner than experiencing the city from the perspective of the voyeur. The corporeal or embodied experience becomes not only part of undergoing the city, but can also come in to play in documenting the city. Moreover, it is a way of starting from the parts that together might form a whole, rather than starting from the whole and subsequently identifiying and extracting, or abstracting, the parts. The idea of collecting fragments from the specificity of places and connecting them to try to apprehend a larger space, context or concept is rooted in the critical process of flaneuring. This synecdochal mode of apprehension is described by Michel de Certeau, but is also part of Walter Benjamin’s similar practice as a historian. Benjamin’s goal is “to assemble large-scale constructions out of the smallest and most precisely cut components. Indeed, to discover in the analysis of the small individual moment the crystal of the total event”.3 The relevance of adopting the perspective of the flaneur in light of this research is that it offers an opening to unlock aspects and qualities of places in the city that cannot be discerned from maps, historical analyses and so on, but only by visiting these places and experiencing them in a multisensory way. Therefore, it goes beyond the visual, which has often been the driving force behind many of the waterfront developments in Rotterdam, allowing for other senses to come to the front in experiencing the water in the city. In light of the (spatial) research on reengaging with the water, these multisensory and spatial qualities of the water can potentially provide design instruments to do so, as the location for the subsequent design experiment, Katendrecht, is strongly characterized by the presence of water. Multisensory qualities of the water in Rotterdam Besides the use of water for the transportation of goods and people, its presence also has a variety of other characterizations and qualities of a spatial and multisensory nature. Multisensory qualities relate to or involve several physiological senses. These qualities generally address the visual, auditory, olfactory and somesthetic senses. From the observations a selection of four characteristics of the presence of water in Rotterdam have come to the front that most accurately typify the combined multisensory and spatial qualities of the water.

1. Slowness The peaceful onlook, the lethargic motion of the waves of the Meuse and the quiet waters of the port docks provide the water with an almost static appearance. The vastness of the water in combination with the sluggish movement of the port related vessels on the horizon in the distance enhance this inert appearance. Nevertheless, the water is in permanent motion, which is one of the fundamental differences between land and water. 2. Vastness The waters of the Meuse and the port basins offer wide open far sights. This vast openness in combination with traveling over the water per boat or along the waters per different modes of transportation results in specific spatial characteristics. 3. Isolation & distance The openness provided by the water simultaneously severs pieces of land from each other, isolating them, placing them at a distance from each other. As bridges, tunnels and even locations to board boats and watertaxis are on a limited number of points along the quay line, there are literarly ‘dead ends’ present on land. This is for instance the case on the land abutments. However, in the port basins as the Rijnhaven and Maashaven the inverse effect is also present as there the body of water literally ‘ends’. The ‘dead ends’ both on land and in the form of the waterbodies are indicative of the land-water interface for the exchange and transshipment of goods from water bound transportation to landbound transportation and vice versa. 4. Stillness The vastness combined with the isolation, distance and ‘dead ends’, generates a certain stillness. This stillness can emerge as a result of one being relatively far removed from the sources of noise and busyness of the (inner) city, as the ‘dead ends’ are generally not close to main traffic arteries. Wind and water are the main sources of sound. In contrast to the qualities previously discussed, this sensations also explicitly relates to the auditory, olfactory and somatosensory senses in addition to the visual sense. Aforementioned qualities have strong spatial components, such as the vastness and isolating character of water in Rotterdam, but also strong temporal components, such as slowness, movement or the hypnotizing rhythm of the billow against the quay or the blowing of the wind. In conjunction, these characteristics generate a distinct (spatial) experience of the waterfronts and quays along the waters of the Meuse and the port basins. Time slows down.

3. Murail, E. (n.d.). Beyond the flâneur: Walking, passage and crossing in London and Paris in the Nineteenth Century. Kings College London.

No intense vehicular traffic is present. They are quite literally dead-ends. The vast richness of the quality of the water, however, comes best alive in a spatiotemporal experience in which one moves over the infrastructural networks both on land and on water. As such, aforementioned qualities come explicitly to the front and are concatenated in scenes and experiences that are shaped by the latent qualities of the water and enriched by the interaction with the architecture on land, which results in Rotterdam’s dynamic skyline. (This will be elaborated in chapter 2). In final, even though these types of waterfronts are currently under high pressure as they are highly valuable in the world of real estate development and speculation for waterfront property development, especially in light of the ongoing recolonization of the south bank of the Meuse. The quays can, however, simultaneously be perceived as one of the most pressure-less, open-ended and unmonitored public spaces of the city. Places where everything is possible, due to their spacious dimensions and robust design, yet nothing has to take place. One can isolate oneself in the stillness of the quays and appropriate a place, making it yours for a moment. The open-endedness and indeterminate nature of the waterfronts and quays has a value of its own and makes them valuable beyond their visual qualities and economic value.

1.2 Historical Development The intricate spatial interplay between water and the city, as hinted at before, has developed over a long period of time. Two historic basic premises of this interrelation are the following: 1. The modification of the landscape A) As absolute precondition for survival, achieved by means of construing dikes B) For the production of food and energy by cultivating the landscape by means of agriculture and peat extraction. 2. Water as a means of transport The exploitation of the beneficial position of Rotterdam in the curve of the Meuse river and on the Rotte river.

Radical transformations: From Waterstad to Transshipment-port The once natural connection between the water and the city was most clearly expressed in the presence of the Rotterdam port. In an effort to further the understanding on the elaborate entanglement between Rotterdam and its water, the historical development of Rotterdam and its port will be discussed. As Katendrecht will serve as the location for the design experiment, the historical research of the development of Rotterdam’s port will span from the intricate port-city complex of Waterstad to the transshipment port and emergence of the peninsula Katendrecht. Three specific steps, or rather two distinct breaks, in the spatial logic between port and city have been identified and will be discussed. Waterstad Towards the end of the seventeenth century the characteristic Stadsdriehoek had been formed after a number of succesive southward expansions of the city of Rotterdam. The incentive of these expansions had in the first place been military as the expensions were part of the city’s defense strategy and therefore entailed the further ramification of its fortification. Streets named after the moats (vesten), which demarcated the Stadsdriehoek remind of that. The Stadsdriehoek made up the majority of the city’s territory and was enscribed by the Coolvest, the later Coolsingel, to the west; the Goudsevest, the later Goudsesingel, to the east and the Meuse river to the south. The village that had grown from a small fishing town clustered around the dam in the Rotte river, had grown to become the second largest city of the country after Amsterdam. When the Stadsdriehoek is analyzed, two distinct areas can be identified. These areas were separated by the Schielandse Hoge Zeedijk, which is the linear dike body that protected the north bank of the river Meuse from being flooded. The section of the Schielandse Hoge Zeedijk within the Stadsdriehoek is called the Hoogstraat. North of the Hoogstraat the Landstad can be identified and south of the Hoogstraat the Waterstad can be identified. Both areas can be identified by their essentialy different relationship to the water.

The waves of the Meuse

The first premise formed, upto the 1930s, the basis for the spatial development, which to a large extend had to play by the rules of the water management of the water rich estuarian landscape. (After the 1930s this could for a large part be ignored, due to technological innovations in leveling the land with a layer of sand, as well as in sewerage management, allowing for the historically grown spatial structure of water management to be disregarded.) The second premise has formed the basis for the future economic and spatial development of the city that is closely related to the port and its affiliated industries.

Spatially the Landstad had developed on the basis of the first premise: the modification of the landscape as a precondition for survival and cultivation of the land. Therefore, the primary focus was on the land, rather than on the water. Nevertheless, the spatial development of the Landstad was shaped by the manipulation of the landscape to manage the water. This has resulted in a particular system of (narrow) canals with streets parallel to them between which houses were built in the form of closed building blocks. In contrast, the Waterstad had spatially developed on the basis of the second premise: the relation of the city to its port. Even though the Waterstad was most certainly also shaped by the manipulation of the land, both parts of the Stadsdriehoek had developed significantly different. This is in part explained by the fact that the land that was available south of the Hoogstraat consisted of salt marshes that, unlike the land north of the Schielandse Hoge Zeedijk, remained subject to flooding in above normal hightides. However, the main difference in the spatial development of the Landstad and Waterstad also had to do with the fact that the Waterstad was specifically geared towards exploiting the favorable position of the city along the Meuse and the growing port activities. Towards the end of the seventeenth century this had resulted in an urban form and morphology of a closely interwoven port-city complex, which consisted of a mixed residential and trade area. Architecture-quay-water as a single, interwoven system. Waterstad harbored, amongst others, small scale industrial complexes related to the port economy, however, also specific architectural typologies related to the port, such as merchant houses and warehouses. The different buildings and typologies all shared a common public quay along the different canal ports. In this more planned expansion area, in contrast to the more organically grown Landstad, the representative aspect is also linked to the booming port industry and economy. The houses along the new ports took ever greater monumental shapes and presences along the quays, expressing the riches of shipping magnates and important port related industries. The water related economic activities were predominantly present in public life and in public space. Both these urban and architectural characteristics were most clearly expressed in De Boompjes.4 With the construction of De Boompjes, the city form of the Stadsdriehoek was ‘completed’. Initially the area which we now know as De Boompjes was intended to be fortified as well and was meant to serve as the last step in the successive southward fortification towards the Meuse river.5 However, due to the signing of the Twelve Years’ Truce in the Eighty Years’ War, the urgency of those kinds of lines of defense around Rotterdam waned. Never-

Figure 1.2.1 - Map of Rotterdam in 1690, illustrating the Stadsdriehoek.

4. Laar, P. van de. & Uitterhoeve, W. (2004) Historische Atlas. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij SUN. p. 13.

5. Meyer, H. (1996). De stad en de haven. Utrecht: Jan van Arkel. p. 25.

Jump across the river Towards the end of the nineteenth century the pressure for the city of Rotterdam to take the leap southwards surmounted into a plan by the then city-engineer W.N. Rose. He enlarged the scope of his Coolpolderplan with a southward expansion in addition to a westward expansion of the city. He projected the southward expansion on the island Feyenoord, which was lodged in between the inside of the curve of the Meuse on one side and by the Zwanengat on the other. The need for a southward expansion of the city was fueled by the completion of the Nieuwe Waterweg (1872) and therefore an increasing need for quays, but also by the demand of businesses to expand on large port terrains.7 With the Coolpolderplan Rose envisioned the development of Feyenoord as a continuation of the monumental tradition that had been developed in the Waterstad and subsequent port complexes on the north bank. The plan consisted of a uniform grid that would provide space for sea- and inland ships, but also for trade- and industrial complexes. By continuing with this model on the south bank, Rose foresaw Feyenoord as a satellite city with a focus on the (emerging) industry.

Figure 1.2.2 - Map of Rotterdam in 1890, illustrating the expansion of the port on the south bank of the river.

The waves of the Meuse

theless, the land had already been prepared. So instead, new ports were dug, but with the new strip of land between the Oude Haven and Leuvehaven directly at the waterfront of the Meuse, it also became possible to create a boulevard and representative front along the north bank of the river. In addition to office buildings and stately residences of shipping magnates, which supplanted the ship making industry that had initially set up shop along De Boompjes, a double line of linden trees was planted, which provided the boulevard with its name. The double line of trees expressing the importance of this public space. What is particularly interesting about De Boompjes, is that it was the culmination and most direct expression of an intricate port-city complex which had formed south of the Hoogstraat, consisting of building blocks delineated with public quays and canal ports where trade openly took place in public space and was part and parcel of everyday life. By means of the quays the urban and international trade network were entangled and concurrently formed the most important centers of the municipality and its trade. As such, the quays functioned as, what Han Meyer has typified as an intermediary that mediates between two different networks, which operate at vastly different scales, i.e. the international trade network and the local network of urban streets.6

6. Idem.

7. In 1872 the Nieuwe Waterweg was completed after a design by civil engineer Pieter Caland. Laar, P. van de. & Uitterhoeve, W. (2004) Historische Atlas. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij SUN. p. 36

Figure 1.2.3 - Map from 1874 of the expansion of Rotterdam, featuring the port complex of the Rotterdamsche Handelsvereeniging (RHV) on Feyenoord.

The initial set-up and vision for the southward expansion might have been based on continuity in terms of the port-city complex and an idea of a city-form, the realized result has however led to radical breaks with these ideas of continuity, and would be the prelude to the future development and scalar jumps that have marked the development of Rotterdam and its port. With the introduction of the railway, the port-city complex would be transformed into a port-rail complex. This was also instigated by the delays in getting the plan of the ground from the side of the municipality. This resulted in the founding of the Rotterdamsche Handelsvereeniging (RHV) in 1872 on the initiative of entrepreneur Lodewijk Pincoffs.8 The break with the preceding development of the city by the final result of the development of the RHV port terrains on Feyenoord is expressed by a number of characteristics. First of all, it was the port development that solely initiated the development. The focus was on expanding the port and not the city as a whole including housing and so forth. Housing, in the form of stratenplannen, was only developed in later planning stages for areas that were not deemed fit for port activities. It was introduce to generate income to cover a part of the costs of digging the ports and to have manpower in close proximity to the port areas. Secondly, the more fine-grained network of shorter canal ports was transformed into a set of fewer, but wider and elongated canal ports that lacked cross connections. This transfiguration of the port-city complex is the result of the introduction of the railway. The ports developed parallel to the linear direction of the railways and trains, which allowed for a larger interface between the trains and the ships and also allowed for multiple points of exchange, rather than the previous often single point of exchange between ship and quay. This development was also accompanied by an increase in the size of the ships. This inevitably led to an increase in scale of all parts of the port infrastructure, resulting in a vastly different port system than the port-city complex of Waterstad where things were still being done on foot, by bike or kart and various combinations of the three. The port-city complex of the Waterstad had proven to be able to relatively easily cope with the arrival of the steam-

8. Pincoffs was a member of the Roterdam’s Finance Committee and a counsil member. Together with local, but predominantly foreign bankers, he founded the Rotterdamsche Handelsvereeniging, which would take on the construction and exploitation of the port terrains on Feijneoord as projected by W.N. Rose. Therewithal, Pincoffs empire would collapse shortly after due to fraudulous behavior, resulting in him fleeing to New York in 1879. Klerk, L. de. (2008). De modernisering van de stad 1850-1940. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers. p.180

Left: Figure 1.2.4 - Drawing of Rose’s 1858 Coolpolderplan proposal. Right: Figure 1.2.5 - Drawing of Rose’s 1964 Coolpolderplan proposal.

Figure 1.2.6 - Map of Rotterdam in 1910, illustrating the expansion of the port with the Rijnhaven and Maashaven which have effectively shaped the peninsula Katendrecht.

9. Brolsma, J. (2006). Havens, Dokken, Veren en Kranen. Utrecht: Uitgevrij Matrijs. p. 23.

10. Palmboom, F. (1995). Rotterdam, Verstedelijkt landschap. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. p.77

The waves of the Meuse

ship, but the arrival of the train had proved to be problematic and reach beyond the limits of the port-city model, forcing a drastic review of the port complex. In doing so, it transformed Roseâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s initial expansion plans into an infrastructural port-rail complex in which the train has aggressively pried itself between water and city; between port buildings and the water, and started to occupy quays and curve street walls. With the far-reaching industrialization and first steps towards mechanization of the port complex, the processes of the port became increasingly rationalized, specialized and mechanized. In addition, the entire undertaking of the port development on the south bank was a private enterprise. The combination of the two lead to the emergence of sealed off port terrains, which resulted into the withdrawal of port activities from the public domain and public life. This disentanglement of activities in public space was also incentivized by the fact that in the Waterstad, goods were often stored in the open air of the public space on the quay, resulting in a loss of quality and theft. Storage in warehouses was limited, therefore attempts were made to transport the goods as quickly as possible or get them into a warehouse or merchant house. Hence, the RHV had foreseen in a large number of warehouses.9 By erecting walls around the premises of the RHV these challenges were tackled and the formalities around customs could be reduced. Hence, security and control started to scale up, congruent to the port activities themselves. So, the port complex not only started to claim more land, these claims were also translated into defensive structures such as walls and fences. The static port-city complex of Waterstad is no longer recognizable in the RHV port terrains on the south bank of the Meuse. Instead, it has disassembled into a port-rail complex in which disentanglement and isolation is preferred for the quick and efficient transshipment and production.10 This port complex can effectively be regarded as an intermediary between the more traditional seventeenth and eighteenth century ports of the Waterstad and the enormous port basins of transshipment ports of the nineteenth and early twentieth century. Transshipment port With the completion of the port terrains of the RHV, Rotterdam was outfitted with the most modern port complex at the time. Paradoxically, these ports were already out of date at the time of their completion. This was due to the fact that even though the port complex had been transformed into a port-rail complex, the RHV terrains were mainly geared towards the handling of piece goods. The steamship in combination with the railway in essence heralded

the first wave of massification, which meant that in a shorter amount of time, more goods could be transshipped and transported, which required a different type of port for the efficient transshipment of goods. This first wave of massification only regarded mass goods, such as ore and grain.11 Massification were also incentivized by external pressure coming from the German Ruhrgebiet, Rotterdam’s natural hinterland, by bodies as the Rheinisch Westfälische Kohlensyndikat Aktiengesellschaft. Founded in 1893 this body served as a sales organization for the sale of coal coming from the Ruhrgebiet. The large scale industrialization of the Ruhrgebiet meant that raw material had to be shipped as quickly as possible to and from the Germany.12 This led to the installation of the first coal hoist at the Binnenhaven in 1885.13 The outdatedness of the model of the RHV ports, however, not only had to do with external influences that exerted pressure on the port of Rotterdam, there were also local frictions that lead to the demise of the canal port model. These frictions came from the fact that as a result of the busyness in the port of Rotterdam, a shortage of free quay length emerged. Hence, goods were started to be transshipped on stream (i.e. on water), meaning that the quay was taken out of the equation for the operations of the port activities, which resulted in a shift in the balance between land and water. This development was further stimulated by the fact that no money could be collected by the municipality for the transshipment of goods as this payment was not compensated by services in kind by the municipality, effectively making on stream transshipment also a cheaper option.14 The combination of the two developments resulted in G.J. de Jongh, the then city engineer and successor of W.N. Rose, to propose a new type of port: the transshipment port. The transshipment port entailed an inversion of the relation between land and water as it consisted of a large basin with moorings and a lot of quay length, but relatively little on shore land use. Even though, the port basins were fit within the outlines of the existing dike infrastructure, effectively making them the primary shaping element of the port basins, they resulted in deep incisions in the landscape. The arrangement of the port terrains served as a secondary form giver. The remainder of the space was filled with dwellings that took up the poche between the infrastructural networks, warehouses and industrial buildings. These areas were left open for private investors and developers. Rotterdam South became an infrastructural node which was primarily geared towards the port, resulting in it becoming an area strewn with railway lines and the optimum disposition of means of traffic and infrastructures for which not the expansion of the city by means of dwellings was leading, but the port expansion both in financial and spatial terms. The Rijnhaven, which was completed in 1895, was the first port based on the transshipment model.15 Directly after its completion the Rijnhaven became so crowded that ships could hardly find a spot to moor. Hence, almost instantly after the completion of the Rijnhaven De Jongh had drawn up the next port expansion to provide space to accommodate the

11. With the booming oil industry and the use of containers from the middle of the 1950s onwards, a second wave of massification, or rather containerization, was heralded, which also allowed for piece goods to be transported and transshipped en masse. Lap, B.C.W. (1982). Schip. p. 6-13. In Grosfeld, J. & Feijen, G. (1982) Schip Haven Stad. Ontwikkeling en onderlinge relatie Rotterdam 1880-1980. Rotterdam: MaritiemMuseum “Prins Hendrik”. 12. Klerk, L. de.; Laar, P. van de. & Moscoviter, H. (2008). G.J. de Jongh: havenbouwer en stadsontwikkelaar in Rotterdam. Bussum: THOTH. p. 132 13. Huurman, C.P. (1982). Haven. p. 14-20. In Grosfeld, J. & Feijen, G. (1982) Schip Haven Stad. Ontwikkeling en onderlinge relatie Rotterdam 1880-1980. Rotterdam: MaritiemMuseum “Prins Hendrik”. 14. The Supreme Court had ruled in 1872 that transhipping goods on the Meuse was free of charge and that money could only be collected by the municipality when it provided services in return. Klerk, L. de.; Laar, P. van de.& Moscoviter, H. (2008). G.J. de Jongh: havenbouwer en stadsontwikkelaar in Rotterdam. Bussum: THOTH. p.129

15. Idem.

Conclusion The tripartite discussion of the historic development of the city and the port has illustrated an incrementally, growing distance between the development of the city and the development of the port. The latter became increasingly autonomized in pursuit of economic growth, and was only accompanied by housing on the grounds of speculative developments and the close proximity of the labor force. No longer could one speak of an elaborate and interwoven port-city complex in which the quay functioned as an intermediary public space, but rather the port-city complex was over time transformed into a port-rail complex with a vastly different spatial logic and development strategy. In subsequent decades, the port and the city would continue to grow further apart spatially, but equally important, also socially and mentally due to the westward move of the port and a decrease in job opportunities in the port due to automation. The most enigmatic piece of Rotterdam that came into being as a result of the development of the port-rail complex and the transshipment port is Katendrecht. With the development of both the Rijnhaven and Maashaven, a peninsula was formed between the two, locked in between both port bassins and the Meuse river itself.

16. In addition to floating grain elevators a whole fleet of floating port equipment was built of, amongst others, refueling ships and floating cranes. This also freed up space on land allowing for the positioning of portbuildings adjacent to each other and in close proximity, parallel to the water. Ravesteyn, L.J.C.J. (1974). Rotterdam in de achttiende en negentiende eeuw. Schiedam: Interbook International. p. 170-172. 17. Idem.

18. This rhetoric is exemplified by a quote by Joost van Vollenhoven: â&#x20AC;&#x153;Hier beschouwt men Rotterdam misschien als een gemeente gelijk andere gemeenten, maar in het buitenland beschouwt me de geheelen Waterweg als de haven van Rotterdam. (...) Het [is] een landsbelang dat Rotterdam de tweede haven van het vasteland van Europa is en blijft.â&#x20AC;? Klerk, L. de.; Laar, P. van de.; Moscoviter, H. (2008). G.J. de Jongh: havenbouwer en stadsontwikkelaar in Rotterdam. Bussum: THOTH. p. 155

Figure 1.2.7 - Panorama by E. Hesmert (1904), illustrating the port-rail complex on the south bank of the river.

The waves of the Meuse

ever-expanding port apparatus. In 1901 the plan for the Maashaven was made, which was a port basin twice as large as the Rijnhaven. It was completed in 1905 and was mainly meant to serve grain ships that would discharge their load by means of floating grain elevators.16 De Jongh wanted to have the Maashaven close to the Rijnhaven in order for it to form, together with the peninsula Katendrecht and the Rijnhaven, Dokhaven and Katendrechtsehavens, an integral port and industry complex on Feyenoord. Contrastingly, the port did not engage in such a syntactic relation with the housing area on south, which had grown extensively due to the increase in port activities. Instead, villages were demolished in light of the digging of the port basins. Hence, the village Katendrecht was demolished completely and the village Charlois in part for constructing the Maashaven, resulting in the displacement of three to four thousand people that had to be housed elsewhere.17 It is important to realize that this pervasive restructuring and transformation of the landscape of the south bank of the Meuse was considered from a national and even an international perspective. The rhetoric that undermined the local conditions went from pragmatic and local necessities to a national and international perspective. It was argued that any obstruction or delay in the expansion of the port would threaten the national economy.18 It was in this line of reasoning that the demolition of Katendrecht was justified. In addition, rather than developing a comprehensive urban vision for the expansion of the port, and the city, the planning of the expansion of the port was considered in solitude, resulting in the housing only filling up the poche between the infrastructures.

II Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

Beyond the quays: Katendrecht Positioning Katendrecht in Rotterdam and the Richness of the Interaction Between Architecture and Water

With the completion of the Rijnhaven and Maashaven the spatial blueprint for Katendrecht was laid. The geographical position of Katendrecht within Rotterdam, but also the combination of the forces at play on the peninsula, have led to a rather complex and notorious historical development of the neighborhood. Katendrecht has taken up different peculiar positions within the city, which range from total ostracization to currently being one of the most popular areas within the city. In this chapter the historical development of Katendrecht will be considered, providing a broader and deeper understanding of Katendrechtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s position within the city, which will result in providing programmatic input for the design experiment. Subsequently, aforementioned qualities of the water and the spatial characteristics of the interaction between the water, port landscape and architecture on the south bank will be discussed in general, as well as more specific for Katendrecht. This will provide insight into Katendrechtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s spatial set-up and its relation to the waters by which it is enclosed.

2.1 The Position of Katendrecht in Rotterdam 1. Verschoor, E.G. (1980). Het Oude Cathendrecht tot en met het ontstaan van Charlois (1199 1462 ). p.17-20. 2. Brolsma, J. (2006). Havens, Dokken, Veren en Kranen. Utrecht: Uitgevrij Matrijs. p. 152.

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

The name Katendrecht surfaces for the first time in historical documents as Catendrech in 1199, as Cathendrecht in 1240 and as Kattendrec in 1384. Presumably, the name refers to a sailing route along a shallow area with a katachtige bocht or side deviation.1 The Katendrechtse veerpont (ferry) is mentioned for the first time in a charter in 1323 and is indicative of the gateway function Katendrecht has fulfilled for accessing Rotterdam from the south.2 Therefore, it took up a central nodal position in the larger transportation network Amsterdam-Dordrecht-Antwerp, long before the development of Feyenoord. This is reflected in the Dortsestraatweg that was laid in Napoleonic times. It concatenated, or rather short-circuited, a number of ring-shaped dikes, which were typical for the landscape on the south river

45 kilometers

Top: Figure 2.1.1 - Satellite image of Rotterdam with in white the demarcation of the municipal border and in red the demarcation of Katendrecht. N

Bottom: Figure 2.1.2. - Zoomed in demarcation of Katendrecht, positioning it within the city.

bank, to form a more or less straight line to the ferry at Katendrecht. Katendrecht emerged at the location where the Dortsestraatweg reached the Meuse river. Outside of Katendrecht’s dike there was a small port with a causeway and a wharf. Due to the ferry, Katendrecht had a tollhouse and inns. Houses of the ribbon village developed along the Hilledijk, Katendrechtse Lagedijk and the Dordtsestraatweg. In the direct vicinity of the village, wealthy and established inhabitants of Rotterdam built country houses in the eighteenth and nineteenth century to escape the increasing busyness of the booming city within the Stadsdriehoek.3 The ferry connection to Rotterdam was instrumental in stimulating the settling of the bourgeoise in Katendrecht. Katendrecht’s attractiveness would however diminish with the construction of the RHV port terrains, resulting in an increase of activity on the left bank of the Meuse. With the construction of the Willemsbruggen and the Maasbruggen, Feyenoord became less isolated and more populated with laborers, resulting in the waning of Katendrecht’s uniqueness of being the gateway to Rotterdam from the south.4 The subsequent radical transformation of the landscape of the south bank of the Meuse, which also entailed the demolition of the village Katendrecht, might best be typified as brute imperialism or colonization of the left bank of the Meuse in service of the land hunger of the city and mainly the port. The country retreats, villa’s, and other natural beauty of the country side of Katendrecht did not outweigh the pressure exerted by the economic forces at work in and around Rotterdam.5 The ensuing overwriting of the landscape was justified by being in the country’s interest, reflecting national and international interests which resulted in an explicit large scale adaptation of the local. A phenomenon which would occur repeatedly in Rotterdam.

“Katendrecht 2.0” On the peninsula, which was the result of digging the Rijnhaven and Maashaven, “Katendrecht 2.0” was to emerge to on the one hand provide housing for those displaced by the demolition of the former village and on the other hand to provide workers housing in close proximity to the brand-new port terrains more or less in the center of the two new transshipment ports. However, the new neighborhood Katendrecht was also part of a type of thinking about the development of the city, which was present in Rotterdam at the time and part of a larger wave of thinking about the management of the city and its population. This also had concrete spatial consequences. This line of thinking was already set out by De Jongh’s predecessor W.N. Rose. Rose was faced with a number of cholera pandemics in Rotterdam as a result of the silting city and the deplorable housing conditions in certain areas. Rose counteracted the pandemics and deplorable housing conditions with concrete spatial measures, resulting in cleared, well ventilated streets and squares, but also the emergence of new types of hospitals and schools. Basically, there was a spatialization of the medical prevention care. This line of hygienist thought was coupled to a moralist program on dwelling in the emergent modern city and disciplining those, mainly migrants from the countryside, who came to work in the port and did not, or tried not, to subject themselves to this moral. Rose’s Waterproject is most exemplary for these shifts in the development and management of Rotterdam, and central to address the health problems in the city. This is reflected by the multitude of strategies implicit to the Waterproject, besides the health problems in the city. With contriving the singels the spatialization of the hygiene

3. Meijel, L. van.; Hinterthür, H. & Bet, E. (2008). Cultuurhistorische Verkenning Rotterdam Zuid. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. p. 21.

4. Meyer, H. (1983). Operatie Katendrecht – ‘Demokratisering’ van het sociale beheer van de grote stad. Nijmegen: SUN. p. 11.

5. Architect J. Verheul Dzn. was concerned about the radical transformations in light of the port expansion and voiced his concerns by means of several publications on different parts of Rotterdam. He published a small book on Charlois and Katendrecht and the disappearing natural beauty in and around the polder of Charlois, which contained drawings and illustrations of the remainder of the landscape in and around Katendrecht. Verheul Dzn., J. (1933). Het voormalige Charlois en Katendrecht alsmede het verdwijnend landelijk schoon in en om den Charloisschen polder te Rotterdam. Rotterdam: N.V. Drukkers- en Uitgeversbedrijf Stemerding & Co.

Figure 2.1.3 - Stratenplan for Katendrecht by G.J. de Jongh (1893).

The spatial set-up of Katendrecht The spatial set-up of the new Katendrecht on the newly acquired land abutment, was based on a combination of the strict application of the building regulations from 1887 and a formal street pattern which was based on the orthogonal grid of the remainder of the polder landscape. Within that grid building blocks were projected that had the optimum size for the construction of speculative housing. These efforts were aimed at creating a model workers neighborhood where the most modern and recent means and insights in spatial planning were utilized to guarantee public health, and public order, and a well-mannered community. Planning measures, which can be positioned in the aforementioned tradition of the spatial and social management of the city in which the city had been considered as a cesspool of problems, such as poverty, the lack of hygiene and uncivil behavior. Synchronously to the projection of the Maashaven, De Jongh had proposed east of the Tolhuisstraat – the former main road in Katendrecht leading towards the ferry - a formal street pattern of three main streets of twenty-five meters wide and a number of streets perpendicular to these main streets with a width of fifteen meters. The Rechthuislaan formed the exception with a width of thirty meters. This new type of wide streets demonstrated a new type of urbanity of wide, clean and open streets, similar to streets that were developed elsewhere in Rotterdam at the time. Despite the efforts that went into planning and contriuing “Katendrecht 2.0”, the neighborhood would already no longer be considered a model neighborhood, but rather as a necessary evil within one year after its completion.9 The eastern part of Katendrecht was developed first and predominantly set-up for the relocation of the original inhabitants of the former village. However, most would not return. In contrast, the neighborhood became mainly occupied by migrant farmers coming from the provinces Zuid-Holland, Zeeland and Brabant. Later the neighborhood was expanded west of the Rechthuislaan. The western part was mainly intended for new comers, consisting predominantly of port-workers and seamen. A specific housing typology with extra entrances, more privacy and highly flexible subdivisions allowed for the multi-cultural population that would develop on Katendrecht and allowed for the houses to be used as shops, restaurants, brothels and boarding houses in the decades to follow.10 The Maashaven was set up without taking a lot of space for businesses on land due to the shift from the exclusively landbound transshipment of goods, to the transshipment of goods on water. Hence, initially the southern quay of Katendrecht along the Maashaven was initially foreseen to host housing. Per contra, this had eventually be given up for the development of port areas. This was due to an initial neglegence of the piece good transshipment,

6. Graaf, J. de; Nijenhuis, W. & Dansik, D. van. (1982). Een schoone stad. Rotterdam maakt de sprong naar Zuid. in Barbieri, U. De Kop van Zuid: ontwerp en onderzoek. Rotterdam: Rotterdamse Kunststichting Uitgeverij. p. 103-116

7. “Dit geschiedde echter op een wijze van een Javaansche kampong of een Turksch dorp”. De Jong on the growth of the housing in Charlois and Katendrecht. (Graaf, J. de; Nijenhuis, W. & Dansik, D. van. (1982). Een schoone stad. Rotterdam maakt de sprong naar Zuid. in Barbieri, U. De Kop van Zuid: ontwerp en onderzoek. Rotterdam: Rotterdamse Kunststichting Uitgeverij p. 172. 8. Meyer, H. (1983). Operatie Katendrecht – ‘Demokratisering’ van het sociale beheer van de grote stad. Nijmegen: SUN. p. 12-13

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

problems got a distinct spatial translation in the urban landscape of Rotterdam on the basis of the causal connection between the quality and flow of the water and the cholera pandemics. However, at the same time the singels of the Waterproject demarcated the outer limits of Rotterdam’s territory at the time and as such formed the physical manifestation of this border. Therefore, they can be seen as a single, closed expansion of the city, a large-scale single gesture to internalize all that which had developed outside the Stadsdriehoek and subject it to the urban order and moral of the city.6 “Katendrecht 2.0” is a product of this thinking as new stratenplannen for Katendrecht had already been drawn up in 1857, which was long before the digging of the Rijnhaven and Maashaven. They were drawn up as a response to the living conditions that had developed in Katendrecht, which were considered as atrocious and described as being akin to a Javanese campong or Turkish village to indicate the degenerative view on Katendrecht, and consequently those respective societies, by several public institutions and the Public Health Committee most prominently.7 In 1854 a Public Health Committee was established that mainly focused on developing urban and architectural means and measures to improve the conditions in parts of the urban periphery and parts of the inner city of Rotterdam. In essence, a translation of Hausmann’s strategies that he had developed for his integral plan for Paris with which wide boulevard laced with modern public infrastructure as street lighting, sewerage and drinking water provisions were constructed in the city, but at the same time laid out an integrated system of control, preventing pandemics, crime, protests, but also served to relatively easy isolate parts of the city in the case of uprisings or strikes.8 The combination of the transshipment port model and the positioning of Katendrecht amidst the port terrains, eventually lead to aforementioned strategies to be translated into the encapsulation and isolation of the neighborhood. With the port activity in the transshipment port being concentrated along the edge of the port basins and the housing area set behind it, the neighborhood Katendrecht virtually resorted into an island on the peninsula. This was also due to the marginal access routes to Katendrecht: a small path on land or per ferry over water, allowing for, if need be, an easy control over the area and its inhabitants in the case of a strike. Katendrecht as a perfectly manageable capsular entity.

9. Dehaene, M.; Vervloesem, E. & Meulder, B. de. ‘Macht en onmacht van stedenbouw’ in Taverne, E. (2012). Nederland Stedenland. Rotterdam: NAi010. p.108-123. 10. “een buurt vol sociale ontreddering (…) waar de benedenlaag der arbeidersbevolking zich mengde met de onderste laag der bevolking waarmee zij haar onregelmatige levenswijze gemeen had” from P.J. Bouman and W.H. Bouman. (1955). De groei van de grote Werkstad. Een studie over de bevolking van Rotterdam. Assen, as cited in Meyer, H. (1983). Operatie Katendrecht – ‘Demokratisering’ van het sociale beheer van de grote stad. Nijmegen: SUN. p. 51-53.

which could not take place on water, that took up some of the linear meters of quay length along the Rijnhaven and Maashaven. Furthermore, it was not possible to move the loading bridges for the transshipment of coal and ore onto the water as had been done for the grain elevators. Therefore, space was allocated for this activity on the south of Katendrecht, as this transshipment mainly took place in the Maashaven due to the electric coal hoist, which was installed in 1930 at the Tweede Katendrechtse Hoofd. This resulted into a lot of ships that still had to discharge their load along the quay.11 Hence, the building blocks could not be realized along the quayline. As a result, the extra port development on land resulted in effectively cutting off of Katendrecht from the water as the provisions for transport per rail and per road were expanded and intensified, resulting in the neighborhood to be circumscribed by and pervaded with railways and access roads.12 Entertainment quarter Katendrecht’s peculiar spatial composition as an encapsulated island enclosed by a ribbon of port terrains on a peninsula in the middle of the port, had provided the breeding ground for the particular development of that part of the city. However, this notorious reputation was not only the result of the particular spatial conditions of Katendrecht, but also by active policy in using the neighborhood as a social container and perfectly manageable zone of lenience where openly disparaged aspects of urban life were tolerated.13 After the completion of the port basins and the operationalization of the port activities, Katendrecht found itself at the junction of the local and the global due to the periodic inand outflux of seamen. Interestingly, this recalls Katendrecht’s crossroad position where the Dortsestraatweg and the Meuse met, and a ferry service connected to the city of Rotterdam on the north bank of the Meuse. An ambiguous apparent paradox of both being a (vital) part of the city of Rotterdam where the local met the interlocal or the global and simultaneously the consideration of Katendrecht as the most peripheral of Rotterdam’s urban periphery. This peripheral typecasting of Katendrecht was strengthened by the notorious rumors, newspaper articles, human interest stories and even novels on Katendrecht and its peculiar, mixed population and “wild” nightlife consisting of jazz clubs and places like café Walhalla and Belvédère where the party would continue when all other bars would close. Furthermore, Katendrecht’s nightlife consisted of rampant prostitution, and more specific to the Chinese community on Katendrecht: opium use and gambling halls.

11. Brolsma, J. (2006). Havens, Dokken, Veren en Kranen. Utrecht: Uitgevrij Matrijs. p. 70-72.

12. Meyer, H. (1983). Operatie Katendrecht – ‘Demokratisering’ van het sociale beheer van de grote stad. Nijmegen: SUN. p. 18-19.

13. Dehaene, M.; Vervloesem, E.; Meulder, B. de. ‘Macht en onmacht van stedenbouw’ in Taverne, E. (2012). Nederland Stedenland. Rotterdam: NAi010. p.108-123

52 Chinatown The Chinatown on Katendrecht emerged in the wake of the dumping of sailors in the port of Rotterdam during the First World War. Rotterdam had the largest neutral port of the European continent during the war. Sailors were ordered to stay on land during the war, resulting in primarily Chinese and Javanese sailors setteling in Rotterdam. The Chinese sailors settled mainly on Katendrecht, making it the largest Chinatown in Europe in 1926 and serving as a ‘depot’ from which all continental ports in Europe were supplied with Chinese seamen. The Public Health Committee considered it difficult to communicate with the Chinese community, and consequently realized that it was impossible to educate and morally enFigure 2.1.4 - Aerial photograph of Katendrecht (1926). The encapsulation of residential Katendrecht is clearly legible on this photograph.

Figure 2.1.5 - A reconstruction of Chinese simulacra on Deliplein during the 1935 V.V.V.-week.

53 14. Ibid.

15. Meyer, H. (1983). Operatie Katendrecht – ‘Demokratisering’ van het sociale beheer van de grote stad. Nijmegen: SUN. p. 35-36.

16. Vervloesem, E. Chinatown op Katendrecht. In Taverne, E. (2012). Nederland Stedenland. Rotterdam: NAi010. p. 205-219.

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

lighten the Chinese. However, the committee could not demand the complete departure of the Chinese, due to the necessity of their labor for the port activities. Ideally, the committee foresaw a literal depot for the Chinese on port grounds. This would, in the eyes of the committee, prevent the establishment of a Chinese-quarter in the neighborhood, as well as the spread of the Chinese over the entire city. Moreover, the hygienic provisions could be taken care of and regular inspections could take place without any objections. This holistic vision of the Public Health Committee was, however, not financially feasible, as not a single company that employed Chinese workers was willing to invest in such a depot. Therefore, the committee decided it was best to completely isolate these people on the peninsula Katendrecht.14 This subsequently resulted in municipal policy that would steer towards the continued and expanded concentration of the Chinese on Katendrecht. The Chinese were not isolated from the people on Katendrecht however, but Katendrecht as a whole was isolated. The Opium law of 1919 also provided the legal space to enforce the social containment of the Chinese by means of strict police control. The continued isolation of Katendrecht and its status as a social container went even so far that if the social experiment on the basis of the 1927 regulation of boarding houses registration would prove successful, the regulations would be implemented in various parts of Rotterdam. The social containment and social experiment were legitimized by the extreme alienation of the Chinese within Rotterdam’s society by the tabloid press.15 The total isolation of Katendrecht, lead to interesting social phenomena as a result of the mix of Dutch and various foreign inhabitants. This was for instance reflected in a relative high number of mixed marriages between Dutch and Chinese people, Dutch women doing the laundry for Chinese seamen, and Dutch people giving Dutch language lessons to the Chinese and so on. Other Chinatowns in the world at the time, were much more introvert and the Chinese population was even much more stigmatized than in Rotterdam (outside of Katendrecht). In those cities mixed marriages were for instance seen as a disgrace, the Chinese on Katendrecht, however, were exceptionally well accepted by the local population. This could have had to do with the fact that Rotterdam South and Katendrecht in particular, functioned as a place for the arrival of people from different places. Those parts of the city had already been stigmatized for a long time, which might explain why the population there was less hostile towards the Chinese.16 Nevertheless, this relative harmonious society on Katendrecht came under pressure during the economic crisis of the 1930s as xenophobic, racist and openly fascist tendencies in Dutch society and politics resulted in harsher measurements against the Chinese population and more active repatriation efforts. As a result, the income of Dutch entrepreneurs on Katendrecht diminished, as they also depended on Chinese customers, who would frequent less often as they had difficulties in finding paid work and were reduced in number by the repatriation efforts. Out of these circumstances, and somewhat anachronistically, the 1935 VVV-week was organized by the Katendrechtse V.V.V.-committee, which consisted of both Dutch and Chi-

nese inhabitants of Katendrecht. This was unique and unprecedented in the world where Chinatowns existed at the time.17 Moreover, the V.V.V.-week would also mean that for the first time, Katendrecht would be viewed from a different perspective by the rest of the city and meant a breakthrough in the city traffic, as for the first time Katendrecht was frequented by a broad audience that at times would later also return to Katendrecht. Before, Katendrecht was only visited by a few who were attracted by the myth of the ‘noble savage’ and the image of a ‘dangerous’, ‘exotic’ and ‘mysterious’ life that could be encountered there. For the V.V.V.-week Katendrecht was dressed up to attempt to come closer to the exotic curiosum or the desire for Eastern authenticity as was propagated by the imaging of Katendrecht in the media. This resulted in Chinese simulacra as a Chinese market, temples, pagoda’s and a “genuine” Chinese teahouse, completed with two gates modeled after Chinese gates, geared to reshape the Deliplein into a “little-China”. Interestingly, this charade functioned as a masquerade for the Chinese population, who actively engaged in setting up the charade, to put their Chinatown in a different light. By adopting the stereotypical character, they were able to appropriate their own place in Rotterdam’s society. In essence, they positioned themselves better, economically, by exploiting, for instance, restaurants that catered to the Dutch population and by means of the V.V.V.-week reached a clientele that would otherwise not be confronted with the Chineze living on Katendrecht. In years to follow Katendrecht’s Chinatown was even promoted by the city to propagate Rotterdam as a true world city to foreigner visitors who would occasionally also visit the Chinatown on Katendrecht.18

Nightlife Katendrecht’s notorious reputation was however not only shaped by its Chinatown, Katendrecht’s nightlife also played an important role in this. Prostitution was most exemplary of this and has determined Katendrecht’s reputation up to the present day. The rise of prostitution was stimulated by the demolition of the Zandstraatkwartier along the Coolsingel in 1911, which consisted of a number of building blocks. They were considered as providing the most deplorable housing provision in Rotterdam and serving as the breeding ground for all public offenses, including prostitution, imaginable by institutional bodies as the Public Health Committee. With the demolition of the Zandstraatkwartier, to make way for the new city hall, post office and stock exchange, the shadow world of society moved to what at that time was more or less the literal, but also perceived, periphery of the city: Katendrecht. On Katendrecht there was also an infrastructure of cafés and bars present, which in combination with large numbers of sailors and housing with the lowest rents in Rotterdam, would prove to be conducive for the emergence of an elaborate prostitution industry on the peninsula. The geographical and cultural peripheral position of Katendrecht was, in addition to aforementioned Chinatown, enhanced by the prostitution. For instance, in the thirteenth issue of the weekly Het Leven in 1922 was, besides reports on Africa, Palestine and Indonesia, a report on Katendrecht published. It portrayed Katendrecht and its inhabitants as an exotic multiracial group of people with various occupations, which ranged from port worker to prostitute, in contrast to the decent, normal, Rotterdammer. Similarly, two literary novels: Delistraat by G.J. Peelen from 1936 and Dageraad in Katendrecht by Hans van Haefte from 1954, portrayed Katendrecht as a rotten place on the outskirts of Rotterdam, a place lacking

17. Ibid.

18. This economic advancement was, however, only reserved for members of the establishment within the Chineze community, the rest would remain in poverty and subject to midnight raids and repatriation to China. Ibid.

Figure 2.1.6 - Photograph of the Maashaven filled with grane elevators.

The rise of the Dutch Welfare State During and after the Second World War Katendrecht had truly become the sole place where prostitution took place in Rotterdam as the Schiedamsedijk, a vibrant entertainment district, was bombed during the war, resulting in prostitution concentrating even more on Katendrecht. After the war, a post-war welfare state was starting to be shaped, which consisted, amongst others, out of a number of social securities that were coupled to a system of social norms, benefits and regulations. The stabilization of the working population of Rotterdam in which the stable, modern family formed the basis, was a precondition for the fruition of this welfare state. This new moral of the workers family did no longer include poverty, prostitution, a dirty house, neglected children and alcohol abuse, but well-dressed children that attended both primary and secondary school and a crisp, freshly painted and well-kept home by a housewife who had nothing to do with prostitution.22 The living environment of the population on Katendrecht was however considered to be the farthest removed from what was considered “normal”. Research by amongst others Willem Steigenga and his social map of Rotterdam illustrated that this was coupled to the class of unschooled workers, which were considered “socio-pathological problem groups” and that these were mostly concentrated in Katendrecht and in the temporary villages erected by the municipality to house people from areas stricken by the bombings of World War Two. Similarly, to the hygiene problem in the 19th century, public institutions contrived of spatial measures to counteract the undesired conditions and developments in the city and let the shaping of the welfare state manifest itself spatially. The Department of Social Affairs and the Department of Planning and Reconstruction started working closely together to achieve this and foresaw the sanitation and demolition of these so called shacks. The neighborhoods areas labeled as containing high levels of socially weak families were destined for reeducation so that the neighborhood could develop into a “normal” residential area. Other neighborhoods were targeted for large scale sanitation and demolition plans. Katendrecht was, however, purposely left out of all these sanitation memoranda of the 1950s and 60s, while the housing supply on Katendrecht, was not significantly better than that of the neighborhoods that were targeted to be redeveloped. Katendrecht was actively maintained as a quarantine center for the “socio-pathological problem groups” that

19. Meyer, H. (1983). Operatie Katendrecht – ‘Demokratisering’ van het sociale beheer van de grote stad. P. 54-55.

20. Ibid, 7.

21. ‘Verboden voor Duitsers. Katendrecht in Oorlogstijd’, Andere Tijden (NPO/VPRO). 20 februari 2010.

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

any enlightened moral. In those novels mainly women were described as rotten and dangerous creatures. The novels were in effect moralizing stories that exploited the apparent dangerousness and immorality of Katendrecht for inducing a sensation of indignation. The bad endings of both novels aimed at discouraging a desire for exploring the dangerous, advising against visiting Katendrecht and letting it be on the outskirts of Rotterdam’s civilized society where safety, cleanliness and order reigned. Katendrecht served as a, nearby, real example of how things should not be done. The stigmatizing label “prostitution neighborhood” (hoerenwijk) also implicitly referred to the deviant character of Katendrecht in contrast to the rest of the city.19 Similarly, to dealing with the Chinese community, Katendrecht was outcasted as a social container for all elements considered to be part of deviant live. Nevertheless, in contrast to the presence of prostitution in the Zandstraatkwartier, which resulted in regulations and eventually the complete demolition of the neighborhood, the rise of prostitution on Katendrecht was seen as a positive development. Due to its isolated character it was easily to concentrate and control. The prohibition of brothels and pimping were explicitly not controlled on Katendrecht and both brothels and pimping were openly tolerated on the peninsula. As Han Meyer has noted, Katendrecht’s urban form, as a result of the port expansion, had become intertwined with the social management of the city.20 This manifested itself in Rotterdam with new forms of social and political management of the city in which various institutions would start to occupy themselves with and intervene in the housing situations of the inhabitants of the city, the urban infrastructure, but also the classification, registration and regulation of the population itself. This resulted in the spatial, social and political territorial isolation of an entire neighborhood of the city as a means to control and manage problematic groups and other outcasts of civil society. Katendrecht got a separate police post, which functioned as the most important provision in locking the peninsula down for police investigations or raids in search of undocumented persons, as the Chinese, or prostitutes. During the war the Nazis considered the simple lock down from the city as enough to keep that part of Rotterdam under control. At the two entrances to the peninsula large signs were placed that read “Verboten für Wehrmacht und Kriegsmarin”, which resulted in Katendrecht being the only area in Rotterdam that was banned for the Nazis out of fear for the troops getting addicted to opium or contracting venereal diseases.21 When the allied American and Canadian troops entered Rotterdam in 1945, they decided on the same measure for their troops.

22. From a research report by Grünfeld en Weima of the department of Social Affairs. From Meyer, H. (1983). Operatie Katendrecht – ‘Demokratisering’ van het sociale beheer van de grote stad. Nijmegen: SUN. p. 60.

were closely affiliated with the port industry.23 Even though, it was by far no longer on the geographical urban periphery, as was the case in the beginning of the century, socially and culturally it was still treated as such and decidedly maintained as a social container for all those demographic groups that could not, and perhaps would not, be integrated in the modern Dutch welfare state. Urban renewal: normalization wave I The perpetuation of Katendrecht as a social container, also meant that the nightlife and specifically the prostitution sector would keep on raging rampantly on the peninsula. In the 1950s and 60s the sex-industry was, however, an integral part of daily life on Katendrecht. The girls (de meisjes), as they were referred to by the inhabitants of Katendrecht, lived predominantly in the Sumatraweg in the eastern part of Katendrecht. They took children to go shopping in the inner city and in return children would do groceries for the girls.24 Howbeit, in the 1970s tensions between the prostitution industry, specifically represented by the pimps and owners of sex-shops and peepshows, and the local residents would rise and escalate into acts of violence and aggression from either side. Testimonials of local residents in the film Knokken om de Kaap indicate that these tensions arose when the sexshops and peepshows arrived. Before, prostitution was an integral, but also subdued part of daily life on Katendrecht. In the 1970 several cities in the Netherlands had sharpened their prostitution policies through legislation. This resulted in pimps and prostitutes from cities as The Hague, Amsterdam and Utrecht flocking to Katendrecht to continue their business. In 1971 pimps from The Hague purchased houses in the Atjehstreet and opened sex-shops. In addition, the girls were put behind windows and presented as separate from Katendrecht’s nightlife in bars. Furthermore, the type of prostitutes changed as a lot of foreign prostitutes also started to practice their business on Katendrecht. These prostitutes had no connection to the rest of the neighborhood and were more aggressive and competitive than their local counterparts. The influx of this new demographic resulted in a less integral society and in less social control. With the prostitution sector no longer being a subdued, integral part of daily life and ever more rude strangers visiting the neighborhood and asking random housewives and mothers: “How much does it cost to do it with you?”. 56

Resistance to the prostitution In contrast to the dominant narrative of Katendrecht as a cesspool of various socially unaccepted behaviors and conditions, in the 1970s active resistance from the residents to the increasingly explicit and vexatious presence of the prostitution industry emerged. Interestingly, this resistance and moralization of Katendrecht had its roots in earlier attempts of the Catholic church to achieve this. In 1921 a Catholic church opened on the Rechthuislaan with a mission to advance the purity and religious salvation of the many port laborers and sailors, who were in the eyes of the members of the Catholic church subject to atheism, sinning and socialism.25 In 1938 these activities were expanded with a Catholic clubhouse De Tol. After the war this religious infrastructure on Katendrecht expanded even more with a reformed church Rehoboth and in 1959 the Protestant clubhouse De Boei was opened on Katendrecht. Further, formalizations and active engagement of the inhabitants happened in 1969 when a neighborhood committee was founded. In both 1968 and 1970 petitions were offered to the municipality, urging it to take measures to counteract the prostitution sector in Katendrecht. Contrastingly, the increase in the anti-prostitution battle, also stimulated the brothel keepers and bar owners to unite in organized bodies. With the organization of representative bodies for both the pro and counter groups, both parties could conquer seats at various negotiation tables. However, the tensions between the two would also rise. Rising tension led to acts of violence in the years 1973 and 1974. The neighborhood committee was dissolved and continued as the group Aktiegroep Redt Katendrecht that started throwing in windows of the brothels, harassing brothel visitors and beating-up pimps. The prostitution sector fought back with violent threats to residents in the form of arson and even gun violence, with a bullet through the window of a children’s room as one of the culmination points. The police were in a heightened state of awareness and permanently present in the neighborhood for several weeks. Similar to the 1930s and 40s, Katendrecht was again hermetically sealed off a number of times by the police and everyone going onto or coming off the peninsula was frisked out of fear for the further escalation of (gun)violence.26 Urban renewal and participation The 1970s would prove to be a turning point in the development and image of the city as a whole, but also for Katendrecht specifically. The political strategy of maintaining Katendrecht as a social container was revised in the 1970s. To counteract the increased social tensions

23. The socio-pathological problem groups in part also deviated from what was considered normal due to the instability of their work as a result of the ingoing and outgoing ships and their on-call based labour. Their work was not based on formal contracts, but on a loose basis and executed at varying times. The stabilization of labor formed a central condition for the stable modern family to thrive, making it challenging for those affiliated with working in the port to achieve this.

24. Staal, A. (Director) & Ronteltrap, F. (Director). 2003. Knokken om de Kaap [Film]. Rotterdam: Dock-site productions in corporation with NCRV.

25. Meyer, H. (1983). Operatie Katendrecht – ‘Demokratisering’ van het sociale beheer van de grote stad. Nijmegen: SUN. p. 67-70.

26. Staal, A. (Director) & Ronteltrap, F. (Director). 2003. Knokken om de Kaap [Film]. Rotterdam: Dock-site productions in corporation with NCRV.

Normalization wave I The presence of the action group allowed for Katendrecht’s participation in normalized organizational structures and resulted in the residents of Katendrecht to communicate in a similar way and via similar platforms as the other neighborhoods of Rotterdam. This already elevated its status to a “normal” neighborhood. This newly acquired status and its status as an urban renewal neighborhood, would result in two things that explicitly expressed what can be identified as the first large scale normalization wave of Katendrecht. The first, was brought on by the pushback of prostitution activities on Katendrecht, resulting in these activities spreading to other neighborhoods of Rotterdam. Around 1975 the different action groups of those respective neighborhoods became alerted and were assigned to signal and regulate the prostitution in their respective neighborhood. This resulted in prostitution no longer only being an issue for Katendrecht, but for Rotterdam as a whole. This is for instance reflected in the elaborate and fierce discussions on the establishment and potential construction of an Erotic Center in Rotterdam. Especially, the potential transformation of the Poortgebouw at the Binnenhaven in Feyenoord resulted in fierce opposition by residents. The second, had to do with Katendrecht’s status as an urban renewal area, resulting in the introduction of a new type of dwelling culture, architecture and participatory structures that were similar to those of other neighborhoods in Rotterdam. Increasing rent prices was one of those similar phenomena of urban renewal in Rotterdam. This also became a problem for Katendrecht and not only for the rest of Rotterdam. Together with modernized transport- and transshipment methods and far-reaching automation, the number of sailors coming in and going out of Katendrecht in search of entertainment also dwindled. In combination with extensive and strict systems in place to prevent loose and unregulated labor in the port industry, the character of Katendrecht changed dramatically. In general terms the situation ameliorated as houses were transformed and renovated, new dwellings were built, and the nuisance related to prostitution was eradicated. However, a number of residents started opposing to these changes and their (financial) effects, as certain residents could not afford the increased rents after their houses were upgraded under the guise of urban renewal. Later and current developments: normalization wave II The urban renewal of Katendrecht from the end of the 1970s was part of a larger restructuring development of the old ports in and around Rotterdam’s inner city. The memorandum Herstructurering Oude Havens from 1978 was geared towards transforming former port terrains to housing areas and connect them better to the inner city.28 By 1985 the urban renewal of Katendrecht manifested itself strongly spatially with the completion of a number of social housing projects. These projects either consisted of the substitution or renovation of the housing stock on Katendrecht that did no longer provide adequate housing, or aimed at providing completely new social housing. For the most part these new buildings were erected on the area on the filled up Eerste Katendrechtsehaven. Even though, the expansion of the housing stock was partially aimed at attracting new type of residents, the same type of housing, namely social housing, was built. In 1985 a second plan for the restructuring of the old ports was drawn up by the municipality. In this restructuring plan attention was given to the terrains related to the piece good sector on Katendrecht. This resulted in stevedoring business Hanno, which was located along the Maashaven on the south part of Katendrecht, to move to the Waalhaven in 1996. This freed up a strip of land along the southern and western most quay of Katendrecht with a length of 1,8 km. Plans were drawn up for this newly freed up land, and Katendrecht was, on a plannological level, sub-divided into five sectors: the Laankwartier, the Havenkwartier, the Parkkwartier, the Rivierkwartier and the Tweede Katendrechtsehaven. However, a more

27. Kraaij, A. & Mast, J. van der. (1990). Rotterdam Zuid, voorstad tussen droom en daad. Delft: Faculteit der Bouwkunde. p.15-113-121.

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

and unwanted activities in Katendrecht, politically regulation through civil participation and decentralized responsibility was stimulated, rather than the pervasive (social) sanitation and demolition measurements that had been the de facto strategy during the 1950s and 60s. The various action groups that had formed in the seventies in neighborhoods across the city, became an integral part in governing the city and the planning apparatus of the municipality. They took up a significant place in the institutional politics and expanded its spectrum, “democratizing” a number of political issues due to the possibility for direct influence on policy and political decisions by residents. Han Meyer has signified this as a significant turning point in the social management and development of the city as a whole and Katendrecht in particular. This culminated in 1975 when Katendrecht was labeled as an urban renewal neighborhood and an urban renewal project group for Katendrecht was founded consisting of 50% civil servants and 50% residents, as per decree of Rotterdam’s urban renewal regulations.27

28. Dicke, M. & Zouwen, A. van der. (2006). Stadshavens Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij De Hef publishers. p. 90.

Left: Figure 2.1.7 - Puntenslijper, competition design by architect Carel Weeber for an erotic center floating on the Meuse, situated near the Park.

persistent and established subdivision of Katendrecht is between the landbound Pols (wrist) area and the water bound Vuist (fist) area, which is derived from the form of the peninsula. Subsequently, from the early 2000s on rental houses in the commercial sector, and houses for sale were developed on these newly available areas. This is in contrast with the preceding urban renewal development of Katendrecht, which exclusively consisted of the construction of social housing. These new types of developments also attracted a different type of demographic of higher income groups. This influx of a new demographic was part of a strategy to drag the neighborhood completely out of the slump, as after the urban renewal efforts, the amelioration of the neighborhood again started to become overshadowed by negative developments over the years.

Top: Figure 2.1.8 - Poster from 1979 by Robert van der Kroft for the protest against an erotic center in the Poortgebouw.

Similarly to the urban renewal developments throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the developments on Katendrecht from the early 00s onwards continued to exert pressure on the rent prices of the dwellings in the historic core, which still housed a lot of old inhabitants Figure 2.1.9 - Twee ballen en een pik, one of the first urban renewal projects on Katendrecht, designed by architect Carel Weeber.

Vuis t

Pols

Left: Figure 2.1.10 - Map illustrating the sectional division of Katendrecht. Top: Figure 2.1.11 - Drawing of the area transformation plan Entree-Katendrecht.

of Katendrecht. The envisioned upward-mobility of the residents by the introduction of new higher income groups and the renovation and transformation of dwellings has, however, lead to outward mobility as these residents could no longer afford the increased rent prices.29 With the ongoing and pending developments on Katendrecht, the question is whether the balance between the old inhabitants and “new comers” will hold or will become unbalanced. The primary objective of the previous expansions was providing dwellings. The current developments on Katendrecht however rather ensue a type of development akin to the Kop van Zuid and specifically that of the Wilhelminapier. As mentioned before, Katendrecht serves as the next stepping stone of the recolonization of the south-bank of the Meuse and the internalization of those stepping stones into the inner city milieu. This development can be recognized as a second normalization wave as Katendrecht is not only transformed for its own merit, but it ought to serve the city as a whole. Furthermore, the redevelopment of Katendrecht, by way of the plan Entree-Katendrecht, is at a scale vastly greater than the previous developments and truly aimed at having an impact on the scale of the city.

29. Meyer, H. and Reijndorp, A. Het ontwerp van de onzichtbare stad. Stedebouwkunde en nieuwe stedelijkheid. OASE, (19), 2–19.

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

Katendrecht’s development visualized The matrix presented in figure 2.1.15 portrays a visual summary of the transformation of the landscape and Katendrecht as discussed above and in chapter 1.2. From this matrix can be discerned how due to the various large scale port related developments, the quay line of the south bank of the Meuse has radically changed, accompanied by the transformation of the dikes, which were essential spatial markers along which the ribbon villages Katendrecht and Charlois had developed. When observing the development of the railways in combination with the morphological development of this part of Rotterdam South, it becomes clear how, in addition to the dike lines, the railways have been an important structuring element for the spatial organization. The shape of the neighborhood Katendrecht’s historic core matches the lines and curves projected by the railways. In final, when considering Katendrecht’s morphology, it becomes evident that the neighborhood currently consists of a number of morphological fragments. These fragments, chronologically, consist of: Figure 2.1.12 - Map (2019) demonstrating the social housing stock on Katendrecht. Apart from one building in the Lanenkwartier, the social housing is mainly concentrated in the old core and in the two projects west of the core that stem from the urban renewal period.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Katendrechtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s core; Remnants of the port industry along the northern quay of the peninsula; The first expansion dating from the urban renewal; A second expansion of Katendrecht in the early 00s; Two residential areas along the southern quay of the peninsula; Currently, the Entree-Katendrecht is developed in the Pols area. This can be considered the sixth morphological fragment, as this area has its own internal logic that is generated by the barcode that was formed by the three main railwaylines which entered the peninsula from there. This has resulted in four strips of built up areas between them. The barcode pattern is still present in this morphological fragment and perpetuated by the Entree-Katendrecht development.

Morphological fragments and domains The different morphological fragments can also be read as functional domains, as in each fragment one functional domain is dominant, if not the only functional domain present in that part of Katendrecht. The following functional domains can (potentially) be identified: A) dwelling, B) work/leisure, C) tourism/entertainment and D) new industry/Next Economy. The functional domain of dwelling is closely related to the residential areas on Katendrecht. The domain of work/leisure to the transformed former port buildings and port buildings still actively used as production facilities along the northern edge of Katendrecht. Currently, the eastern part is transformed with the project Entree-Katendrecht, which will become a more mixed area containing housing, office spaces and leisure facilities. On the western end of Katendrecht, around the Tweede Katendrechtsehaven, a tourist/entertainment district has started to develop over the past decade with the arrival of the retired cruise ship SS Rotterdam, the Pannenkoekenboot that circles around Katendrecht, but also the amphibious busses of Splashtours that enter and exit the water at the Tweede Katendrechtsehaven. In final, with the westwards move of port activities and the ensuing change in the use and perception of the water in the culture of the city, the Meuse river and port basins might be identified as potential locations for new forms of activities and new types of industries These might relate to the Next Economy: a development and economic strategy the city is currently already steering towards. 60

Left: Figure 2.1.13 - Morphological fragments of Katendrecht. Right: Figure 2.1.14 - Abstract map with the morphological fragments on Katendrecht in white. The letters refer to the functional domains: D. Dwelling W. Work/leisure T. Toursim/entertainment N. New industry/Next Economy

2. 3. 4.

3. 5.

W. D.

D. T.

D. D. N.

D. D.

Conclusion Since its inception Katendrecht has been subject to normalization strategies and systems of control to subject its population to the moral and order of the city at large. This was achieved by its exceptional positioning as an island, circumscribed by port infrastructure and terrains on a peninsula, lodged between large bodies of water, isolating Katendrecht and positioning it initially not only on the literal geographical urban periphery of Rotterdam, but also strategically on the societal and cultural periphery. As such, Katendrecht’s peculiar spatial blueprint resulted in the neighborhood becoming the exact opposite of what was envisioned, leading to the condemnation of Katendrecht and its inhabitants. Nevertheless, the considered deviance of Katendrecht was simultaneously cultivated and exacerbated by the further spatial and political isolation of the neighborhood. The culmination of different types of attempts to normalize and moralize Katendrecht had at the start of the 1980s finally led to the normalization of Katendrecht. This can be read from the fact that prostitution, which ostracized Katendrecht most, was eradicated and became a problem for the entirety of Rotterdam. The increase in rents also became a problem for Katendrecht and not only for the rest of Rotterdam. Furthermore, the actual control of the neighborhood did no longer have to be facilitated by special means as spatial encapsulation and isolation, and the occasional complete lock-down of the neighborhood, but with means that were also employed in other parts of the city, such as the urban renewal project group and other channels and platforms for active participation by the residents. This effectively led to a repositioning of Katendrecht within the city. The currently ongoing second normalization wave of further repositions Katendrecht within Rotterdam, resulting in the neigborhood becomming increasingly even more integrated into the city by means of the urban strategy of rolling out of the inner-city milieu on the south bank of the Meuse. The Rijnhavenbridge (2012), might best illustrate this strategy. Along with the ongoing redevelopments Katendrecht’s northern quay and Pols area are being injected with programs and architecture that is more or less similar to other former industrial site redevelopments. These types of developments are, however only possible in the closed world of a completed and closed plan based on providing some sort of ‘dizzying urbanity’ fed by a superficial reference to the history of that place, which has since long passed, and the urban and architectural interventions of these developments depend on the marginal remains of historic buildings. For instance, warehouse Fenix I was almost completely demolished before it could be retrofitted and topped up by a residential building block. In light of this, the following questions could be posed: 1. If the richness of the interaction between architecture and water could not be exhausted to a higher degree, and 2. If this could not result in architectural interventions that inject Katendrecht with new program, but simultaneously are more deeply rooted in the spatial character and history of the place, without becoming mere superficial references.

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

Pages 62-63: Figure 2.1.15 Visual summary of Katendrecht’s development and the three infrastructures that have shaped it: the quay line, the dikes and the train tracks.

Morphology

Train tracks

Dikes Quay line

1870

62 1890 1910

1990

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

1970 2019

2.2 Spatial Characteristics of the Interaction Between Architecture-Quay-Water The combination of the qualities of the water and the historical development of the city and port, as addressed in chapter 1, have led to a distinct spatial experience of the interplay between water, urban morphology and architecture. The specific development of Rotterdam South has resulted in a highly varied and unique entanglement between the water and the built environment. For the spatial set-up of Rotterdam south, that is the water facing area stretching from Feyenoord to the east and the Charloisse Hoofd to the west, a number of spatial characteristics can be identified that typify and characterize the aforementioned interaction between architecture-quay-water.30 These spatial characters will be consequently addressed and considered both at the scale of the south bank in general and for Katendrecht in particular and as such the aspects addressed in chapter 1 and in the first part of this chapter will be interrelated. 1. Quay side of the Meuse The southern quayside of the Meuse river differs greatly from that of the north bank of the Meuse. The essence of this difference lies in the in the different landscapes and topography of the land on either side of the river. As a result the northern quayside consists of a single continuous linear dike front. Contrastingly, the dike front along the south bank is much more fragmented and consisted of ringshaped dikes.31 This fragmentation of the dike front of the south bank was exacerbated by the invasive transfiguration of the landscape due to the deep incisions in the land when the port basins were dug. While on the north side the continuous dike front is currently still legible, the southern quayside is a highly fragmented and diverse quay line, which also lead to the forming of islands and peninsulas. Therefore, the south bank can rather be read as an archipelago. The peninsula Katendrecht is a prime example of the consequences of the transfiguration of the landscape on the south bank.

2. Headlands The fragmentation of the landscape due to the digging of the docks has led to the forming of land abutments. Especially, on the waterfront of the Wilhelminapier and the waterfront of Katendrecht these land abutments as ‘absolute’ ends of the headlands come to the front. This is a consequence of De Jongh’s decision to leave out any connecting bridges between the land abutments of the transshipmentport to not obstruct water borne traffic, as had been the case for the Koningshaven, Binnenhaven and Spoorweghaven in the preceding RHV complex on Feyenoord. (see chapter 1.2) This strategy was summarized by De Jong with the saying “an open entryway to the port is the ABC of port construction”.32 Conversely, for the flow of goods this did not mean dead ends, but rather these dead ends on land served as the interface where the goods were transshipped from one mode of transportation (boat) to the other (train, truck, etc.) and vice versa. On land the traffic network consisted of a dense network of, what could be considered various capillaries, to absorb and process the goods. Now, however, especially after the disappearance of the port function, these land abutments do form dead ends for land traffic and inhabitants on those headlands, with only from a small number of points to board ferries or watertaxis and waterbuses.

30. Meijel, L. van.; Hinterthür, H. & Bet, E. (2008). Cultuurhistorische Verkenning Rotterdam Zuid. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. p. 67-90.

31. Palmboom, F. (1995). Rotterdam, Verstedelijkt landschap. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. p.15-25.

32. De Jongh in De Ingenieur 1890-46 cited in Graaf, J. de; Nijenhuis, W. & Dansik, D. van. (1982). Een schoone stad. Rotterdam maakt de sprong naar Zuid. in Barbieri, U. De Kop van Zuid: ontwerp en onderzoek. Rotterdam: Rotterdamse Kunststichting Uitgeverij. p. 168. Left: Figure 2.2.1 - Present-day Katendrecht. Right: Figure 2.2.2 - Quay lines of the north and south bank. The quay line of the south bank is much more fragmented as a result of the deep incisions of the port basins and the three infrastructures that have shaped it: the dikes and the train tracks.

4. Long lines and short cross connections Parallel to the elongated quays run a number of long lines. These long lines are long lines of sight, but also long lines in terms of (former) traffic. They stem from the linear logic of the trains and the integral interface between architecture-quay-water. Contrastingly, perpendicular to these long lines are short cross connections. These connections are short due to the relative narrow land of the headlands between the docks. These short cross connections are framed by the urban morphology consisting of residential building blocks. As such, these cross connections form direct (visual) connections to the water from the heart of the peninsula to the outer perimiter of Katendrecht. In general, both the long lines and short cross connections have at least one side that opens up towards the water. This results in an interesting and highly variegated spatiotemporal experience. When one moves over the long lines and simultaneously directs the gaze parallel to this line, one can look far away and see the water in the distance. While when one moves over the long line but directs the gaze perpendicular to this line, one experiences a rhythmic succession of cross connecting openings towards the water that are formed, interchanged with building blocks of the urban morphology. More specifically, the long lines on Katendrecht are formed by the quays along the Rijnhaven, the Maashaven and the streets Brede Hillelaan and the Veerlaan that lie more land inwards, but run parallel to quays along the port basins and eventually open up towards the water of the Meuse river. Both streets also demarcate the old core of Katendrecht. The shorter cross connections are formed by the streets within the urban fabric. The interplay between the two results in the interesting rhythmic succession of openings towards the water of both the Rijnhaven and Maashaven. 5. Large scale and size What ties aforementioned spatial characters together and also generates the qualities as addressed in chapter 1.1, is the large scale and size of almost everything. The large scale and size of the port basins, the vast openness provided by the over dimensioning of the quays, the large building volumes of the port buildings together form the quintessential spatial character of the interplay of water-quay-architecture and the distinct spatiotemporal experience of these areas. The spatial set-up of Katendrecht is infused with the large scale and size typical for Rotterdam and in specific to those areas formerly related to the extensive port apparatus.

Figure 2.2.3 - Long line ending onto the ship SS Rotterdam which is docked in the Maashaven.

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

In continuing the biological metaphor: one is at such dead ends, at which the highly variegated capillary distribution network started, removed the furthest away from the busyness of the city and the main traffic arteries on land. They induce feelings and sensory experiences as silence, the vastness of the water, and imbue one with a sense of the distance created and isolation of those land abutments locked in between vast bodies of water. 3. Elongated quays with solitary building volumes To refer back to the historical development of the city and the port, the introduction of the railway in the RHV development had resulted in a transformation of the port-city complex into a port-rail complex. This both influenced the shape of the docks, but also how the adjacent land on the quays was organized. In contrast to the interaction between architecture-quay-water in the port-city complex of the Waterstad, the interaction between architecture-quay-water in the ports of Rotterdam South had elongated and ruthlessly straight quays. This is both the case for the elongated canal ports of the RHV development and the transshipment ports Rijnhaven and Maashaven that have shaped Katendrecht. The scaling up, specialization and mechanization of the port complex in the shift from the port-city complex to the port-rail complex and the subsequent transshipment ports had resulted in long and low horizontal buildings parallel to the quays, which were in line with the linear logic of the trains and port cranes. However, also a number of large scale insular and also more vertical volumes were built. An example of this is the silobuilding Latenstein, currently Codrico, on Katendrecht. The newer housing blocks on the Maashavenkade and Maashaven Noordzijde take on the size and scale of the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;oldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; core of Katendrecht. However, along the quay north of Katendrecht along the Rijnhaven, more of the port buildings have remained. The (silo)buildings of both Provimi and Latenstein (Codrico) take on the role of larger solitary building volumes that also introduce a certain verticality along the quays. They play into the openness and vastness generated by the port docks. A similar effect is established by the new complex Musa at the beginning of quay Maashaven Noordzijde. With the development of Entree-Katendrecht in the Pols area, this will however not be for long, as Musa will assimilate into a larger cluster of vertical building volumes, such as the Cobana building that is currently nearing completion.

The wide street profiles, the organization and design of the public space, the quays and the large port buildings of Provimi and Latenstein (Codrico), which are still operative as production facilities. Interestingly, the large scale and size of the port and industrial buildings becomes even more evident in contrast with the smaller scale and more fine-grained morphology of the residential areas. This contrast can be perceived when viewing Katendrecht from a distance, but it can also be experienced from within Katendrecht itself. In final, with the erection of high-rise edifices on the Wilhelminapier an interesting chronological amassment emerges, as the older port buildings start to frame views on the newer buildings on the Wilhelminapier. 6. Architectural typologies To conclude the enumeration and discussion of the spatial characteristics specific to the interaction between architecture-quay-water in Rotterdam South and on Katendrecht in specific, a consideration of a number of architectural typologies. These architectural typologies do not only form the most exemplary and explicit expressions of the transitions from the port-city complex of Waterstad to the transshipment ports of the Rijnhaven and Maashaven, but currently also form the icons along the waterfront of the south bank as historical carriers of memory, in addition to the more recent icons of glass and steel. They are specific architectural typologies that are not found in the Waterstad for instance and in some cases also not in the port developments beyond the Maashaven. The following architectural typologies can be identified that are also exemplary in illustrating the port development ranging from the shift from Waterstad to the port-rail complex of RHV and the transshipment port basins of the Rijnhaven and Maashaven:

- The entrepot building The completion of the Vrij Entrepot de Vijf Werelddelen, or in short the Entrepotgebouw, in 1879, features as a significant development in the scaling up and integration of rail and port infrastructure in the south of Rotterdam. It is an example of one of the elongated warehouses directly on and parallel to the water of the docks en par with the development of the elongated canal docks of the RHV development. Not only does the building differ from its predecessor, the merchant house – which could be found in the Waterstad – in scale and size, but also in the way it integrated the train as six railways intersected the building, allowing for a faster and more efficient handling of goods. This was also supported by the mechanization of the piece good handling in the form of hydraulic cranes mounted on the building.33 - The gate building The gate building had been introduced in Rotterdam’s modern port development from the nineteenth centrury onwards by way of the Poortgebouw, which was completed in 1879 and functioned as the gateway to the (private) enterprise of the RHV complex. Shortly, before the collapse of his empire due to fraudulent behavior, the main office of Pincoff’s RHV enterprise was located in the Poortgebouw. The gate building also expresses the nature of the private development of the RHV complex. The ports in Waterstad shared a number of gates along the waterfront of the Meuse next to the entrances to Waterstad to levy fees from ships entering Rotterdam’s ports. However, there were no gates on land barring entrance to the port docks, as they were publicly accessible.

Figure 2.2.4 - Contrast between the lowrise of the residential areas and the large scale and size of the port buildings of Provimi.

33. Winter, P. de; Jong, J. et. al. (1982) Havenarchitectuur. Rotterdam: Rotterdamse Kunstichting Uitgeverij. p. 31-33. Left: Figure 2.2.5 - Long lines parallel to the quays and short cross connections perpendicular to the long lines. Right: Figure 2.2.6 - Higher buildings predominantly outside or in the edge of the “historic core”, with a first “ring” of higher residential buildings with a height between 30-40 m. (brown/pink) Second “ring”, along the quays, of higher buildings consist of both residential and (former) industrial buildings with a height between 50-90 m. (dark red/bright red).

Later on, gate buildings were also developed for port terrains and are currently still build, however now they are rather porter’s lodges and can be typified as simple shacks near the entrance of vast industrial or distribution terrains. Another noteworthy difference is that the gate buildings of the ports used to be situated on the infrastructural lines, resulting in roads and rails intersecting the building, explicitly turning them into infrastructural nodes where different logistical flows came together which were integrated into their architecture in various degrees. In contrast, contemporary porter’s lodges are situated allong the infrastructural lines. - The silo building As a result of the scaling up and mechanization of the mass good transshipment during the shift from the RHV port development towards the transshipment port developments, the silo building was introduced in Rotterdam’s port complex as a new architectural typology for the storage and distribution of grain. Grain factory Latenstein, designed by architect J.J.M. Vegter, completed in 1951 and extended in 1964 is one such a silo building. It is situated on Katendrecht along the southern quay of the Rijnhaven. Originally the forty meter high silo building consisted of nine cylindrical grain silos. In 1964 the factory was extended with a larger serrated volume. The volume was shaped after the production process, leading to a clearly legible grain handling and production process, consisting of: grain storage in the two silo buildings in the southern part of the ensemble, the factory in the center of the volume that faces the water, the flower silos and the bagging area in the west part of the factory. The canteen, janitor dwelling, and offices were positioned atop the factory. The first silo building that was introduced in the Rotterdam’s port complex was, however, the grain silo on the Brielselaan on the southside of the Maashaven, which was completed in 1910 and successively expanded in 1932 and 1952. The grain was stored in twenty octagonal silos. Both expansions have provided the building with a two-meter cantilever on the side towards the Brielselaan to increase its capacity. The total extension contains 146 square silos.34 The Meneba flour factory, also positioned on the southside of the Maashaven, is the third silo building on and around Katendrecht that are presently still present. This relative concentration of grain silo’s is related to the fact that the Rijnhaven and particularly the Maashaven were used for the transshipment of grain.

Figure 2.2.7 - Recent high-rise buildings on the Wilhelminapier, framed by the buildings of Latenstein (Codrico).

34. Ibid. p. 70.

Conclusion The combination of the spatial characteristics addressed in this chapter have led to the aforementioned distinct spatial experience that comes forth from the interaction between architecture-quay-water. This is exemplified by two spatial concepts: 1. zoning and 2. layering. 1. Zoning The development of the ports on the south bank of the Meuse has resulted in a typical spatial zoning. As viewed from the water, one encounters firstly a quay or a building. When one is faced with a quay, this quay used to host railway tracks for harbor cranes or train lines or a combination of the two. When one is faced with a building directly on the water, this building internalized the railway tracks of the cranes and train tracks, as is the case for the Entrepot building for instance. Behind these port buildings, additional infrastructural lines suffused the area. Only after this additional infrastructural layer, residential areas started, if there were any present in or in close proximity to the port terrains. More recently, housing has however been be developed in the zones closer to the water, due to the transformation or demolition of former port buildings.

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

67 - The warehouse building and terminal building The final architectural typology that is considered is the warehouse typology. These are buildings that predominantly consist of long, horizontal halls varying from single to two or more levels. They usually functioned as storage facilities and distribution centers. The arrival hall for the cruise ships of the Holland Amerika Lijn is an interesting modification of this building type, as the hall typology of the arrival hall suits the function as a distribution center for passengers of the Holland Amerika Lijn and was completed in 1949. The building was conceived and constructed in a similar fashion to the different warehouses of the Holland America Line on the Wilhelminapier. However, the arrival hall evidently required more daylight than their counterparts that served as storage facilities or distribution centers. In addition, the arrival hall is typified by the six shell roofs and the span of the building over the curb on the street side that effectively forms a canopy.

Timorstraat Tolhuisstraat Staalstraat 68 2. Layering The spatial layering of the port areas, forms the condition for the perceived stratification of the city as viewed from the water. This layering is generated due to 1) deep incisions in the landscape and 2) due to the variation between the elongated quays with parallel to them long infrastructural lines and perpendicular to them short cross connections. This leads to a specific foreground â&#x20AC;&#x201C; background effect with a number of built up layers of buildings positioned behind each other. This effect is strengthened due to the contrast between the largescale building volumes of the port on the quays and the small scale, fine grained residential areas. Due to the varied distance towards the respective layers and when moving over the water or along the quays, the effect of parallax starts to unfold. This results in the respective layers to seemingly move past each other. This effect can only unfold by the precondition of the vastness and openness as provided by the large open bodies of water as present in Rotterdam.

Figure 2.2.8 - Spatial transitions on Katendrecht. From enclosed vertical spaces to open horizontal spaces.

Left: Figure 2.2.10 - In red the streets are marked that have been used in figure 2.2.9 to demonstrate the spatial transitions. Right: Figure 2.2.11 - Indication of the locations of the sections as shown on pages 70-71.

A C

E F

More on the Spatial Structure of Katendrecht Spatial transitions A number of spatial transitions are prevalent on Katendrecht. These transitions come forth from the movement between the morphological fragments, (see figure 2.2.9), and moving from within these morphological fragments towards the edge of Katendrecht. Within the fragments one is confined by street walls of the urban tissue. However, between these fragments the spaciousness and vastness of the port emerges again. This is predominantly present when one transitions from a morphological fragment to the edge of Katendrecht as there a vast 180-degree (if not more) view over either the Rijnhaven, the Maashaven or over the Meuse river presents itself. One is no longer confined by the street walls of the urban tissue and has no longer a framed, vertical view, but one rather finds himself in an open, horizontal field with a wide and vast view over the water. These transitions are produced by the interplay of the long lines and the short cross connections perpendicular to these long lines (see figure 2.2.5). The short cross connections cut through the different morphological fragments and (visually) connects them. In addition, as always at least one end of these cross connections opens up towards the water, they establish a visual connection to the water deep into the morphological fragments.

Figure 2.2.12 - Model emulating the parallax-effect in which, due to the wide and deep perspective that is provided by the vastness and openness of the waters in Rotterdam, the built structures that make up the city’s skyline seem to move past each other. This results in experiencing Rotterdam’s skyline not as being static, but dynamic, as a result from the interaction between architecture-quay-water. Though not unique to the interaction on the south bank of the river, this is for instance a section of the Boompjes on the north bank of the Meuse, the effect is given extra spatial depth due to the port basins specifc to the waterfront of Rotterdm South.

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

Cross-sections The fact that Katendrecht is a peninsula, means that it has quite some quay length. 4,2 linear kilometers to be exact. Initially, these quays were built around the same time and completely dedicated to port related activities, meaning that they were more or less similar. Over time they were, however, adapted due to for instance reparation works after the bombings by the Nazi’s in 1944, or by the change in function in the wake of waning port activities. This has resulted in a greater differentiation of Katendrecht’s 4,2-kilometer of quay length. Therefore, despite the long and relatively straight quay lines, they have become more variated and also interact with the water in varying degrees. This variation is strengthened by the architecture on and adjacent to the quays, which has led to differentiated relationships and negotiations within the set architecture-quay-water. The variations in the quay line and set architecture-quay-water, however predominantly prevails on the north side of Katendrecht, leaving the 1,8 km long southern quay line of Katendrecht up for potential transformation. From the six cross-sections that have been drawn of the quays of Katendrecht a number of things can be discerned and observed, which can potentially be considered as design parameters for the manipulation of the relationship between architecture-quay-water. The first parameter is a binary parameter of architecture either being directly on the quay, directly facing or even over the water, as is the case for the building of Provimi as seen in section A, or architecture having some distance from the waterline, which is the case for the other sections over the rest of the island. The later subsequently, produces another parameter, namely a variation in the distance to the water. Section B, for instance, demonstrates an apartment block stemming from the urban renewal period in quite close proximity to the quay, while at for instance in section E the distance between the waterline and the building(s) is much larger. From here on two more parameters become evident, the first is again a binary one: a straight vertical quay, resulting in an abrupt transition between water and land, or a sloped quay, which results in a slightly more subtle transition between water and land. Section C and section F illustrate the straight vertical quay, while the other sections demonstrate the sloped quay. Nevertheless, in exact terms are all transitions shaped differently. Furthermore, it must be noted that as in the case for Provimi, the quay itself is sloped, but due to building that has been built over the quay, this transition is instead perceived as an abrupt transition.

The second parameter that becomes evident from a larger distance between the waterline and the building, is how the land between the waterline and building has been shaped. The different infills of the space between the waterline and the buildings, allows for different relationships with the water. For instance, in section D one can come much closer to the water, as the quay has two levels of which one is lower and in closer proximity to the water level. In

A Provimi

B Buizenpark

C 1e Katendrechtse Hoofd

Figure 2.2.11 - Cross sections over the quays of Katendrecht, illustrating the interaction between architecture-quay-water.

the sections C and F one is closer to the water in terms of distance as the space of transition between water and land is abrupt, one can come closer to this transition. However, as the quay line is an abrupt, vertical transition, one vertically stands at a greater distance towards the water than is the case for more subtle and sloped transitions between water and land.

D Pontveer

E Strand

Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht

F Maashaven Noordzijde

III Rotterdam Metropolis

because it is the embodiment of

modernity

III Rotterdam Metropolis The culture of a port city: between the imagined and the real In addition, to the multisensory qualities of the water, the development of the relationship between the city and the water by virtue of its port and the spatial opulence of the interaction between architecture-quay-water, which have been addressed in the preceding chapters, this chapter will focus on the deeper meaning of those qualities and developments for a number of cultural aspects of the city of Rotterdam. These qualities and developments will be discussed on the level of the city and positioned within a broader cultural framework. As such, insight is gained in the deeper meaning of the relationship between water and city, by virtue of the port, how the port has played a role in instigating a certain metropolitan air, has been central in the collective celebration of progress, and how the influence of the port and its large scale and size logic has influenced Rotterdam’s post-war reconstruction plan.

Metropolitan Rotterdam

The collective celebration of progress The collective celebration of progress, as expressed around the turn of the century and especially the interbellum in which most of aforementioned developments took place, would be continued after the Second World War. This is most explicitly expressed by the manifes-

Left page: Figure 3.1 - Still from a promotional video for Rotterdam European Captial of Culture, Neon TV (1997). Top: Figure 3.2. - Cover of an edition of the periodical Groot Rotterdam, July 27, 1928.

1. Schoor, A. van der. (2005). Het Rotterdam Boek. Zwolle: Uitgeverij Waanders. p. 173. 2. Klerk, L. de. (2008). De modernisering van de stad 1850-1940. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers. p. 71.

3. Ulzen, P. van. (2004). Imagine a Metropolis. Rotterdam’s Creative Class 1970-2000. Rotterdam: NAi010. p. 40-41.

Rotterdam Metropolis

With the development of the modern port of Rotterdam and the emergence of new (communication) technologies as a consequence of the industrialization and technological innovation from the end of the 19th century on, Rotterdam not only became more explicitly connected to the world, but this interconnection was also represented by a number of buildings that were explicitly present in the urban landscape of the city and served as the architectural precipitation of the global in Rotterdam. This is most clearly exemplified by the cluster on the Coolsingel, formed by the City Hall (1920), the Post office (1923), which also hosted the telephone exchange, and the Stock Exchange (1940). However, also cultural buildings, as Museum Boijmans (1935) or buildings that exalted the newly acquired wealth and commerce of the booming port city around the turn of the century, as the Bijenkorf department store (1930), and, the older, Witte Huis (1889), which had formed the culmination of this aspect of the city before the construction of the Bijenkorf. Since 1889 the Witte Huis has marked the tip of the Wijnhaven. With its 46 meter in height it was the tallest private office building of Western-Europe for a while.1 From the publicly accessible rooftop one could oversee the emergent port landscape on the south bank, which had recently been complemented with the Rijnhaven at the time of the completion of the Witte Huis.2 In 1926 Van Nelle placed the largest neon advertisement of Europe on the roof of the Witte Huis. With its position at the end of both the Wijnhaven and the Haringvliet, next to the railway bridge and the bridge for motorized traffic and pedestrians, as well as being positioned in the curve of the Meuse river in close proximity to the Boompjeskade and Oostkade where ferries from the German Ruhr area and London docked, the Witte Huis played into these various infrastructural lines and, thence, became a focal point of the international relations the city had. With its height, pristine white façade and the neon advertisement affixed to its roof, it literally radiated this presence over the city. The machinery and infrastructure of the port, such as the grain elevators, loading bridges and especially the Hef bridge, further sparked the mythification of the port through cultural productions. These new and modern engineering feats provided a condition to view the city from new and different perspectives. Patricia van Ulzen has illustrated how the combination of the architecture that was developed at that time as a result of the booming growth of the port, the cultural reproduction of such engineering feats, as well as the precipitation of the global in Rotterdam had led to a certain metropolitan air in Rotterdam. That people were aware of this at the time is, for instance, reflected by the cover of a 1928 issue of the periodical Groot Rotterdam that portrays Rotterdam as a metropolis in the ranks of the metropole Chicago. At the time, Chicago was considered as the metropolis par excellence in Europe and was featured on the cover of the Groot Rotterdam issue to illustrate what Rotterdam’s developments would bring for the city. 3

Figure 3.3 - Aerial photo of the City Hall, Post Office and Stock Exchange cluster on the Coolsingel. Miraculously, this these buildings were spared during Second World War bombings of May 1940.

tation Ahoy’ in 1950. Under the threat of the approaching allied forces, the Nazi’s bombed quays, cranes, warehouses and loading bridges in September of 1944, which resulted in a destruction of seven linear kilometers of quay length.4 This destruction of the port, which had become Rotterdam’s raison d’etre, struck Rotterdam’s population in the soul. Hence, the population accepted the priority that was given to the port reconstruction, while the city center laid bare for several years. The port reconstruction was, however, completed within five years (1945-1950). This progress was collectively celebrated as a generally shared, public and collective ambition and sense with the large-scale exhibition Ahoy’ in 1950. It crowned the achievements and the progression of the reconstruction and modernization of Rotterdam and portrayed the pride and evident commitment of Rotterdam to its port. Ahoy’ was a direct expression of what Arjo Klamer and David Kombrink have identified as the Polder port narrative in which the active and elaborate cooperation between public institutions and other port related businesses were all geared towards a single goal of reconstructing and expanding the port.5 These kinds of large-scale temporary events provided an answer to the large need for amusement and relaxation during the reconstruction of the city.6 Ahoy’ would become the first post-war manifestation after the 1928 pre-war Nenijto (Nederlandse Nijverheids Tentoonstelling) manifestation, which served as the prewar precursor to Ahoy’. This phe-

4. Brolsma, J. (2006). Havens, Dokken, Veren en Kranen. Utrecht: Uitgevrij Matrijs. p. 204-207.

5. Klamer, A. & Kombrink, D. (2004). Het verhaal van de Rotterdamse haven, Een narratieve analyse. Hilversum: Stichting Economie en Cultuur. p. 24. 6. Winter, P. (1988). Evenementen in Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. p. 7.

Left: Figure 3.4 - Annotated postcard of people visiting the panoramic terrase of the Witte Huis and having a glass of port. Right: Figure 3.5 - Painting Witte Huis bij avond by Herman Heijenbrock (1928).

Left: Figure 3.6 - Still from the film De Brug (1920) by Joris Ivens, who made a film on the Hef bridge in Rotterdam. Right: Figure 3.7 - Cableway besides the Energienaald on the fairground of the E55 manifestation (1955).

Emptiness The quality of Rotterdam’s openness and windiness echo the translation of some of the qualities experienced along the waterfronts of the Meuse. Wouter Vanstiphout relates this openness of Rotterdam’s inner city to a reconceptualization of Rotterdam and the urban planning of the postwar reconstruction plan, the Basisplan, on the basis of the idea of emptiness. The Second World War bombardment of Rotterdam in May of 1940 had erased all physical traces of the once intense fullness of Rotterdam’s city center. After the bombings the aboveground debris, as well as the subterranean infrastructure were cleared, removing any physical barriers for designing a new city center for Rotterdam. With the expropriation of prewar land-ownership via the Pennestreekonteigening, also all administrative barriers were removed for redesigning the inner city, resulting in the most authentic tabula rasa that has ever existed in the Netherlands.11 Vanstiphout argues that the idea of this emptiness is the true identity of Rotterdam and provides the city with the true continuity in its recent history. In 1924 the architecture critic Mieras underpinned Rotterdam’s metropolitan character not only by the modern buildings in the inner city and engineering feats as the railway viaduct through the city, but also explicitly by the contrast provided by the emptiness of the Land van Hoboken.12 This state of mind was, however, also reflected in literary works. As early as in 1940 Anton Koolhaas initiated the play ‘Het Hart van Rotterdam’ on the postwar resurrection of Rotterdam and convinced fellow writers by an awareness of not standing still with the rubble, but to direct the gaze over the rubble, towards the future.13 The apotheosis of Koolhaas’s play was formed by a condensed summary of key heroic moments of Rotterdam’s history expressed by ships, port buildings, bridges and cranes, and reached its climax with the presentation of the ship ‘New Amsterdam’. This climax was provided with musical crescendo

7. Ibid, 101. 8. Walsum, G.E. and Simons, D. (1965). Rotterdam stad in beweging. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. 9. This attitude was already reflected in 1966 in the film ‘Stad zonder hart’ by Jan Schaper and underpinned by the 1968 academic study by social psychologist R. Wentholt titled ‘De binnenstadsbeleving en Rotterdam’. Ulzen, P. van. (2004). Imagine a Metropolis. Rotterdam’s Creative Class 19702000. Rotterdam: NAi010. p. 67. 10. In 1987 the reports ‘Verniewing van Rotterdam’ and ‘New Rotterdam’, redrew attention to the need to pick up on global developments for both the docks and the city center. They concluded that the port had to transform from a large-scale transshipment port to a high-tech logistics hub, and that the city center had to capitalize on the growth of the business services infrastructure, which was supplanting industry throughout Western Europe. Ulzen, P. van. (2004). Imagine a Metropolis. Rotterdam’s Creative Class 1970-2000. Rotterdam: NAi010. p. 103. 11. Nieuwenhuis, J. (1955). Mensen maken de stad. Rotterdam: Dienst Gemeentewerken Rotterdam. p. 137. and Stiphout, W. (1995). 1945-1965 Leegte. In Martin Aarts, 50 jaar Wederopbouw Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. p. 114-144. 12. Stiphout, W. (1995). 19451965 Leegte. In Martin Aarts, 50 jaar Wederopbouw Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. p. 114-144. 13. “Maar we moeten niet stilstaan bij het puin; het moet een spel zijn uit het puin geboren, maar het moet de blik er overheen richten, naar de toekomst!” Quote by Anton Koolhaas, as cited in Stiphout, W. (1995). 1945-1965 Leegte. In Martin Aarts, 50 jaar Wederopbouw Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. p. 114-144.

Rotterdam Metropolis

nomenon of large collective celebrations of the technological advancement of society and economic progress would again occur in 1955 with E55, which celebrated the innovations in several fields of science, but especially in the field of energy production and distribution. And, in 1960 the developments in the horticultural industry were celebrated with the Floriade expo. All three postwar manifestations took place in the park and pavilions of preceding expo’s were re-used in subsequent manifestations. The latter two also had a 500-meter-long cableway in common, which crossed the entire park. From the Floriade Rotterdam would also gain the Euromast.7 In 1965 there was a more small-scale exhibition on the reconstruction of the city center in the Bouwcentrum.8 A real turn in the nature of these events was however experienced in 1970 with C70. In contrast, to the previous celebrations on the progress and rebuilding of both the port and the city center, C70 was a manifestation of a completely different nature. It took place in the inner city, in contrast to the park, and was meant to create and stimulate a cozy and small-scale, inner-city, consumer environment. It was a direct attack on how the inner city had been reconstructed. The open, large scale and traffic oriented urban set-up of the inner city were not experienced as pleasant, but rather as a cold and forbidding place, with little vibrancy.9 C70, however also did feature a cableway, only this time it ran through the inner city. However, from the end of the 1980’s and specifically from the “magical year” 1987 onwards, these spatial qualities of Rotterdam and its modern, rational and international character, with broad and windy streets was reappreciated and instrumentalized in the branding of Rotterdam as a contemporary metropolitan city. This was most prominently reflected by the Kop van Zuid redevelopment, which was presented for the first time in that same year.10

and a choir, which sang: “We drive-piles and lay bricks, we demolish and break. We are building the city. We hammer, clobber, dig and shovel. Aggrandizing the city.”14

“Wij heien en metselen, wij sloopen en breken. Wij bouwen de stad. Wij hameren, timmeren, spitten en steken. Verruimen de stad.”

In this song building is directly linked to demolishing, breaking and aggrandizement, but it is also a tribute to the thousands of workers who at that very moment were equalizing the destroyed city. Progress directly linked with generating open space by way of demolition and aggrandizing. Other literary works, such as a poem by J.C. Bloem, disjoined Rotterdam’s identity from her history and her physical reality all together, as the city’s emptiness would be what would provide a platform on which urbanism and architecture could be redefined as immaterial processes. This notion was also reflected in the Basisplan, which had come to fruition under engineer Cornelis van Traa. The 1946 basisplan was in direct opposition to the reconstruction plan by city architect W.G. Witteveen, who, until 1944, was in charge of the spatial design and planning of Rotterdam’s inner-city reconstruction. Witteveen had designed a modern city, with a clear three-dimensional form and morphological structure, and was integrally connected to the few remnants of the prewar city center. Witteveen was concerned with the total form of a vastly dispersed port city, which after the bombings of 1940 could be reshaped into an integral whole and completed with a perfect heart. The basisplan, however, was developed by a group of Rotterdam entrepreneurs and architects who would pick up on radically utilitarian and functional tendencies that pervaded the logic of Rotterdam’s port. Hence, they subjected architecture and urbanism to processes of global flows, rather than as a concrete, solidified city form. Therefore, the city was in the first place defined as a part of global networks - a node on the lines of a global grid - and subsequently injected with points of programmatic intensity. It did not mention city form or architectural richness or even specific locations: a strategic decoupling of the new city and any indicators of the prewar city and resulted in an urbanism with spatial neutrality, making anything possible. However, one rhetorically dominant and only concrete component of the Basisplan was formed by the reshaping of the Coolsingel to create Van Traa’s main planning asset, the ‘Venster op de rivier’ (Window on the river). Van Traa made strong use of the symbolic nature of the Romantic narrative, which glorifies the port in a predominant nostalgic way.15 By way of the Venster op de rivier, “the privileged position of the city on the Meuse” would reach its climax and allow for the image of labor and vigor “typical for Rotterdam” to present itself to the inner city.16 Passenger ships of the Holland-Amerika Lijn docking on the Wilhelminapier, would become visible from the plateau at the Churchillplein or even from the City Hall on the Coolsingel.17 The Venster op de rivier became rhetorically so strong that it would even establish an anachronical development in Rotterdam’s port, as it hindered the move of the Holland-Amerika Lijn towards Sluisjesdijk, what would have been more profitable, keeping it from moving westward.18

Conclusion The three aspects addressed examplify how the cultural dimension of Rotterdam’s relation with the water by virtue of its port was expressed in specific architectural and urban objects and concepts. The the progress, modernization and technological advancement of Rotterdam’s modern port development had throughout several pre and postwar decades been celebrated and these developments could also explicitly be experienced within the city (center) and was collectively celebrated. Architectural objects within the urban landscape attested to this and explicitly reflected Rotterdam’s interconnection with the world and the emergence of new (communication) technologies. After the war, Rotterdam’s dedication to the economic development and the infrastructural needs and consequences of the port were reflected by the de-materialized reconstruction plan. The open and anticipatory nature of the Basisplan, which echo’s the spatial set-up and development of the port, created mental and physical space for the projection of various developments and promises of a bright future for the city far beyond the destruction and rubble of the war. One explicitly physical and concrete aspect of the Basisplan, however, was formed by Van Traa’s rhetoric planning asset of the ‘Venster op de rivier’, which attempted to perpetuate the spatial and visual engagement of the city with the waters and activities of its port, even in the embryonic stage of the westward move of port activities.

14. Translated from Dutch by the author. Ibid.

Right: Figure 3.8 - Photo by Cas Oorthuys of the ‘Venster op de rivier’.

15. Klamer, A. & Kombrink, D. (2004). Het verhaal van de Rotterdamse haven, Een narratieve analyse. Hilversum: Stichting Economie en Cultuur. p. 14. 16. Van Traa in Walsum, G.E. van. And Simons, D. (1965). Rotterdam stad in beweging. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. 17. Ibid. 18. Huurman, C.P. (1982). Haven. p. 14-20. In Grosfeld, J. & Feijen, G. (1982) Schip Haven Stad. Ontwikkeling en onderlinge relatie Rotterdam 1880-1980. Rotterdam: Maritiem Museum “Prins Hendrik”.

Rotterdam Metropolis

Part B

Design Experiment Urban intervention

IV The Playing Field and Five Moderators

IV The Playing Field and Five Moderators Urban intervention and architectural objects In continuation of the research set out in the introduction, the following chapters of Part B and C present the design experiment that has been executed in an attempt to translate the findings in chapters one to three of Part A into a concrete proposal for an urban intervention, which is comprised of five architectural objects. First, a conclusive summary of the main findings coming forth from the preceding research will be presented. These findings will serve as the starting points for the design experiment. Subsequently, the design and design development of the urban strategy will be discussed, after which the five architectural interventions will be elucidated as well.

Left page: Figure 4.1 - Photo of a physical model of the Playing Field. (scale 1:2000)

4.1 Abridgement A short per chapter overview of the main findings of the preceding research and starting points for the design experiment. In the introduction the following main question was posed: How can Katendrecht reengage with the water by means of architectural interventions at an urban scale and the manipulation of the set architecture-quay-water? A short summary of the main findings as an answer to the sub-questions that accompanied the main question will be provided as an abridgement between Part A, the research and Part B and C, the design experiment, which together will provide an answer to the main question.

Findings: • The presence of water in Rotterdam is characterized by multisensory and spatial qualities. Four have been identified: slowness, vastness, isolation and distance, and stillness. • These qualities do not only have strong spatial components, but also strong temporal components and the full richness of the quality of the water comes to live in a spatiotemporal experience. • The spacious set-up and robust design of the quays along the Meuse and the port basins has resulted in places along the water where everything is possible, yet nothing has to take place. • The city and the port have, over the course of history grown apart, resulting in the spatial disentanglement of city and port. Moreover, the transition from port-city complex to port-rail complex has resulted in a fragmented landscape and urban fabric in Rotterdam South in which residential neighborhoods, such as Katendrecht, take up the poche between port related infrastructure and terrains. Chapter II 3. What has Katendrecht’s position been within the city of Rotterdam from a social, political, cultural and spatial perspective? 4. What are the spatial characteristics of the interaction between architecture and water on Rotterdam’s south bank in general and on Katendrecht specifically? Findings: • Since its inception Katendrecht has been subject to normalization strategies and systems of control to subject its population to the moral and order of the city at large. This however played out differently and resulted in Katendrecht becoming a notorious neighborhood in Rotterdam. This peculiar historical development of Katendrecht was a direct result of its insular and peripheral position within the city. However, from the 1970s and 80s on Katendrecht has incrementally been normalized and absorbed into city. • Several typological lines can be identified related to the port development on the south bank up until the emergence of Katendrecht. These typologies are the entrepot building,

The Playing Field and Five Moderators

Chapter I 1. What are the qualities of the presence of water in Rotterdam? 2. How has the relationship between the city and the port, as the most dominant expression of Rotterdam’s entanglement with the water, developed up to the emergence of the peninsula Katendrecht?

•

the gate building, the silo building and, the warehouse building/terminal building. Characteristic for the interaction between architecture-quay-water in Rotterdam in general and on Katendrecht specifically, are the spatial transitions that break through the morphological fragments, zoning and layering, connecting the fragments to the water. In addition, there is only a differentiated quay line is present on the north side of Katendrecht, while the 1,8 km quay line on the south of Katendrecht is relatively monotonous, harboring potential for a reconfiguration of the set architecture-quay-water.

Chapter III 5. How has the interaction between city and port expressed itself in the culture of Rotterdam? Findings: • The cultural dimension of Rotterdam’s relation with the water by virtue of the port, can be traced to 1. Architectural objects within the urban landscape that explicitly reflected Rotterdam’s interconnection with the world and emergent (communication) technologies. 2. The progress, modernization and technological advancement of the city could be experienced in the city and was collectively celebrated by several manifestations from 1950 to 1965. • The open and anticipatory nature of the post-war Basisplan, echoed the spatial set-up and development of the port, created mental and physical space for the projection of various developments and promises of a bright future for the city. One explicitly physical and concrete aspect of the Basisplan was formed by the rhetoric planning asset of the ‘Venster op de rivier’, which attempted to reaffirm the spatial and visual engagement of the city with the waters and activities of its port.

4.2 Urban interventions in response to the playing field

The photo of the physical model in figure 4.1 is the area of Rotterdam, which I have defined as the playing field. This area has been the main subject of study in Part A, going from the elongated canal ports of the former RHV terrain, to the Wilhelminapier and Rijnhaven more downstream and, finally, Katendrecht and the Maashaven. It is within this playing field that the intervention on an urban scale has been developed, which will be subsequently presented. As addressed in the introduction, the goal of the design experiment is to translate and test the findings stipulated in the research that has been presented in chapters one to three of Part A into an urban strategy. This strategy consists of the act of inserting architectural interventions that create specific spatial conditions which are typologically interwoven with the water and engage in a specific formal and programmatic relationship with the locations. These interventions are positioned as such that they moderate between the different morphological fragments on Katendrecht, the different domains and the different scales present on Katendrecht and within the playing field at large. However, before elucidating the final design of the urban intervention, two preceding steps in the design process will be discussed. 1. Floaties and large quay side buildings With an initial skepticism on a site-specific design, I started doing some typological exercises of architectural objects and follies to research the interaction between architecture-quay-water. As such, these objects come from an object-driven strategy. These interventions are illustrated in figure 4.2. The top row shows small scale program-less floaties (floating+follies= floaties) in the water and the bottom row consists of more large-scale buildings along the quay or in the water. The four program-less follies will be briefly discussed. The urban strategy of the floaties consisted of several follies without a program or potentially hosting artworks or sculptures. These follies would be distributed on land, along the quay and in the water as an outdoor gallery cum sculpture garden that transgresses from land to water and vice versa. These were envisioed in the park on Katendrecht and their distribution would stretch out into the Tweede Katendrechtsehaven and the Meuse river. All floating follies would have been either exclusively reachable per boat, or they could be anchored and interconnected by floating walkways. In short, the spatial principles of the four floaties: I. The water square: a floating square on the water. It could be anchored or floating, moving along with the current of the Meuse. It would serve as an open island to experience the city from the water, but could also serve as a water borne podium to host events on the water. II. The circular tribune: a circular tribune either floating in the water or positioned on the quay line. It would offer a tribune to observe the traffic on the Meuse river. III. The maze: a floating plateau with several partition walls that would frame spaces and

Figure 4.2 - Floaties (top row) and more large scale quay side buildings (bottom row). The floaties (floating+follies= floaties) from left to right: a stairway stretching from the quay to the water, a floating bunker, a quay side tribune and a water square. The large scale quay side buildings from left to right: the concatenated slab building, the cour building, the composite building and the periscope building.

The Playing Field and Five Moderators

Figure 4.3 - Selection of floaties that have been worked out in a physical model (scale 1:200). From left to right:the water square, the circular tribune, the maze and the bunker.

generate see through effects. The framed views would change depending on where the plateau would float to, or oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s movement over the plateau. IV. The bunker: a floating bunker with a dark, unprogrammed space inside, which would intensify the singular opening on water level. A stairway was folded around the central room and leads to the roof, providing an elevated platform to view the city from the water from a second point of view. With the floaties a number of the findings from the results had been translated into initial architectural objects. Principles as see through effects, the isolation of and the distance between the objects are some of them. Eventually, I decided not to continue in this direction as I found the intervention too generic, lacking specific connections to Katendrecht as a collective urban intervention or as architectural objects themselves. In addition, I found their impact to weak if the urban intervention was to provide some sort of answer to the scale of Katendrecht and its surrounding waters, as well as the Entree-Katendrecht development.

In contrast, the large quay side buildings alluded to a strategy of more large scale architectural interventions along Katendrechtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s quay with various building typologies. I. The concatenated slab building: a building comprised of a number of slabs that are concatenated by a single horizontal core, which in itself would become a long line of sight on the water and by the rhythm of the succesive slabs, short cross connections to the water or the city would be generated between the slabs perpendicular to the horizontal core. II. The cour building: by positioning the cour building both on land and in the water, the succesive courts would have different in fills, ranging from a park to a small lake. III. The composite building: this building was an attempt to incorporate the heterogeneous and various scales that are present in and around Katendrecht, which resulted in a building that could house different functions and express so in its building volume. By positioning the large horizontal volume on land and have the finger like volumes perpendicular to the long volume project into the water, the linear meters of interaction between building and water would increase, akin to for instance intestinal villi. IV. The periscope building: by positioning the foot of the building on land and set-back from the quay, and have the top volume protrude towards the water, an interesting, vertically enclosed space along the quay would be generated, creating some sort of urban room in which the interaction with the water might become more intimate. The large quay side buildings sparked my interest and started to hint at a strategy on an urban level comprised of several typological architectural interventions. Developed initially as context-less and generic typologies, these ideas have later on found their way into the final design of the urban intervention. 2. Large scale urban interventions Inspired by the brute imperialism of ruthlessly digging away Katendrecht in light of port expansions with the Maashaven, two urban strategies of a more large scale and invasive nature were developed (see figure 4.4 and 4.5). Baroque Katendrecht On the basis of the combination of long lines of sight parallel to the quay line on Katendrecht, and short cross connections perpendicular to these long lines of sight, I developed the idea to exacerbate these lines and literally extend them onto the water, rather than only visually as is the case for now. This resulted in an urban intervention on a larger scale and alluded to a baroque city plan. At the end points of the lines either a (group of) building(s) could be positioned or large squares that would float on the water. The endpoints would be connected to land and each other by way of stationairy piers or floating walk ways. Katendrecht as an isolated island This idea would sublimize Katendrechtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s insularity and would complete the insular aspirations of its initial spatial set-up by turning Katendrecht into an island. The peninsula would be cut off from land and only have a landbound connection via a drawbridge. In addition, the entire island would be circumscribed by a single, continuous fifty meter tall building, which could house a multitude of functions, ranging from apartments to offices, hotels, sport facilities, etc. Katendrecht itself would be abandoned and turned into an enclosed park. Though both proposals work on the larger scale of the peninsula and the city, I quickly abandoned this idea as it would become too invasive and too grotesque, rendering the sensitive and specific spatial characteristics and conditions as found in the preceding research useless. Moreover, both interventions would be brute and single one dimensional grand gestures.

The final design of the urban intervention and its positioning within the playing field, as well as the larger framework as stipulated by the research in Part A, is best summarized by the sketch in figure 4.5. By means of this sketch the totality of the design of the urban intervention will be elaborated.

Top left: Figure 4.4 - Floaties Top right: Figure 4.5 - Baroque Katendrecht Bottom left: Figure 4.6 - Katendrecht as an isolated island. Bottom right: Figure 4.7 - Katendrecht as playing field with five architectural objects inserted

The Playing Field and Five Moderators

I. II.

3. C. 2. 1.

Figure 4.8 - Conceptual sketch of urban intervention postioned within the playing field.

Connections accross the Meuse river: A. Hef brug B. Willemsbrug C. Erasmusbrug D. Maastunnel E. Cablecar line (introduced by the urban intervention)

III. 10. IV. E.

Architectural typologies related to the port and contemporary icons: 1. Entreportgebouw 2. Gate building of the former RHV 3. Maastoren 4. De Rotterdam 5. Cruise ship terminal (Holland Amerika Lijn) 6. World Port Center/ Rotterdam Port Authority 7. Hotel New York 8. Maassilo 9. Speelstad (under construction, former waste incinera tor facility) 10. SS Rotterdam 11. Euromast Architectural objects as part of the urban intervention: I. The Punctured Building Block II. The Gate Building III. The U-Building IV. The Tip Building V. DATAPOLIS

11.

The Playing Field and Five Moderators

4.3 The Urban Intervention: Five Moderators

As mentioned before, the goal of the urban intervention was to reengage Katendrecht to the water and to provide a more sensitive and site specific answer to the type of redevelopment as projected by the Entree-Katendrecht project. On this basis I have rejected the two large scale urban interventions, but also the approach of the floaties. Rather the final design can be positioned between the floaties and the large-scale urban interventions and is more in line with the large-scale quay side buildings as presented in figure 4.2. The final design of the urban intervention and its position within the playing field, as well as the larger framework as stipulated by the research in Part A, is best summarized by the sketch in figure 4.8. This is a conceptual sketch of the urban intervention and captures the intention and ambitions of the design and has served as the initial translation of the research into a design. What can be observed are the five architectural objects that are each on a different location in or around Katendrecht, and take on a different position towards its historic core. The five buildings are positioned within the context of the playing field, represented by the connections over the Meuse, a number of architectural typologies pertinent to the former port areas and a number of contemporary icons for the city. The five architectural objects that have been deliberately positioned as moderators in between morphological fragments and/or functional domains on and around Katendrecht. (see figure 4.7.) The localization of these morphological fragments and functional domains has informed the typological development of the five architectural interventions, the type and degree of manipulation of the set architecture-quay-water and informed the ideas about their program. (see figures 2.1.13 & 2.1.14) As such, this has resulted in an urban strategy of inserting architectural interventions that create specific spatial conditions, and are typologically interwoven with the water and engage on a specific formal and programmatic level with the location. Therefore, the development of the final design originates from the historic core of Katendrecht and subsequently projects outwards, allowing for the five proposals to become increasingly more autonomous and less attached to Katendrechtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s morphology. The interventions are part of an apparant centrifugal force that projects outwards towards the water, resulting in each architectural object moderating differently between land and water, and between the heterogeneous morphological and programmatic aspects in their immediate surrounding. As such they each mitigate between architecture-quay-water differently, while all togetether they are part of a single urban intervention on the scale of the city. As a result, the Punctured Building Block and DATAPOLIS lie diametrically opposed from each other. The Punctured Building Block aims to be hypersensitive by embedding itself within Katendrechtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s morphology by means of chamfered corners, picking up morphological perimeters, a similar building height and a puncture to internalize and extend Katendrechtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s urban fabric onto the water. DATAPOLIS on the other hand seeks no connection whatsoever with any of the surrounding morphology, does not aim to continue any lines projected by buildings within its vicinity. It is a blunt object in the middle of the water and only by its four specific public functions, the datacenter communicates with its surroundings and roots itself within Rotterdam. Therefore, the five architectural objects would sit in the range from the Punctured Building Block up to DATAPOLIS, which would serve as two extremes as interventions on Katendrecht.

Right page: Figure 4.9 - A platter of Katendrecht. Initial conceptual model of the urban intervention on the scale of the city with five architectural objects, illustrating the diametrical opposition of the Punctured Building Block and DATAPOLIS.

Next page: Figure 4.10 - Plan of the urban intervention (scale 1:3000). In red the building blocks currently being realized as part of the area redevelopment Entree-Katendrecht. In brown building volumes proposed by as to, together with the Gate Building, supplant the building Groene Kaap, which is part of the Entree-Katendrecht development.

The Playing Field and Five Moderators

Axonometric projection of the five architectural objects or moderators inserted in Katendrecht

Gradual migration of the totality of the five objects. From land to water, from morphology to autonomy.

Reasoning of the positioning and embedding of the architectural objects fleeting from the historic core outwards as part of an apparant centrifugal force towards the water and positioned strategically between morphological fragments and functional domains.

The Punctured Building Block

The Playing Field and Five Moderators

101

The Punctured Building Block establishes a connection to the water from within Katendrecht’s historic core by means of a generous opening towards the Maashaven. In effect, it is an iteration of the closed building blocks that are prevalent in both Katendrecht’s historic core as in more recent housing developments on the peninsula. In addition, to the manipulation of architecture, within the set architecture, quay, water, also the quay line is manipulated by means of this intervention. This has been done by introducing a stepped stone square in front of the Punctured Building Block, allowing one to come into close contact with the water. The building is nesteled within its context, by picking up plot lines, building height s and having chamfered corners towards the historic core. Contrastingly, the building is ruthlessly straight towards the, equally ruthlessly straight, northern quay of the Maashaven. The building could house mixed housing typologies for both social housing and medium to higher income households, further embedding the building in its surroundings and would also in terms of program allow for the building to function as a mediatior. (see figure 2.1.12)

View from Katendrecht’s historic core towards the Maashaven by way of a generous opening through the building block.

The Gate Building

The Playing Field and Five Moderators

103

Positioned at the junction of the Pols and Fist area of Katendrecht, the Gate Building functions as a gate at three points. That is to say, three transitory moments within urban space that serve to architecturally mark the transition from Katendrechtâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Pols and Fist area. Moreover, the building serves as a moderator between the morphological fragments and functional domains on either side of the Gate Building. The first gate can be identified at the Brede Hillelaan north of the building. Secondly, by introducing a new central thoroughfare through the building, which serves as an extension of the central longitudinal axis of Katendrecht, a second gate is formed in the building. Finally, with having a monumental overhang over the northern quay of the Maashaven the third gate is formed. This overhang serves to reiterate the set architecture-quay-water and as such create a new type of relationship between water and architecture. Finally, by reorganizing the traffic node west of the Gate Building and the insertion of the Gate Building itsel, a monumental urban room is created in which te Gate Building serves as the fith wall. Hence, the Gate Building further monumentalizes the monumental Latenstein (Codrico) building. Programmatically the building could house offices, which would programmatically also sit in between the residential area west of the building and the housing/work/leisure quarter currently being realized by the Entree-Katendrecht project.

View along the Maashavenkade, north of the Maashaven with the monumental overhang of the Gate Building.

The U-Building

The Playing Field and Five Moderators

105

In contrast to the preceding two buildings and as a result of its centeral position within the range of five architectural objects, the U-Building starts to move towards the water. The building is positioned at the end of the 1,4 kilometer long, ruthlessly straight Maashaven quay and positioned at turning point of this quay before it bends northwards. Two underpasses have been introduced in the volume to provede access to the green court that the building envelops. This public cour features a sloping quay with grass and vegetation, as such the intervention not only introduces architecture by way of inserting an architectural object, but it also manipulates the quay line. Hence, the intervention reiterates the set architecture-quay-water, similarly, yet differently as the Punctured Building Block and the stepped stone square that accompanies that intervention. As a function, the building could house, more luxurious, residences, which matches with its neighboring building blocks within the adjacent morphologcal fragment and functional domain of the Parkkwartier.

Perspective on the main underpass of the U-Building, leading towards the green courtyard that the building envelops.

The Tip Building

The Playing Field and Five Moderators

107

At the outher most tip of the peninsula a triangular building volume has been proposed. It is positioned within the water, however located on a (lowered) quay and attached to Katendrecht via a marginal umbelical cord. The building, in terms of form, building height and program starts to move away from Katendrecht, migrating into the water, yet is, although slightly, still rooted to the peninsula. The building could house a hotel or entertainment functions liasoned to ther tourist industry, such as a casino. In addition, the building houses three distinct public programs. The first is located in the base of the building and consists of a water terminal that serves as an embarking and disembarking point for the various forms of water borne traffic in Rotterdam, which are especially prevalent around the SS Rotterdam as a tourist desitnation. Second is a cableway that runs from the Euromast in Het Park to the, currently under construction, Speelstad Rotterdam on the south quay of the Maashaven. The cable way is both a reference to the collective celebrations of progress, as well as, a suggestion for establishing a new (lightweight) crossing over the Meuse. Both the water terminal and the cable way are indicative of the seemingly independent and indifferent position the Tip building takes towards Katendrecht. In final, the third public function comes in the form of an observation deck on the roof, which is directed towards Katendrecht providing a look back, or â&#x20AC;&#x153;overâ&#x20AC;? the peninsula.

View from the Meuse river towards the tip of the Tip building showing the opening, steps and lowered quay of the water terminal and the passage for the cableway that has been introduced.

DATAPOLIS

The Playing Field and Five Moderators

109

The fifh architectural object is DATAPOLIS: a completely water bound architectural intervention in the Meuse river and is exclusively reachable per boat. In essence, the building is a closed building block with a cour in the middle. Two long north and south bays, and two shorter cross-connecting east and west bays all enveloping a central void. The building houses a hyperscale, tier IV datacenter. In addition, the datacenter is water cooled, using the water of the Meuse river. The architectural object most radically reiterates the set architecture-quay-water, as architecture and quay have been integrated into a single piece of architecture. With a watercooled datacenter as its program, the building also internalizes the water and as such explicitly becomes part of the architectural intervention. In contrast to the preceding four architectural objects, DATAPOLIS been worked out in more detail and will be further discussed in chapters 5 and 6 as part of PART C: Design Experiment - Architectural Object.

View from the Tweede Katendrechtse Hoofd towards DATAPOLIS. DATAPOLIS takes center stage being positioned in the Meuse river, almost relegating the rest of Rotterdam to the background. Legible in its facades are the four distinct programs (one in each facade).

Part C

Design Experiment Architectural object

V Datacenters in the Netherlands

115

116

118

121

122

123

131

132

133

Hidden in plain sight Non-descript solid like objects with flush, shiny, metal skins: cloud computing precipitated in the rural landscape and industry parks of the Netherlands. The architecture of datacenters. It’s a type of architecture in which the emergency exits, elevated from the ground due to the raised computer floor inside, are the dominant expressive architectural elements. A type of architecture that might be best characterized as highly secured warehouses devoid of enormous company logos and billboards, as datacenters are mainly geared at hosting large volumes of virtual traffic, rather than actual people. Terrains and buildings flocked with ‘one eyed birds’ that won’t shit on your car, mounted on steel tree branches. The abstract boxlike buildings express a message of nothing to see here and their accompanying stratified security systems exude you have no business being here; aiming to be hidden in plain sight. Security measures range from simple metal fences, to sluice gates, mantraps, biometric authentication systems and external lighting for surveillance at night, rendering datacenters to seemingly impenetrable fortresses or prisons, almost making one wonder if they are designed to keep people out or in, if there are even any people inside. A few parked cars do suggest some sort of human activity.

Sometimes the hermetically sealed black and grey blockish structures have been draped in a more aesthetically pleasing veil, with hints of color provided by the welcoming committee of warning signs that warn for electric fences and CCTV surveillance, aimed at deterring any potential trespasser. Datacenters intent to guarantee continuity in service, stability, consistency and predictability, which is ensured by an elaborate back up infrastructure and failover systems. Conversely, the warehouse type architecture of sandwich panels expresses a certain volatility, hinting at some sort of ephemerality and lightness. This in contrast to the bulky server racks and installations that consume the same amount of energy as an entire neighborhood or town. Newly built extensions are conjoined to converted office buildings, warehouses or distribution centers by â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;architectural bling-blingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; in the form of shiny ventilation ducts and exhaust pipes. The technical installations are oftentimes clung to the back of the building (if there is a back to be identified) or positioned on the roof, resulting in a roof landscape ridden with technical installations and providing the building with a soundtrack of constant and consistent buzzing sounds of ventilation inlets, exhausts and transformers. The inventory of some datacenters also contains chillers, power substations and monumental cooling towers that, under the right climatological conditions, produce the real clouds of cloud computing.

“Our mission is to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”1 - mission statement Google

Datacenters in the Netherlands The rise of the Datascape

1. Google’s corporate mission. Retrieved on April 2, 2019, from www.about.google

2. ESDS. (May 21, 2010) How To Build Data Centers?. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from www. esds.co.in

3. Taylor, A. (May 18, 2018). Failover architectures: the Infrastructural Excess of the Data Centre Industry. Retrieved on April 2, 2019 from www. failedarchitecture.com 4. Oever, R. van den. (July 16, 2015). Waarom Nederland hét beloofde land voor datacenters is. MT: next generation leadership. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www.mt.nl 5. Amsterdam based real-estate company Caransa Groep is currently building a colocation datacenter facility of 100.000 m2 in Amsterdam’s Western port area. Caransa Groep. (2019). Datacenter Westpoort te Amsterdam. Retrieved on May 4, 2019 from www.caransa.nl 6. Alaerds, R.; Grove, S; Besteman, S. & Bilderbeek, P. (2017). Fundament van onze digitale economie. Structuuronderzoek naar de infrastructuur achter onze data economie. Leidschendam: Dutch Hosting Provider Association, Dutch Datacenter Association, ISP Connect. Retrieved on May 7, 2019 from www.dhpa.nl 7. Metz, C. (October 29, 2009). Internet pops champagne on (second) 40th birthday. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from www. theregister.co.uk

5.1 The Emergence of the Datacenter Industry in the Netherlands The internet is one of the most recent developments within a range of (global) telecommunication technologies. Telecommunication is the collective term for transmitting signs, signals, messages, images, sounds or other forms of information of any nature by means of wire, radio, optical or other electromagnetic systems and basically has to do with information exchange over a distance. The Internet The dawn of the internet dates back to 1969. There are two moments that have been identified as the birth of the internet. The first is September 1969 when a team of engineers at the University of California in Los Angeles (UCLA) established a connection between two machines on the first node of ARPAnet (Advanced Research Projects Agency), the network funded by the US Department of Defense. The second moment was in October of that same year when the first host-to-host message was sent between two remote ARPAnet nodes. One at UCLA and the other at the Stanford Research Institute (SRI).8 With the adoption of TCP/IP (Transmission Control Program/Internet Protocol) protocol by ARPAnet, it became possible to connect almost any network that existed at the time to ARPAnet, thereby solving the internetworking problem.

8. Euro-IX. (April 16, 2014) The Euro-IX video. Retreived on April 2, 2019 from www.youtube.com

139

Datacenters in the Netherlands

Apart from the various questions and connotations that are provoked by Google’s mission statement, there is one essential piece of architecture central in achieving it: the datacenter. The world is becoming increasingly digitized. More and more people are getting connected to the internet, ever more data is migrated to cloud services and an unceasing hunger for data processing and storage, explains why the amount of dedicated server space that is built steadily increases. Datacenters are facilities where data can be processed and stored on a large scale, predominantly for professional organizations.2 They are the very real and physical architectural expression of the ethereal metaphor of cloud computing. The building type first emerged in the 1990s as centralized spaces that were dedicated for data storage and processing. Since then they have evolved into highly specialized high-tech provisions that make cloud services, but also online gaming, streaming services and other online platforms, possible, forming the key component within an expansive digital infrastructure.3 They house the servers, the actual hardware of the internet, to both process and store the data that we collectively make use of and produce. Hence, their presence in our daily lives is much more pervasive then is suggested by the analogy with the cloud. Over the past decade the datacenter industry has been growing intensively worldwide and in the Netherlands in particular.4 Within the Netherlands the datacenter industry has grown with 12,3% (from 252.000 m2 to 283.000 m2) over 2016 and with 8,8% (from 283.000 m2 to 308.000 m2) over 2017. In the region of Greater Amsterdam, the data capital of the Netherlands and host of 71% of the total datacenter capacity, an annual growth of 18% over a period of seven years has been measured. With the opening of two hyperscale campuses, one in Eemshaven, (Google, to double in size) and one in Middenmeer (Microsoft, to be expanded, and accompanied by a CyrusOne datacenter and a second Google datacenter)5 and an additional 134.000 m2 of datacenter surface currently under construction in the Greater Amsterdam region, it is one of the fastest growing industries in the Netherlands.6 Organizations as the Dutch Data Association, the branch organization for datacenters in the Netherlands, have argued for the IT/datacenter industry to be officially recognized as one of the mainports of the Netherlands. In contrast, to the mainports Schiphol airport in Amsterdam, the Port of Rotterdam and the Brainport in and around Eindhoven, the potential fourth mainport does not depend on a specific geographical location, but on datacenters scattered across the country and (global) internet hubs.7 With the high paced developments within the datacenter industry in the Netherlands the overview provided in this chapter will therefore be quickly rendered hopelessly out of date. Nevertheless, it is an attempt at providing an overview of the current state of the datacenter industry in the Netherlands.

Left: Figure 5.1 - Map of Amsterdam with the location of datacenters marked in red. The accompanying graph illustrates the total square meters of the different datacenter operators in Amsterdam. (The N/A stands for the 100.000 m2 datacenter the Caransa group is currently building in Amsterdam Westpoort.)

9. Olsthoorn, P. (2014). 25 jaar internet in Nederland. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Economic Board. p. 5.

10. NSFnet was established in 1986 to connect a number of regional university and academic networks in the United States. All networks used the TCP/IP communication protocol, which allowed for NSFnet to also be connected to ARPAnet. National Science Foundation. (2019). A Brief History of NSF and the Internet. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from www.nsf.gov 11. Olsthoorn, P. (2014). 25 jaar internet in Nederland. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Economic Board. p. 10. 12. Ibid, 7.

13. SURFnet emerged from the Stuurgroep Universitaire Rekencentra (SUR), which under cabinet-Lubbers 1 received five million guilders in 1985 to devise and formalize a multiannual plan for network development between university computer centers in the Netherlands. From that the Samenwerkende Universitaire Rekenfaciliteiten (SURF) was set-up, which in 1986 received three hundred milion guilders to develop and build that network. In january 1988 SURFnet BV was founded. SURFnet aimed at connecting university computer centers. By doing so it was to provide a centralized national answer to IBMâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Earn network and Digital Equipmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Decnet. Initially Surfnet was geared to bring all networks and centers running on networks of IBM, Decnet and Unix to the same Osi-standard (Open Systems Interconnection), which was also required to be eligble for government subsidies. However, the people of SURFnet quickly realized that the internet based on TCP/IP would be the future. Ibid. p. 126-130.

141

Datacenters in the Netherlands

TCP/IP works as follows: a network is established by connecting, for instance, two computers, such as those at UCLA. If another party also manages to connect two computers on the basis of the same rules, it is possible to connect both networks. By connecting the two networks an internetwork is created, hence the term internet. Each device has an IP address. Everything you sent from one device to another is in essence a message from one device to the other. This message is sent across the networks in packets of data. Each packet contains information on what the data is, where it came from and where it is heading. As such, one message can take several paths on its way to its destination as each piece of data can take a different path. The receiving device knows how to put the received packets of data together due to the shared language between devices by virtue of the internet protocol. Therefore, it is inherent to the internet that it is decentralized and has no single point of failure. Internet exchanges are central nodes within the larger internet network and are of relevance when data ought to be shared between internet providers that each have their own network. Sometimes they connect to each other through private connections, however more often data is exchanged through shared service platforms, i.e. internet exchange points. This way of connecting between providers on internet exchange points is called peering and results in mutual benefits in terms of costs and internet speed for the participating parties.9 The internet exchanges are hosted in datacenters. AMS-IX is an example of an internet exchange, which is located in Amsterdam and hosted on a number of datacenters in and aroundthe city. Amsterdam has become the Dutch epicenter of the internet and datacenter industry due to the historical development of the Internet in the Netherlands. The internet in the Netherlands was, like its global telecommunication predecessors as the telephone and the telegraph, first established in Amsterdam. The first direct and open civil connection between Europe and the US was established in November 17, 1988 via the Centrum voor Wiskunde & Informatica (CWI) in Amsterdam.10 At that moment CWI officially gained access to the American internet: NSFnet.11 The connection was however already laid in 1982 and used to exchange emails and documents.12 Around 1980 there were several competing network standards in Europe and the US, which were each promoted by national telecom providers. One of the earliest and most essential systems in Europe at that time was Unix. Unix-systems started an official connection called EUnet (1982) consisting of a network of data connections between users with the Unix computer system. The Dutch part of 50x50 m. that network was NLnet, which would beAlticom Amsterdam 80 m come the first internet provider in the NethNikhef Amsterdam erlands.13 500 m Amsterdam would develop into a KPN International major international internet exchange after 1.900 m a meeting for European Unix-clubs (EUUG: The Datacenter Group Amsterdam European Unix Users Group) in Paris in 2.700 m April 1982. During that meeting Teus Hagen, Switch Datacenters AMS1 founder of the first Unix-system in Europe 8.320 m (NLUUG) and head of the computer laboDigital Realty Trust ratory of CWI (then called Mathematisch 21.553 m Centrum), proposed that each European country with the Unix-system should create Interxion AMS1,2,4,9 a backbone or central computer for national 31.150 m connections. Those backbones could then be connected to a European network. Part of this network were research institutes as Equinix AM1-7 39.820 m the University of Edinburgh and the University of London in Great-Britain, the University of Copenhagen in Denmark, the French national research institute for the digital Global Switch Amsterdam sciences INRIA and the University of Dort40.570 m + 28.000 m mund in Germany. They all agreed to make Amsterdam the European center, partly out of fear of running into trouble with their university boards. N/A The major downside of different net100.000 m work standards that were available at the time was that they were not interoperable and therefore it was difficult to work togeth-

Left: Figure 5.2 - Map of Schiphol with the location of datacenters marked in red. The accompanying graph illustrates the total square meters of different datacenter operators.

14. Internal communication within buildings or campuses, often went through Ethernet, rather than trough the TCP/ IP protocol. Ethernet is the networkstandard with which computers in a Local Area Network (LAN) communicate. With Local Area Networks machines are physically connected by a shared medium, e.g. cable. As such this network bypasses lines of telecomproviders. Ethernet. nl. (2019). Wat is ethernet? Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from www.ethernet.nl 15. Olsthoorn, P. (2014). 25 jaar internet in Nederland. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Economic Board. p. 162,163. 16. In 1997 twenty Internet Service Providers and carriers found the AMX-IX association. www.ams-ix.net 17. Jansen, J. (May 20, 2018). Nederlands kabinet: er dreigt geen elektriciteitstekort voor datacenters. Retrieved on April 2, 2019 from www.tweakers.net 18. Olsthoorn, P. (2014). 25 jaar internet in Nederland. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Economic Board. p. 190.

746 m2

Maincubes Amsterdam AMS 01 2.000 m2 atom86 2.500 m2 Terremark NAP of Amsterdam 2.700 m2 EdgeConneX Amsterdam 5.780 m2

NLDC Oude Meer & Aalsmeer 21.553 m2

Digital Realty Trust 15.900 m2

Interxion AMS 3,5,6,7,8.10 22.400 m2 + 6000 m2

A short history of the data industry in Rotterdam In 2001 the Neutral Internet Exchange NL-IX was established to serve as a (cheaper) alternative and back-up for AMS-IX. NL-IX is currently also one of the largest internet exchanges worldwide. Currently, around 604 networks are connected to NL-IX. A number of smaller local exchanges also fall under NL-IX. 19 For a short history on data in Rotterdam we have to turn to the single most horrific looking building in Rotterdam if not The Netherlands: the Spaanse Kubus. In this building the Rotterdam-The Hague Internet Exchange (R-IX) was founded and hosted from 2007 on.20 With R-IX Rotterdam became the twentieth location as part of the

143

Datacenters in the Netherlands

er and communicate. With the invention of IP, it however, became possible to connect all the different networks that were already in existence. Basically, it meant that a network was provided which connects computers worldwide that speak the same “language”, which is IP. Connecting to other networks became increasingly important for physicists, astronomers and other scientists. At the Wetenschappelijk Centrum Watergraafsmeer (WCW), currently Science Park Amsterdam, institutions as SARA (Stichting Academisch Rekencentrum Amsterdam), CWI and Nikhef (Nationaal instituut voor subatomaire fysica) were located and they wanted to be connected to, for instance, CERN in Geneva. SURFnet established this connection and with that had set up the primitive start of the Amsterdam Internet Exchange.14 The connection consisted out of a router, which formed the gateway between Amsterdam and Geneva. Each participant (SARA, Nikhef and CWI) had to be plugged into that router via an Ethernet cable to connect their networks that ran through their respective buildings on the WCW.15 They called the established connection the International Backbone Router Local Area Network (IBR-LAN). At the time the connection to the US ran on a network of IBM through the EAM-node at Montpellier in the south of France. By connecting to CERN, Amsterdam was connected to a second center in the Ebone IP network (a European network for internet), which was in turn connected to the US. Therefore, if one connection failed, there was a backup. From then on, the network in Amsterdam naturally grew as more national and international parties wanted to join the IBR-LAN.16 On February 1, 1994 the Amsterdam Internet Exchange (AMS-IX) was launched as a pilot project by SURFnet at the locations SARA and Nikhef.17 This was also stimulated as countries such as Germany and France actively resisted the emergent internet boom. Therefore, anyone who wanted to do something with the internet and with connecting networks came to Amsterdam.18 With the growth of the AMS-IX in 1999, SURFnet, who initiated, hosted and maintained the AMS-IX, wanted to get rid of managing it as they could no longer keep up with the demand. In a meeting of the board of AMS-IX two decisions were made: 1: to restructure the AMS-IX organizational structure and 2: to expand the platform to datacenters outside of the academic environment. The restructuring of the organization was formalized in 2000. With the expansion of AMS-IX to commercial datacenters Telecity II in Amsterdam Southeast and Global Switch in Amsterdam Slotervaart in 2001, the second decision was also formalized. From then on it was possible for external parties to connect to the AMS-IX at four central points (SARA, Nikhef, Telecity II and Global Switch), which were also connected to each other and effectively formed the start of Amsterdam’s internet ecosystem. Currently, 842 networks are connected to the AMS-IX, which position it in the global top five of internet exchanges. Therefore, Amsterdam is in terms of IT truly considered a European mainport. Though this grew historically, it is also supported by a number of subsea cables that enter the European mainland through the coast of the Netherlands. Other factors that make the AMS-IX attractive for cloud providers and other companies within the IT-sector are Amsterdam’s geographical position within Europe, good connections, a solid infrastructure and the energy supply. Compared to for instance Germany and England, the power supply is better and cheaper in the Netherlands. Furthermore, there is a lot of knowledge on datacenters and datacenter capacity present. In addition, the government also plays an active role by means of favorable 50x50 m. tax deals. Datacenter Amsterdam

19. Groen, Gertjan. (April 11, 2017). Zo werkt AMS-IX: Alles over het grootste internetknooppunt ter wereld. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from www.pcmweb.nl 20. Kepinski, W. (February 2, 2014). Rotterdam Internet Exchange (R-iX) is overgenomen door Bytesnet. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from www. dutchitchannel.nl

5.2 Datacenter Differentiation and Geographical Parameters Apart from the historical development of the internet and governmental policies and subsidies there are a number of other factors that have co-determined the geographical distribution of datacenters in the Netherlands. Moreover, this also brings to light the differences between datacenters as there are a number of criteria on the basis of which datacenters can be categorized, as the type of datacenter is also of important influence into determining where to locate the datacenter.29 Private datacenters vs. Internet Datacenter Private datacenters are owned by private companies, institutions or government agencies. Their primary purpose is to store and process data that is the result from processing operations, procedures and applications of private datacenters.30 Prominent examples are the datacenters of for instance Google or Facebook. Internet datacenters are generally owned and operated by a provider of services related to telecommunications, such as commercial telephony or other types of telecommunication services. In the Netherlands this is exemplified by KPN. The main purpose of these datacenters is to provide various types of connection services. Categorization Datacenters can be categorized in four different categories, depending on the type and scale of services that they provide. 31 Four main categories are identified: I. Regional and national datacenters: Regional datacenters provide a platform for local company systems. Some national operators have two or more locations to provide geographical redundancy, allowing for data to be stored at several locations, reducing the risk of downtime. II. International datacenters: These are internationally operating datacenter providers that offer colocation services and white spaces and “basically service as a Shurgard for data”.32 The client hires physical server rack space and the supporting infrastructure for energy and 50x50 m. telecommunication, and billed by the daAlticom Rotterdam 80 m tacenter operator at the end of the month. Datacenter Rotterdam Bytesnet B.V. These types of datacenters are predomi1.100 m nantly located in Amsterdam, as they want NLDC Rotterdam to have the smallest latency possible and 2.000 m therefore want to be close to the AMS-IX. Smart DC Rotterdam 2.200 m A number of major players within the datacenter industry in and around Amster2

Left: Figure 5.3 - Map of Rotterdam with the location of datacenters marked in red. The accompanying graph illustrates the total square meters of the different datacenter operators.

21. Stedenlink. (2019). Rotterdam. Retrieved April 3, 2019 from www.stedenlink.nl 22. The Rotterdam – The Hague Internet Exchange. (2019). Members. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from www.r-ix.nl 23. Conversation with Richard Boogaard of SmartDC on March 18, 2019 in Rotterdam.

24. Conversation with Sandra Sijbers of the Department of Urban Development at the Municpality of Rotterdam on January 23, 2019 in Rotterdam. 25. Metropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag. (2016). Roadmap Next Economy. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www.mrdh.nl 26. Roadmap Next Economy. (2019). Datacenters: Amsterdam first, Zuid-Holland second. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www.roadmapnexteconomy.com 27. E-mail exchange with Frank Vieveen, programmanager digital economy and smart city at the department of Urban Development at the Municipality of Rotterdam on April 8, 2019. 28. A number of recent large scale power outages and concerns on the availability of the power supply in and around Amsterdam underpin the development of Rotterdam-The Hague as a back-up location for Amsterdam. Heerde, J. v. (May 4, 2018). Nog even en de datacenters raken van stroom verstoken.Trouw. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www.trouw.nl 29. Within the framework of this research into datacenters in the Netherlands, mainly data retrieved from Dutch Datacenter Association has been used. The data consists of a selection of around one hundred datacenters, of the over two hundred datacenters in the Netherlands, that had been mapped out more elaborately by the Dutch Datacenter Association. 30. ESDS. (May 21, 2010) How To Build Data Centers?. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from www.esds.co.in 31. Dutch Datacenter Association. (2019). Welke datacenter types zijn er?. Retrieved on May 7, 2019 from www.dutchdatacenters.nl

32. Conversation with Boogaard, R. of SmartDC on March 18, 2019 in Rotterdam.

145

Datacenters in the Netherlands

NL-IX network. In 2009 R-IX was expanded with the first datacenter in Rotterdam, which was also located in the Spaanse Kubus.21 In addition to the datacenter in the Spaanse Kubus, the predominant data-infrastructure in and around Rotterdam is formed by datacenters in the Van Nelle Factory, the Waalhaven, Alblasserdam, and Delft.22 Interestingly, in contrast to the purpose built or converted buildings that host datacenters in the Greater Amsterdam region, the architecture of the datacenters in Rotterdam is closely tied to the former port industry as both Bytesnet, located in the Spaanse Kubus and Smart DC, located in the former distribution warehouse of the Van Nelle Factory, are housed in the port terrains of the Spaanse Polder. In addition, SmartDC also utilizes the 23-kV power supply that was already present at the Van Nelle Factory due to the industrial processes.23 The entire Port of Rotterdam is outfitted with a 23-kV power infrastructure. As such it directly expresses the first shifts in the diversifying economy of the city of Rotterdam and the emergence of the data-industry. The lack of an elaborate datacenter industry and IT sector in Rotterdam has not gone unheeded in Rotterdam, as the city is currently actively investing in the growth of this industry and the affiliated sectors under the guise of the ‘Next Economy’.24 The Next Economy pertains to the fusion of internet- and communication technologies with new forms of decentralized energy supplies, foreseen to revolutionize the economic and societal systems that are currently in place through a number of transitions in various fields, ranging from energy transitions to reorganized education systems.25 Datacenters play a key role in developing towards this Next Economy.26 Therefore, Rotterdam is setting up a program facilitating the development of datacenters.27 In an increasingly larger societal and global shift towards the ‘networked society’ and the pending large scale implementation of the ‘Internet-of-Things’, autonomous vehicles and smart city systems, Rotterdam, within the larger Metropolitan Region Rotterdam-The Hague, is actively positioning itself as a back-up location for Amsterdam and as an emergent player in the field of the datacenter industry and IT sector.28

dam are cross-connecting their datacenters to build a resilient infrastructure and a better distribution of the data over various datacenters. This has resulted in the emergence of three datacenter campuses in the Greater Amsterdam region: Science Park, Amsterdam SouthEast and Schiphol. Hyperscale datacenters: Large scale single tenant datacenters, built and operated for globally operating internet and tech companies. Wholesale and retail datacenters: these types of datacenters provide the basic building infrastructure and technical installation infrastructure. Clients rent a number of racks or corridors (retail), or entire spaces/sections (wholesale). The datacenter operator provides and maintains the space and technical installations and the client provides the server equipment, differentiating them from colocation services. Building In terms of the type of building, three types of datacenters can be identified: -Buildings that are converted to datacenters and can feature an extension. Usually it involves former office spaces, warehouses or distribution centers located in industry parks. -Purpose built datacenters. -Special buildings and antennae. In the Netherland there is a network of twenty-four media towers dispersed over the country, these have been retrofitted to house datacenters as analogue technologies formally used for telecommunication by provider KPN had become obsolete. Furthermore, there is, for instance, a datacenter in Kloetinge, Zeeland, which is housed in a former NATO nuclear bunker.33 Connectivity (hot) vs. storage (cold) Data that has to be readily available and that is frequently accessed is located in colocation datacenters close to internet exchanges, as the AMS-IX.34 The focus of these types of datacenters lies on connectivity and providing services with no data delay. Data which is archived, no longer in active use and utilized less frequently, or not utilized at all, is located in storage facilities. For these facilities physical server space matters over connectivity.35 146

Uptime Another way to differentiate between datacenters is on the basis of uptime.36 The Uptime Institute has determined a standard of a four tier rating system for indicating to what extend a datacenter can guarantee operationality.37 Tier I datacenters are predominantly utilized by small businesses and have an uptime of 99,671% (max. 28,8 hours of annual downtime) and no redundancy, meaning they have a single path for power and cooling and no backup of their systems. Tier II datacenters provide 99,749% uptime (max. 22 hours of annual downtime) and have partial redundancy in power and cooling. Tier III datacenters are used by larger businesses and ensure 99.982% uptime (max. 1,6 hours of annual downtime), N+1 redundancy, provide 72 hours power outage protection and have multiple power and cooling distribution paths, but only one path active, which allows for concurrent maintenance. Tier IV datacenters guarantee 99,995% uptime annually (max. 26,3 minutes of annual downtime), have a 2N+1 fully redundant infrastructure and provide 96 hours of power outage protection with multiple active power and cooling distribution paths.

33. Cellnex. (2019). Datacenters. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www.cellnextelecom.nl and Paardekam, R. (September 7, 2018). Datacenter in bunker Kloetinge gaat eind dit jaar open. Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www.pzc.nl 34. Bauer, R. (February 7, 2019). Whatâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s the Diff: Hot and Cold Data Storage. Backblaze. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www.backblaze.com 35. The data of one business can be located in different types of datacenters. Cloud providers as Google and Amazon Web Services or the social media network Facebook make use of colocation datacenters close to internet exchanges for their services that are frequently utilized and should function without any delay, such as your Facebook timeline or the Google Search Engine. However, stored data in cloud provisions or ten year old photos on Facebook are stored in large scale cold storage facilities. Bright.nl. (July 5, 2017). Een kijkje in het nieuwe mega-datacenter AM4 in Amsterdam. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www.bright.nl 36. Uptime Institute. (2019). Uptime Institute. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from www. uptimeinstitute.com 37. Colocation America. (2019). Data Center Standards (Tiers I-IV). Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from www.colocationamerica. com

Conversion (+ expansion)

Newly built

Antenna/special building

38 out of the 95 datacenters considered of which 12 have also been expanded totalling 90.656 m2 of the 520.969 m2 total

33 out of the 95 datacenters considered totalling 425.683 m2 of the 520.969 m2 total

24 out of the 95 datacenters considered totalling 4.630 m2 of the 520.969 m2 total

Datacenters in the Netherlands

147

Hyperscaler Datacenter

148

Geographical parameters Apart from financial parameters (e.g. favorable tax deals), political stability and the presence of a competent labor force, a combination of geographical parameters co-determine where best to develop a datacenter. Five parameters have been considered and mapped, elucidating the distribution of the development of datacenters in the Netherlands. Internet exchanges Physical proximity to internet exchanges can be a decisive factor for locating certain datacenter services. Internet exchanges are physical locations containing Ethernet network switches that connect different internet service providers and content delivery networks, enabling them to exchange internet traffic between their respective networks. This is called peering. Usually internet exchanges are non-profit organizations and have been founded by internet providers. This eliminates the need for a potential intermediary upstream transit provider to connect internet networks. The connection between different internet networks is called a back-

Figure 5.4 - Map of datacenters in the Netherlands.

Internet Exchange Point Datacenter hosting an Internet Exchange Point

Datacenters in the Netherlands

149

bone, which in itself is a network of high-speed connections through which data traffic runs of the networks connected to the backbone. The use of transit carriers to connect internet networks can potentially result in latency, as the internet data can be diverted by the transit carrier, potentially resulting in the need to send data to the same location as where the data was requested via a detour, which is referred to as the Trombone Effect, or tromboning.38 Power stations Besides good and high-speed connections to the internet, electricity is the second fundamental prerequisite for datacenter operations. Datacenters require vast amounts of energy for operating the servers and their elaborate cooling systems. Even though, a push for the implementation of sustainable energy and the rapid succession of innovations in cooling technologies, leading to every new datacenter to claim to be the most sustainable and energy efficient, a mid-sized datacenter on average still requires the same power capacity as a city as Diemen or Zaandam.39

Figure 5.5 - Map of internet exchange acces points.

38. Cloudflare. (2019). What is an Internet Exchange Point?. Cloudflare. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www.cloudflare.com

39. Spokesperson of Netprovider Alliander, quoted in Trouw, Heerde, J. v. (May 4, 2018). Nog even en de datacenters raken van stroom verstoken. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www. trouw.nl

Powerstation(s) > 1000 MWe Powerstation(s) 250 - 1000 MWe Powerstation(s) 60 - 250 MWe

150

Submarine cables Submarine fiber-optic cables that directly connect internet networks of different countries and continents to each other, form another geographical parameter for datacenter developments. Currently, there are twenty active telecommunications cables on the North Sea bed with a total length of 2000 kilometers. Globally there are currently around 378 cables with an approximate combined length of 1,2 million kilometers.40 A number of those subsea cables address a cable landing station in the Netherlands. Though space-bound internet provisions through satellite are being developed, submarine cables will remain essential in the global internet structure as internet via satellite is slower and cannot handle large volumes of data. The continued importance of submarine cables is also reflected in the construction of new subsea cables by cloud service providers that are, parallel to internet providers, building their own subsea fiber-optic cable infrastructure by means co-owned or private submarine cables.41

Figure 5.6 - Map of power stations above 60 MWe in the Netherlands.

40. TeleGeography. (2019). Submarine Cable Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved on April 2, 2019 from www. telegeography.com

VSNL Northern Europe

COBRA Cable

UK-Netherlands 14

Ulysses-2

Pangea South

Circle North

AC-1

TAT-14

Concerto

151

Land value In addition, to infrastructural and technological factors, factors as land value can be decisive for datacenter development as they occupy relatively large surface areas and tend to increase in size over time. Land value is one of the driving factors for the choice where to develop hyperscale campuses by cloud service providers. Flood risks Besides, the factors in determining where to locate a datacenter, there are also a number of risk factors that co-determine where not to locate datacenters. These range from potential hazardous industries to potential disasters, as crashing airplanes or natural disasters. In the Netherlands flood risk is a dominant presence in terms of natural disasters as over half of the country is located below sea-level or prone to flooding in the event of a dike breach.

Datacenters in the Netherlands

Farland North

Figure 5.7 - Map of the submarine cables in the North sea that have a stop or land on the Dutch coast.

41. After their first subsea cable spanning from the U.S. to Chili, Google is currently rolling out its second privately owned and first trans-atlantic subsea fiber-optics cable spanning from the U.S. to France. Sawers, P. (July 17, 2018). Google announces its first private transatlantic subsea cable, stretching from Virginia to France. Venturebeat. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www. venturebeat.com

> 3000 â&#x201A;Ź/m2 1000 - 3000 680 - 1000 520 - 680 400 - 520 310 - 400 240 - 310 180 - 240 140 - 180 110 - 140 80 - 110 50 - 80 40 - 50 25 - 40 18 - 25 15 - 18 < 15

152

Datacenters in the Netherlands considered Evaluating the geographical parameters in conjunction within this concise overview, it becomes clear how the different factors have been mediated in the development of the different types of datacenters. In addition, to the cluster around Amsterdam, also the cluster around Schiphol becomes clearly legible from figure 5.4. The economy of scale logic applicable to datacenters might help in explaining this, as the slight differences in land value and zoning laws in Amsterdamâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s inner city and at Schiphol have stimulated the formation of a datacenter cluster in the Haarlemmermeerpolder (see Figure 5.8). Notwithstanding, the reclaimed land of the polders form the lowest points below sea level in the Netherlands, making them most prone to flooding in the case of natural disasters (see figure 5.9). In addition, airports and flight paths also form potential risks in terms of crashing airplanes. Paradoxically, the proximity of international airport Schiphol is one of the unique selling points for attracting international datacenter operators to the Greater Amsterdam region and the Netherlands at large. Furthermore, the desire to be located in close proximity to large inter-

Figure 5.8 - Map of the land value (2014).

< -6,0 m.

9,0 to 10,0

-6,0 to -5,0

10,0 to 12,0

-5,0 to -4,0

12,0 to 14,0

-4,0 to -3,0

14,0 to 16,0

-3,0 to -2,5

16,0 to 18,0

-2,5 to -2,0

18,0 to 20,0

-2,0 to -1,5

20,0 to 25,0

-1,5 to -1,0

25,0 to 30,0

-1,0 to -0,5

30,0 to 35,0

-0,5 to -0,0 0,0 to 0,5

35,0 to 40,0 40,0 to 45,0

0,5 to 1,0

45,0 to 50,0

1,0 to 1,5

50,0 to 60,0

1,5 to 2,0

60,0 to 70,0

2,0 to 2,5

70,0 to 80,0

2,5 to 3,0

80,0 to 90,0

3,0 to 3,5

90,0 to 100,0

3,5 to 4,0

100,0 to 125,0

4,0 to 4,5

125,0 to 150,0

4,5 to 5,0

150,0 to 175,0

5,0 to 6,0

175,0 to 200,0

6,0 to 7,0

200,0 to 250,0

7,0 to 8,0

> 250,0

8,0 to 9,0

Datacenters in the Netherlands

153

net hubs as the AMS-IX have outweighed both risks (figure 5.5). By developing an elaborate failover infrastructure providing geographical redundancy, these risks can to a certain extend also be covered. The combination of a steady and proximate power supply in the form of a power station (figure 5.6) and large amounts of readily available cheap land have directly led to the development of the two hyperscale campuses in Eemshaven and Middenmeer, despite the latter being located in the Wieringermeerpolder. In addition to a number of (Trans-Atlantic) submarine cables (figure 5.7) that enter the Dutch coast, the Netherlands is equipped with an elaborate and high-speed internet and fiber-optics infrastructure, resulting in a 97% internet penetration, easily positioning the country in the global top ten. Moreover, the Netherlands is one of the five major European consumers of cloud-based services for online activities as e-mail, file storage, enterprise database hosting and computing power, making the Netherlands attractive for cloud service providers as Google and Microsoft.42

Figure 5.9 - Map of the level of the land compared to NAP (Nieuw Amsterdams Peil).

42. CBS. (Februari 3, 2018). Nederland koploper in Europa met internettoegang. CBS. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www.ec.europa.eu

5.3 The Ubiquity of the Datascape in the (Urban) Landscape The explosive growth in the number and size of datacenters reflects positive economic prospects. The steadfast increase of internet consumption is heralded by the data industry, branch organizations, IT companies and governmental agencies. However, there are a number of critical aspects that ought to be considered in light of these developments, which also underpin why datacenters are increasingly becoming a spatial and architectural problem. Boxification of the landscape The strategic architectural imperative of datacenter development is a single story industrial warehouse or distribution center type of building with large floor plates in suburban locations (see p. 165-180).43 However, in addition to the aggressive expansion of (hyperscale) datacenters over the surface of the earth and the Dutch landscape in particular, the Dutch landscape is also faced with the development of super oversized distribution centers or XXL DC’s that have a minimum footprint of 40.000 m2 as a result of the growing e-commerce.44 This has resulted in largely uncoordinated developments of large windowless industrial boxes. This phenomenon has been typified as the ‘boxification’ of the Dutch landscape and is putting landscapes and farmland under pressure, leading to a renewed confrontation between city and landscape, center and periphery. The boxification is a result of what landscape architect Adriaan Geuze has indicated as the lack of adamant decision making by the local and national government. 45 While the extensive growth of transport infrastructure in the Netherland has over time resulted in the fragmentation of the landscape, the rampant boxification could potentially lead to the partial annihilation of this landscape whatsoever. The urbanization of datacenters Datacenters are, however, increasingly urbanizing. Colocation services geared on providing optimal connectivity with low latency push datacenters closer to internet exchanges as AMSIX. Equinix’s AM4 datacenter or Digital Realty’s Datatower, both situated at Amsterdam’s Science Park, might best exemplify how datacenters are increasingly becoming an architectural reality within the cityscape, resulting in datacenter operators to tend to also invest more in their architecture, as “good architecture takes more than a whiff of green paint”.46 154 The face of the Next Economy Nevertheless, their abstract and almost mythical utilitarian architecture remains one the most direct expressions of the expanding hunger for data as the oil of the 21st century and our privacy as currency. Interior photos of datacenters are in most cases devoid of humans. “The less human you can make these space appear the more secure they look, because the number one cause of down time is always human error […].”47 Their apparent intangibility further manifests the obscured practices of data harvesting, processing and manipulation, as well as algorithm and AI developments. Datacenters aim to guarantee certainty, reliability, continuity through controlled, surveilled and secure space, shutting out everything and anyone potentially disrupting that. However, its architecture does not express this foreseen temporal dimension. With geographical independency provided by geographical redundancy in the form of the infrastructural excess of an elaborate fail-over industry consisting of “just in case space”, standby server systems, generators and transformers idling in a state of always-on readiness.48 They allow for the cloud to, in case of emergency, seemingly unnoticably migrate between networked coordinates on a global playing field. “A whole incipient geography of back-up and repair spread across the world”. 49 An industry not bound by space, but merely by time. Datacenters are the expression of a new type of industry which has already revolutionized vast aspects of the society and the economy, such as the Port of Rotterdam, and has enabled various industries to become increasingly digitized and automated. In the shift towards the Next Economy the number of datacenters will increase and become even more crucial in a smart city like cyber-physical ecosystem, which is presented in the media as an inescapable near future reality that is infused with Internet-of-Things devices based on constant cloud-connectivity. Currently, datacenters are already much more pervasive in our daily lives than seen and known. They are involved in most of our time online, are a prerequisite for paperless offices, the digitization of government services and allow for our portable devices becoming lighter and thinner, as expandable memory ports are stripped away, internal memory is minimized, and our files and applications are being stored in and streamed from datacenters. With most of our computing needs now implemented as web services, our portable devices are reduced to portals to datacenters. The combined effects of boxification and datacenter urbanization incites the question whether the architecture of datacenters can become even more integrated in the public

43. Bell, M. A. (April 22, 2005). Use Best Practices to Design Data Center Facilities. Stamford, CT: Gartner, Inc. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from www. it.northwestern.edu 44. Schoorl, J. (May 18, 2018). De verdozing van het Nederlandse landschap. De Volkskrant. Retrieved on January 5, 2019 from www.volkskrant.nl

45. Ibid.

46. Party leader Sylvia Buczynski of the PvdA party in Hollands Kroon on the announcement of Google acquiring 70 hectares of land on Agriport at Middenmeer, hoping that Google will invest more in its architecture than Microsoft has done. Dankerlui, R. (June 15, 2018) Inwoners Middenmeer blij met komst datacenter Google. Retrieved on April 29, 2019 from www. nhnieuws.nl 47. Alexander Taylor quoted from a Failed Architecture podcast. Failed Architecture. (May 18, 2018). #01 Data Space: the Architecture and Impact of Datacenters. Failed Architecture [40:30]. Retrieved on April 2, 2019 from www. failedarchitecture.com 48. Mark Minkjan quoted from a Failed Architecture podcast. Failed Architecture. (May 18, 2018). #01 Data Space: the Architecture and Impact of Datacenters. Failed Architecture [44:15]. Ibid. 49. Stephen Graham as quoted in Taylor, A. (May 18, 2018). Failover archtectures: the Infrastructural Excess of the Data Centre Industry. ibid.

Next pages: Figure 5.10 - Selection of datacenters built over the past ten years at various locations in the Netherlands. The Google Eemshaven hyperscale campus has served as the predominant example for the design of DATAPOLIS, hence the imagery of this datacenter is complemented by an additional analytical layer indicating the main components of the hyperscale campus.

155

Datacenters in the Netherlands

domain and become an integral part of the cityscape as a new beacon to this emergent industry. In this way datacenters could potentially give something back to the city in terms of cityscape by its architecture and allow for the building itself to function as an intermediary between the global and the local. The real and the virtual. In doing so it could express the Next Economy with its true face and concurrently potentially allow for the city to be perceived from a multitude of new perspectives . Recalibrating the confrontation between city and landscape, between center and periphery.

156

Endhoven High Tech Campus 53 5656 AG

2013

Datacenters in the Netherlands

157

site

200m

NLDC Datacenter Eindhoven 2018

100m

50m NLDC Completion: 2015 Size: 1500 m2

158

Hoofddorp Wijsmullerdreef 10 2132 PW

2015

Datacenters in the Netherlands

159

200m

site Digital De President 2018

100m

50m Digital Realty Trust Completion: 2016 Size: 15.900 m2

160

Amsterdam H.J.E. Wenckebachweg 127, 1096 AM Duivendrechtsekade 80A, 1096AH

2013

161

Datacenters in the Netherlands

200m

site 1. Amstel Business Park 2. Equinix AM6

2018

100m Digital Realty Trust Completion: 2009 Size: 4000 m2

50m Equinix Completion: 2018 Size: 15.000 m2

162

Middenmeer Agriport 601 1775 TK

2013

Datacenters in the Netherlands

163

200m

site Microsoft Amsterdam Data Center 2018

100m

50m Microsoft Completion: under construction Size: 112.330 m2

164

Amsterdam Science Park 610 1098 XH

2007

Datacenters in the Netherlands

165

200m

site Equinix AM3 & Equinix AM4 2018

100m

50m Equinix Completion: 2017 Size: 16.120 m2

166

Schiphol-Rijk Pudongweg 37 1437 EM

2015

Datacenters in the Netherlands

167

200m

site Interxion AMS8 & Interxion AMS10 2018

100m

50m Interxion Completion: under construction Size: 8.000 m2

168

Groningen Liverpoolweg 10 9744 TW

2007

Datacenters in the Netherlands

169

200m

site NLDC Datacenter Groningen 2018

100m

50m NLDC Completion: 2013 Size: 1.400 m2

170

Eemshaven Oostpolder 4 9909 TA

2014

Datacenters in the Netherlands

171

site

200m

Google Eemshaven 2018

100m

50m Google Completion: 2016 Size: 100.000 m2 (estimation)

VI DATAPOLIS

VI DATAPOLIS A hyperscale datacenter for Rotterdam DATAPOLIS is a water cooled, hyperscale, tier IV datacenter and is positioned in the water of the Meuse river, north of Katendrecht. It forms the culmination of the preceding research on the relationship between city and water, and the reengagement with the water in Rotterdam by way of manipulation the set architecture-quay-water. DATAPOLIS is a datacenter, and as addressed in the preceding chapter, the datacenter industry is booming in the Netherlands. In light of Rotterdam’s development towards the Next Economy, datacenters will play a more significant role, as they are quintessential for contemporary developments and regarding IT, Internet-of-Things, smart cities developments, and so on. However, currently datacenters, particularly hyperscale datacenters, are positioned in the rural periphery of the Netherlands. With DATAPOLIS I argue that the integration of a hyperscale datacenter is possible, if one approaches the waters present in Rotterdam differently. Interestingly, as DATAPOLIS is positioned in the Meuse river, which is managed by Rijkswaterstaat, it however, does not only act on a local level within the city, but also on a national level, if not global level.

Left page: Figure 6.1 - Detail of a physical model of DATAPOLIS. (scale 1:100)

DATAPOLIS does a number of things: 1. With DATAPOLIS a function from the geographical and societal periphery is inserted in Rotterdam’s largest public space: the Meuse river. In contrast to the westward move of the port, towards Rotterdam’s periphery, DATAPOLIS becomes an inescapable reality by bringing the peripheral face of this new industry/the Next Economy to the center of the city. By its prominent position and its position in the water, it internalizes the spatial aspects as discussed in the preceding chapters. Furthermore, it blocks off a number of open viewpoints from the city towards the water. DATAPOLIS however internalizes these viewpoints and returns them to the city, by allowing the city to be perceived from a multitude of new perspectives.

As such, DATAPOLIS stands on the one hand in the cultural history of Rotterdam where architectural objects explicitly reflected Rotterdam’s interconnection with the world and the emergence of new communication technologies, instigating a metropolitan air in the city. On the other hand, it is positioned in Rotterdam’s history of celebrating progress and technological advancement, making DATAPOLIS the most explicit beacon for these emergent technologies.

Its architecture and materialization contribute to DATAPOLIS character as a monumental anchor. The concrete framework in a 3D grid of 24x24x6 (and 24x24x12 on the ground floor and basement), filled in with prefabricated concrete panels, flush at the building’s Central Void and completed with a layer of brick on the outsides, DATAPOLIS radiates permanence, rather than temporality as is the case for the architecture of existing datacenters. Over time, it is however possible that a datacenter of this magnitude will become obsolete due to the continuous miniaturization of server technologies and more innovative and efficient cooling technologies. Due to its six-meter-high floors and spacious bays (24x24m) it is possible to transform DATAPOLIS into various functions, effectively turning it eventually into a city within the city of Rotterdam.

In final, what however lies at the core of the project is the fact that the public domain has explicitly been introduced in what are now some of the most exclusive buildings of contemporary society. The public domain has been introduced in three ways. 1) four distinct public functions that are; 2) connected via a public route through the building, which spectacularizes the datacenter, and 3) by the Central Void.

Main components of a hyperscale datacenter Before elaborating on the introduction of the public domain in DATAPOLIS, in short, a brief introduction of the main components of a hyperscale datacenter. DATAPOLIS is a water cooled, tier IV, hyperscale datacenter. Water cooled means that the air that goes through the servers and as a result is heated, is cooled with water. Tier IV means that every system

181

DATAPOLIS

vital to the datacenter operations is present in twofold, plus a back-up (2n+1 redundancy). Hyperscale means that it is occupied by a single tenant that wants to have all its servers continuously perform at maximum capacity. This type of enormous single-tenant datacenters are usually positioned in the periphery of the Netherlands. However, by carefully integrating the program into a single piece of architecture, it has become possible to internalize all aspects of a hyperscale datacenter in the middle of the Meuse river. The main aspects of a hyperscale datacenter that have been incorporated will be illustrated on the basis of Google’s hyperscale campus in Eemshaven, Groningen. The main aspects of Google’s hyperscale campus in Eemshaven are: 1.

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Left page: Figure 6.2 - Schematic axonometeric projection of DATAPOLIS with overlays indicating the position of the main components of a hyperscale datacenter.

Large horizontal floor plates that serve as server space. In the case of Google’s Eemshaven campus the data warehouses have two floors stacked atop each other packed with servers; The office building located adjacent to the main entrance and parking lot; Logistics warehouse; Strip on the side of the building with generators and additional cooling installations; Open air power substation and medium voltage transformers; Water treatment plant; Cooling towers.

The Four Public Functions In order for DATAPOLIS to be appropriated by the city and become a destination to view the city from a multitude of new perspectives, four distinct public functions have been introduced in what are one of the most private and secluded types of buildings in contemporary society. The public functions are each position in one of the four bays of the building.

The Auditorium In the western bay of the building an auditorium if positioned, which is located on the second floor. This Auditorium is wedged in between the two long north and south bays and is accessible via a grand, monumental staircase from the Central Void or per elevator on either side of the western entrance of the building. From the foyer in front of the auditorium one can look into the Central Void. This is only possible in two instances, of which this is one. The Watchtower In the Watchtower the control room of the datacenter is located. A number of employees of the datacenter continuously monitor the operationality of the datacenter. The Watchtower is located in the eastern bay of the building, wedged in between the two long north and south bays and starts from the fifth floor. The two floors above provide additional office space and a lounge and cafeteria for the employees. In addition, the Watchtower features two meeting rooms which are accesible via the main entrance of DATAPOLIS located on the ground floor. The meeting rooms are accesible by an publicly accesible elevator on either side of the Watchtower and provide a monumental view over the Meuse river towards the east of Rotterdam. Restaurant Van Traa The northern bay of the building features Restaurant Van Traa, which is located on the fourth and fifth floor. Restaurant Van Traa offers a “Venster op de stad” (a window on the city), in contrast to the “Venster op de rivier”, which was Cornelis van Traa’s dominant plannological asset in the Basisplan of the postwar reconstruction of Rotterdam. As a grand gesture, it provided a generous view on the Meuse river and the port related activities. (see chapter 3). Similarly, Restaurant Van Traa offers a view on the city with a grand gesture with the twelve meter high space and protruding from the building’s volume.

183

DATAPOLIS

Swimming pool Katendrecht In the southern bay of the building, Swimming pool Katendrecht is positioned and located on the ground floor. The swimming pool protrudes from the building volume and projects into the water. Swimming pool Katendrecht features an Olympic sized swimming pool, which would also allow for swimming competitions. The water of the pool is water from the Meuse river that has been filtered through the water treatment plant in the basement of the building and heated by the excess heat of the servers. The swimming pool is reached via the Central Void or from the public side entrance.

The Public Route Left page: Figure 6.3 - Schematic axonometeric projection of DATAPOLIS with overlays indicating the position of the four public functions, the public route and the Central Void.

185

DATAPOLIS

The four public functions are connected via a public route of nearly a kilometer long that unfolds throughout the building. This route not only concatenates the public functions in the building, but also provides a glimpse into the interior of DATAPOLIS, making the datacenter “publicly accessible”. The public is however separated from the actual internal space of the datacenter by bulletproof glass and is constantly monitored via CCTV. With its stainless-steel materialization, the route also instigates the feeling of being in a giant ventilation duct. This feeling is enhanced by the draft felt from the upward stream of air over the long, sloped parts of the route. The route starts from the Plateau on top of the Generator Room. This Plateau is reached via the northern half of the monumental stairway in the Central Void, where one can pass via a bridge over the moat between the Generator Room and the rest of DATAPOLIS. This moat is also crossed when one makes use of the elevator to reach the Plateau. Once arrived on the Plateau, one first passes through a void that on ground level contains Air Handling Units. Subsequently, the route penetrates the server space, giving a preview to the spectators of what to expect later on. After passing another void with Air Handling Units, one arrives at the loading dock. From there the pontoons can be observed. These pontoons can transport full-sized trucks to and from the datacenter to supply it with goods, maintenance parts and so on. Next, the route continues and enters the server space on the first floor. From here on the route starts to slope upwards. Due to the length of the building this slope is however hardly experienced as a slope. The windows within the frame of the façade are clear at the points where one can see outside from the public route (in contrast to the frosted glass with which the rest of the frames are filled). At the point where the route is confronted with technical shafts, the route narrows and passes through the shaft, allowing for the spectators to see the tubes and piping required for the cooling of the datacenter. When the route is on the level of the second floor, the second location to view into the Central Void from within the building presents itself. The route subsequently continues and leads into the Auditorium. From there the internal space of the Auditorium can be viewed, as well as a view outward towards the port is provided. In the last leg of the public route, one is confronted with the Watchtower, allowing spectators to look into the control room. Then the question who exactly monitors who rises. The last act of the public route inside the building, brings one to Restaurant Van Traa upon which an enormous view on the city presents itself. After Restaurant Van Traa, one can go outside and climb the roof landscape to be confronted with the technical installations with which it is ridden and of which the cooling towers are most impressive. Due to the strong silhouette of the building, shaped by the different volumes, the skyline of the city is framed in various ways by the jagged roofline of DATAPOLIS. Because the datacenter has two long bays with a Central Void in the middle the parallax effect starts to unfold both from the roof landscape itself, as well as when viewing DATAPOLIS from the outside. As such, the building internalizes one of the main features of the interaction between architecture-quay-water. Simultaneously, its distinct silhouette provides the building with a fortress like appearance and monumental, beacon like status. Upon conclusion of the public route, one can return to the ground floor via two panoramic lifts in the central vertical transport shaft of the southern bay, which provide one last glimpse of the insides of the datacenter.

186

The Central Void

Left page: Figure 6.4 - Ceci n’est pas un vide. Conceptual model of DATAPOLIS: the idea of the void. An unnoticible void within an apparantly solid volume.

1. Quote from Klaus Biesenbach, in Mathew Arkers (Director) and Jeff Dupre, Maro Chermayeff (Producers). 2012. The Artist is Present. [Film]. New York City: AVRO & HBO.

187

DATAPOLIS

The creation of the Central Void has however been the implicit imperative of this design experiment of which DATAPOLIS is the result. This Central Void was derrived from a fascination of making a building as an island with at its core a void, effectively creating an inverted pier. With the creation of this inverted pier, I set-out to create one of the most extreme manipulations of the set architecture-quay-water. With the Central Void, the pier is enclosed by built mass creating an almost claustrophobic space. Only by way of a few relatively small openings one can look outside from this space. This was inspired by the spatial effect of enclosed, framed views towards the water as present on Katendrecht and Rotterdam at large. Subsequently, by moving through and over the building, views on the city and the water would present themselves, ranging from modest “portholes” to monumental openings in the building’s volume, or the vast views on the city from the roofscape. The introduction of the Central Void in the datacenter was, however, not only geared at instigating these kinds of spatial effects, it also aimed to bring in a number of aspects and feelings related to datacenters and questioning the datacenter industry. The central space generates a feeling of ambiguity, which is a feeling that is also generated by datacenters: hidden in plain sight, sitting quietly in the landscape or industry parks, yet concurrently monitoring and storing all of our data. The void in the datacenter is intended to slow down time, in contrast to the high-speed dynamics of the internet. This idea was inspired by performance artist Marina Abramovic, who, together with her, then partner Ulay, performed the piece Nightsea Crossing (1981-1987), which consisted of the two sitting opposite from each other at either end of a table at various locations. Sitting absolutely motionless, in silence, fasting, for ninety nonconsecutive days. In a later solo-performance Abramovic again sat for three months, six days a week, seven hours a day in silence, motionless, while fasting at a table. However, this time in the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) and at the other end of the table one museum visitor at a time and the two looking into each other’s eyes for fifteen minutes, “bring[ing in] time as a weight” and “time as an unbearably large object that you are caught in”1. The Central Void does so by registering outside commercialized space, and outside of networks of flow, in contrast to the hyperdynamic virtual network of which the datacenter lies at the heart. Contrastingly, this datacenter at its heart is devoid of the dynamics of virtual space, rather its hollowed-out heart is a very real, heavily materialized and monumental space. At the heart of the datacenter I have introduced a space which is not controlled, it is a space that causes doubt and perplexes, in contrast to the controlled, secure, monitored spaces inside the datacenter. It is a permanent public space, without doors, fences or gates. A space that is ungraspable by the datacenter and only subject to the whims of the elements and the ravages of time. Hence, the only two moments to take a gaze upon the Central Void are from the public route or the foyer of the Auditorium and never from within the datacenter itself. The Central Void results in a mixed, in-between experience. Between the real and the digital, between the corporeal and the virtual, in-between being somewhere and being nowhere, between the global and the local, and of course, between the walls of a monumental data warehouse that is DATAPOLIS.

Figure 6.5 - Conceptual diorama of DATAPOLIS with a cut-out of Marina Abramovic during her performance “The Artist is Present “at MoMA, New York.

1. Western main entrance 2. Eastern main entrance (passes under- neath the building) 3. Southern side entrance (for employees, suppliers and maintenance) 4. Southern side entrance (for public visitors) 5. Bridge towards the Generator Room

6. Entrance to the Auditorium with view towards Air Handling Units (AHUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) 7. Entrance to the Auditorium with view towards loading dock 8. Loading dock 9. Container room

10. Goods lock 11. Security 12. Manoevring square 13. Entrance lock 14. Stairway towards large storage facility and water treatment plant 15. Storage

16. Air Handling Units (AHUâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s) 17. Entrance/Exit from panoramic elevators 18. Entrance to Swimming pool Katendrecht 19. Reception 20. Female changing rooms

Ground floor plan, 6 meters above N.A.P. (scale 1:650) 21. Female group/family changing room 22. Female disabled changing room 23. Showers 24. Male changing rooms 25. Male group/family changing room 26. Male disabled changing room 27. Showers

28. Swimming pool Katendrecht. 29. Storage 30. Life guard office/lounge 31. Ramp leading up to the public entrance of DATAPOLIS 32. Public entrance to DATAPOLIS 34. Visitorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s lounge/waiting room

35. Mantraps 36. Public elevator towards the Watchtower 37. Medium voltage transformers 38. Power sub-station 39. Power sub-station monitoring and maintenance room 40. Entrance to Restaurant Van Traa

41. Generator room 42. Ventilation inlets for the Air Handling Unitâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s 43. Water inlet for the water treatment plant

Floor plan first floor (scale 1:650) 1. Stairway leading towards a balcony in the Generator Room 2. Bridge leading from Central Void to the Platform atop the Generator Room 3. Entrance leading from the elevator to the Platform atop the Generator Room 4. The Platform atop the Generator Room

5. Technical shafts containing exhaust pipes of the generators from the Generator Room 6. Start of the public route 7. Server space 8. Server space in the nort and south bay 8. Server space in the east and west bay

Floor plan second floor (scale 1:650) 1. Public route 2. Entrance to the Auditorium 3. Auditorium Foyer 4. Auditorium 5. Server space

Floor plan fifthfloor (scale 1:650) 1. Public route 2. Control room 3. Void looking into Restaurant Van Traa 4. Exterior terasse 5. Start of route exploring the roof landscape

6. The Deck 7. Server space 8. End of route exploring the roof landscape, entrance to panoramic elevators going to the ground floor

Longitudinal section (scale 1:650) 1. Western main entrance 2. Eastern main entrance (passes under- neath the building) 3. Public entrance to DATAPOLIS 4. Vistor lounge/waiting room 5. Public route 6. Control room 7. Office and lounge space for the staff of

DATAPOLIS 8. Cooling tower atop the roof 9. Central void 10. Audtorium Foyer (with window into the Central Void) 11. Auditorium 12. Water treatment plant

South elevation (scale 1:650)

East elevation (scale 1:650)

West elevation (scale 1:650)

North elevation (scale 1:650)

Perspective of the central void at the heart of DATAPOLIS. Right page: Axonometric projection of DATAPOLIS in the Meuse river.

Acknowledgements I have worked with great enthusiasm and dedication on my graduation project as presented in this book and have been able to do so with the support and input from a number of people. I would like to express my gratitute for their respective contributions. To start off I would like to thank my graduation committee and in particular HĂźsnĂź Yegenoglu and Jochem Groenland, who I have interacted with most prominently over the past year. I am particularly grateful for the many and long conversations we have had either collectively within the graduation studio or personally. They have helped to shape and sharpen my many ideas and interests with their envigorating enthousiasm and frame of reference. I would als like to thank Pieter van Wesemael for his relevant input at a selection of moments and especially thank him for, figuratively speaking, hitting me in the face, with a chair, during the green light session, which greatly helped me to advance the project. Lastly, I would like to thank Sjef van Hoof for his sharp and straightforward questions that have proven to be incredibly insightful for me during this process. My project came to fruition within the graduation studio Intermediate Size IV. From the beginning I have enjoyed collaborating with Joep, Kenzo and Lennart, starting with the collective research at first, an amazing study trip to Japan second and various other outings later and to come. Thank you Joep, Kenzo and Lennart for this great time. A special thank you to Lennart for not only being my better half over the past year, to quote a famed Portuguese assistant-professor, but already for the better half of my study period at TU/e. Here is to many more adventures together. Another big thank you goes out to Lennart and Jimmy for helping me with building my physical model. And also a thank you to Jasper for advicing me to opt for this studio in the first place and, together with Thom, being my table mate on the fifth floor over the last months of the process. 206 Furthermore, I am particularly thankful for the opportunity provided by Richard Boogaard of SmartDC to have a look inside a datacenter and the generous amount of time he had taken out of his day to teach me the ins and outs about the industry and give me a tour through the SmartDC datacenter in Rotterdam. Finally, I would like to thank the most important people in my life: my father, mother and sister. Thank you for looking out for me and the continuous love, support and inspiration I get from you all throughout my life.

Summary This graduation project is about the only constant in Rotterdam which is change, or rather transformation, as the city has continuously reinvented itself and in particular its relationship to the port. The port had for centuries been the most direct economic, social, political and also spatial expression of the relationship of the city to its waters. Since the 1970s, however, the expansive port related activities and industries started to move westward, downstream of the Meuse and out of the port areas in or in close proximity to the city center. This allowed for an extensive reevaluation of Rotterdam’s relationship with the water and created opportunities for the city to reengage with the water differently. Initially, the westward move of the port was closely followed by urban renewal projects on the south bank, however, in the second half of the 1980s the focus shifted to large scale commercial area transformations of which the Kop van Zuid is most examplary. Currently, the Kop van Zuid is nearing completion, resulting again in a shift of the focus to the adjacent peninsula Katendrecht as the next stepping stone in a strategy of incorporating Rotterdam’s south bank in the inner city milieu of the north bank. Currently, the large scale area transformation Entree-Katendrecht is being developed. Large scale area transformations as these however rely on the self-contained enclosed plans and propaganda that is fed with a superficial veneer of historical embedding and depend on the marginal remains of historic port buildings. With this project this development is questioned and, after an elaborate research, contrasted with a design experiment aimed at reengaging Katendrecht with its surrounding waters. Therefore, the following research question has been posed: How can Katendrecht reengage with the water by means of architectural interventions at an urban scale and the manipulation of the set architecture-quay-water? In order to provide an answer to this question by way of a design experiment, research has been done on 1. The qualities of the presence of water in Rotterdam and the historical development of Rotterdam’s relation to its port, up until the emergence of Katendrecht. 2. The position of the neighborhood Katendrecht within Rotterdam and what spatial characteristics coming forth from the interaction between architecture and water can be identified on Rotterdam’s south bank in general and on Katendrecht specifically. 3. The cultural expression of the interaction between city and port. From this research has been ascertained that the presence of water in Rotterdam, not only has visual qualities or economic qualities, in light of waterfront property development, but also a multitude of multisensory qualities. The late nineteenth century shift from the seventeenth century port-city complex in Waterstad on the north bank, to the modern port-rail complex and transshipment port basins on the south bank has resulted in the fragmented development of the urban fabric in Rotterdam South. On the south bank port areas took up the area between the water and the urban tissue and the remainder of urban tissue was entrenched with a pervasive rail infrastructure further fragmenting this fabric. This spatial set-up has proven to be particularly influential in the urban plan and historical development of the neighborhood Katendrecht. Positioned on a peninsula and totally encapsulated by port terrains and infrastructure, Katendrecht was effectively isolated from the rest of the city and as a result was positioned in the both the cultural periphery and geographical periphery of the city. However, the combination of the spatial set-up of Katendrecht, the successive expansions of the neighborhood from the 1980s onwards and the transshipment port basins, has resulted in specific spatial interactions between architecture, quay and water, resulting in a number of spatial effects and principles characteristic to the south bank of the Meuse in general, and to Katendrecht in particular. These, spatial effects and principles have formed the starting point for the design of an urban intervention comprised of five architectural objects, of which one has been elaborated architecturally. This building is DATAPOLIS, a water cooled, hyperscale, tier IV datacenter, which is positioned in the water of the Meuse river, north of Katendrecht. DATAPOLIS is a building as an island and forms the culmination of the research on reengaging with the water by means of the ultimate manipulation of the set architecturequay-water.

207

Bibliography Chapter I - The Waves of the Meuse Books Baudelaire, C. (1986). The Painter of Modern Life and Other Essays (J. Mayne, trans.). New York: Da Capo Press. Brolsma, J. (2006). Havens, Dokken, Veren en Kranen. Utrecht: Uitgevrij Matrijs. Certeau, M. de. (1984). The Practise of Everyday Life. Berkley: University of California Press. Grosfeld, J. & Feijen, G. (1982) Schip Haven Stad. Ontwikkeling en onderlinge relatie Rotterdam 1880-1980. Rotterdam: MaritiemMuseum “Prins Hendrik”. Klerk, L. de. (2008). De modernisering van de stad 1850-1940. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers. Klerk, L. de.; Laar, P. van de. & Moscoviter, H. (2008). G.J. de Jongh: havenbouwer en stadsontwikkelaar in Rotterdam. Bussum: THOTH. Laar, P. van de. & Uitterhoeve, W. (2004) Historische Atlas. Amsterdam: Uitgeverij SUN. Meyer, H. (1996). De stad en de haven. Utrecht: Jan van Arkel. Murail, E. (2013). Beyond the flâneur: Walking, passage and crossing in London and Paris in the Nineteenth Century. Kings College London. Palmboom, F. (1995). Rotterdam, Verstedelijkt landschap. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. 208

Ravesteyn, L.J.C.J. (1974). Rotterdam in de achttiende en negentiende eeuw. Schiedam: Interbook International. Chapter II - Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht Books Barbieri, U. De Kop van Zuid: ontwerp en onderzoek. Rotterdam: Rotterdamse Kunststichting Uitgeverij. Brolsma, J. (2006). Havens, Dokken, Veren en Kranen. Utrecht: Uitgevrij Matrijs. Dicke, M. & Zouwen, A. van der. (2006). Stadshavens Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij De Hef publishers. Kraaij, A. & Mast, J. van der. (1990). Rotterdam Zuid, voorstad tussen droom en daad. Delft: Faculteit der Bouwkunde. Meijel, L. van.; Hinterthür, H. & Bet, E. (2008). Cultuurhistorische Verkenning Rotterdam Zuid. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. Meyer, H. (1983). Operatie Katendrecht – ‘Demokratisering’ van het sociale beheer van de grote stad. Palmboom, F. (1995). Rotterdam, Verstedelijkt landschap. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. Taverne, E. (2012). Nederland Stedenland. Rotterdam: NAi010. Verheul Dzn., J. (1933). Het voormalige Charlois en Katendrecht alsmede het verdwijnend landelijk schoon in en om den Charloisschen polder te Rotterdam. Rotterdam: N.V. Drukkers- en Uitgeversbedrijf Stmerding & Co. Verschoor, E.G. (1980). Het Oude Cathendrecht tot en met het ontstaan van Charlois (1199 1462).

Winter, P. de; Jong, J. et. al. (1982) Havenarchitectuur. Rotterdam: Rotterdamse Kunstichting Uitgeverij. Journal articles Meyer, H. and Reijndorp, A. (1987). Het ontwerp van de onzichtbare stad. Stedebouwkunde en nieuwe stedelijkheid. OASE journal for architecture, (19), 2–19. Videos Hout, R. van den. (Director). (2010). Andere Tijden: Verboden voor Duitsers. Katendrecht in Oorlogstijd, [Documentary]. Hilversum: NPO/VPRO. Retrieved on February 2, 2019 from https://anderetijden.nl/aflevering/235/Verboden-voor-Duitsers Ronteltrap, F. (Director) & Staal, A, (Director). (2003). Knokken om de Kaap [Film]. Rotterdam: Dock-site productions in corporation with NCRV. Retrieved December 6, 2018 from https://vimeo.com/217285198 Chapter III - Rotterdam Metropolis Books Aarts, M. (1995). 50 jaar Wederopbouw Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. Brolsma, J. (2006). Havens, Dokken, Veren en Kranen. Utrecht: Uitgevrij Matrijs. Grosfeld, J. & Feijen, G. (1982) Schip Haven Stad. Ontwikkeling en onderlinge relatie Rotterdam 1880-1980. Rotterdam: MaritiemMuseum “Prins Hendrik”. Klamer, A. & Kombrink, D. (2004). Het verhaal van de Rotterdamse haven, Een narratieve analyse. Hilversum: Stichting Economie en Cultuur. Klerk, L. de. (2008). De modernisering van de stad 1850-1940. Rotterdam: NAi Uitgevers. Nieuwenhuis, J. (1955). Mensen maken de stad. Rotterdam: Dienst Gemeentewerken Rotterdam. 209 Schoor, A. van der. (2005). Het Rotterdam Boek. Zwolle: Uitgeverij Waanders. Ulzen, P. van. (2004). Imagine a Metropolis. Rotterdam’s Creative Class 1970-2000. Rotterdam: NAi010. Walsum, G.E. and Simons, D. (1965). Rotterdam stad in beweging. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. Winter, P. (1988). Evenementen in Rotterdam. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. Chapter V - Datacenters in the Netherlands Conversations and correspondence Conversation with Richard Boogaard of SmartDC on March 18, 2019 in Rotterdam. Conversation with Sandra Sijbers of the Department of Urban Development at the Municpality of Rotterdam on January 23, 2019 in Rotterdam. E-mail exchange with Frank Vieveen, programmanager digital economy and smart city at the department of Urban Development at the Municipality of Rotterdam on April 8, 2019. Internet sources Alaerds, R.; Grove, S; Besteman, S. & Bilderbeek, P. (2017). Fundament van onze digitale economie. Structuuronderzoek naar de infrastructuur achter onze data economie. Leidschendam: Dutch Hosting Provider Association, Dutch Datacenter Association, ISP Connect. Retrieved on May 7, 2019 from https://www.dhpa.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/ Fundament_Digitale_Economie.pdf AMS-IX. (2019). About. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https://www.ams-ix.net/ams/aboutams-ix Bauer, R. (February 7, 2019). What’s the Diff: Hot and Cold Data Storage. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://www.backblaze.com/blog/whats-the-diff-hot-and-cold-data-storage/

Bright.nl. (July 5, 2017). Een kijkje in het nieuwe mega-datacenter AM4 in Amsterdam. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://www.bright.nl/nieuws/artikel/3929181/een-kijkje-hetnieuwe-mega-datacenter-am4-amsterdam Caransa Groep. (2019). Datacenter Westpoort te Amsterdam. Retrieved on May 4, 2019 from https://caransa.nl/project/datacenter-westpoort/ CBS. (Februari 3, 2018). Nederland koploper in Europa met internettoegang. CBS. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Cloud_ computing_-_statistics_on_the_use_by_enterprises#Types_of_cloud_computing:_public_ and_private_cloud Cellnex. (2019). Datacenters. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://cellnextelecom.nl/ oplossingen/datacenters/ and Paardekam, R. (September 7, 2018). Datacenter in bunker Kloetinge gaat eind dit jaar open. Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://www.pzc.nl/bevelanden/datacenter-in-bunker-kloetinge-gaat-eind-dit-jaaropen~a0f8d068/ Centrum Wiskunde & Informatica. (November 14, 2008). Twintig jaar internet in Europa. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https://www.cwi.nl/nieuws/2008/Twintig-jaar-internet-inEuropa Cloudflare. (2019). What is an Internet Exchange Point?. Cloudflare. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://www.cloudflare.com/learning/cdn/glossary/internet-exchange-point-ixp/ Colocation America. (2019). Data Center Standards (Tiers I-IV). Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https://www.colocationamerica.com/data-center/tier-standards-overview.htm Dankerlui, R. (June 15, 2018) Inwoners Middenmeer blij met komst datacenter Google. Retrieved on April 29, 2019 from https://www.nhnieuws.nl/nieuws/226440/inwonersmiddenmeer-blij-met-komst-datacenter-google 210

Dutch Datacenter Association. (2019). Welke datacenter types zijn er?. Retrieved on May 7, 2019 from https://www.dutchdatacenters.nl/datacenters/datacenter-types/#1491490359856cbb23462-bdb1 ESDS. (May 21, 2010) How To Build Data Centers?. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https:// www.esds.co.in/blog/how-to-build-data-centers/#sthash.c2sqGnMa.9WbSMREL.dpbs Ethernet.nl. (2019). Wat is ethernet? Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https://www.ethernet.nl/ wat-is-ethernet/ Google. About. Retrieved on April 2, 2019 from https://about.google/ Groen, Gertjan. (April 11, 2017). Zo werkt AMS-IX: Alles over het grootste internetknooppunt ter wereld. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https://pcmweb.nl/artikelen/internet/ zo-werkt-ams-ix-alles-over-het-grootste-internetknooppunt-ter-wereld/?API_COOKIE_ REDIRECTED=True Heerde, J. v. (May 4, 2018). Nog even en de datacenters raken van stroom verstoken.Trouw. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://www.trouw.nl/home/nog-even-en-de-datacentersraken-van-stroom-verstoken~a40ad6f8/ Jansen, J. (May 20, 2018). Nederlands kabinet: er dreigt geen elektriciteitstekort voor datacenters. Retrieved on April 2, 2019 from https://tweakers.net/nieuws/139165/nederlandskabinet-er-dreigt-geen-elektriciteitstekort-voor-datacenters.html Kepinski, W. (February 2, 2014). Rotterdam Internet Exchange (R-iX) is overgenomen door Bytesnet. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https://dutchitchannel.nl/501916/rotterdaminternet-exchange-r-ix-is-overgenomen-door-bytesnet.html Metropoolregio Rotterdam Den Haag. (2016). Roadmap Next Economy. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://mrdh.nl/system/files/projectbestanden/Roadmap%20Next%20 Economy%20NL%20versie.pdf

Metz, C. (October 29, 2009). Internet pops champagne on (second) 40th birthday. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/10/29/internet_celebrates_second_ fortieth_birthday/ National Science Foundation. (2019). A Brief History of NSF and the Internet. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=103050 Oever, R. van den. (July 16, 2015). Waarom Nederland hĂŠt beloofde land voor datacenters is. MT: next generation leadership. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://www.mt.nl/dossiers/ waarom-nederland-het-beloofde-land-voor-datacenters-is/88213 Roadmap Next Economy. (2019). Datacenters: Amsterdam first, Zuid-Holland second. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://www.roadmapnexteconomy.com/nieuws/datacentersamsterdam-first-zuid-holland-second/ Stedenlink. (2019). Rotterdam. Retrieved April 3, 2019 from http://www.stedenlink.nl/ indexa1ca.html?p=15 Schoorl, J. (May 18, 2018). De verdozing van het Nederlandse landschap. De Volkskrant. Retrieved on January 5, 2019 from https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/deverdozing-van-het-nederlandse-landschap~bd28556f/ Taylor, A. (May 18, 2018). Failover architectures: the Infrastructural Excess of the Data Centre Industry. Retrieved on April 2, 2019 from https://failedarchitecture.com/failover-architecturesthe-infrastructural-excess-of-the-data-centre-industry/ TeleGeography. (2019). Submarine Cable Frequently Asked Questions. Retrieved on April 2, 2019 from https://www2.telegeography.com/submarine-cable-faqs-frequently-askedquestions The Rotterdam â&#x20AC;&#x201C; The Hague Internet Exchange. (2019). Members. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https://www.r-ix.nl/#R_iXEnabled 211 Uptime Institute. (2019). Uptime Institute. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https:// uptimeinstitute.com/tier-certification Venturebeat. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://venturebeat.com/2018/07/17/googleannounces-its-first-private-transatlantic-subsea-cable-stretching-from-virginia-to-france/ Online publications Bell, M. A. (April 22, 2005). Use Best Practices to Design Data Center Facilities. Stamford, CT: Gartner, Inc. Retrieved on May 9, 2019 from https://www.it.northwestern.edu/bin/docs/ DesignBestPractices_127434.pdf Olsthoorn, P. (2014). 25 jaar internet in Nederland. Amsterdam: Amsterdam Economic Board. Retrieved on April 3, 2019 from https://www.netkwesties.nl/documenten/25%20 jaar%20internet%20in%20Nederland.pdf Podcasts Failed Architecture. (May 18, 2018). #01 Data Space: the Architecture and Impact of Datacenters. Failed Architecture. [Podcast]. Retrieved on April 2, 2019 from https:// failedarchitecture.com/podcast/01-data-space-the-architecture-and-impact-of-data-centres/ Videos Euro-IX. (2014). The Euro-IX video. [You-Tube video]. Retreived on April 2, 2019 from https:// www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=65&v=yJJHukw9Lyc Chapter VI - DATAPOLIS Videos Arkers, M. (Director), Jeff Dupre (Producer) & Maro Chermayeff (Producer). (2012). The Artist is Present. [Film]. New York City: AVRO & HBO.

Illustrations All photos and figures are productions by the author, except: Chapter I - The Waves of the Meuse Figure 1.2.3 Retrieved from Meijel, L. van.; Hinterthür, H. & Bet, E. Cultuurhistorische Verkenning Feijenoord. https://www.elsbet.nl/dl/CHV%20Feijenoord.pdf Figure 1.2.4/1.2.5 Retrieved from Meijel, L. van.; Hinterthür, H. & Bet, E. Cultuurhistorische Verkenning Feijenoord. https://www.elsbet.nl/dl/CH%20verkenning%20 Rotterdam%20Zuid.pdf Figure 1.2.7 Retrieved from Municipality of Rotterdam. https://www.rotterdam.nl/ wonen-leven/rijnhaven/180816-doc-cultuur-historische-verkenning.pdf

212

Chapter II – Beyond the Quays: Katendrecht Figure 2.1.3 Retrieved from Meijel, L. van.; Hinterthür, H. & Bet, E. Cultuurhistorische Verkenning Feijenoord. https://www.elsbet.nl/dl/CH%20verkenning%20 Rotterdam%20Zuid.pdf Figure 2.1.4 Retrieved from http://fotos.serc.nl/zuid-holland/rotterdam/ rotterdam-49240/ Figure 2.1.5 Retrieved from Vervloesem, E. https://www.uantwerpen.be/images/ uantwerpen/container33800/files/2011-1_elsvervloesem.pdf Figure 2.1.6 Stadsarchief Rotterdam. In Klerk, L. de.; Laar, P. van de.; Moscoviter, H. (2008). G.J. de Jongh: havenbouwer en stadsontwikkelaar in Rotterdam. Bussum: THOTH. 153 Figure 2.1.7 Weeber, C., n.d. Retrieved from Barbieri, U; Heer, J. de. & Oldewarris, H. (2003). Carel Weeber ‘ex’architect. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. 72. Figure 2.1.8. Kroft, R. van de. (1979). Retrieved from https://www.rijnmond.nl/ nieuws/151493/Vergeten-Verhalen-Geen-hoerenkast-bij-de-Euromast Figure 2.1.9 Weeber, C., n.d. In Barbieri, U; Heer, J. de. & Oldewarris, H. (2003). Carel Weeber ‘ex’architect. Rotterdam: Uitgeverij 010. 73. Figure 2.1.10 Retrieved from http://woonlastenatlasrotterdam.nl/?page_id=172 Figure 2.1.11 Retrieved from http://ruimtelijkeplannen.rotterdam.nl/plannen/ NL.IMRO.05990000586KatendrchtZ-/NL.IMRO.05990000586KatendrchtZ-/ t_NL.IMRO.05990000586KatendrchtZ-.pdf Figure 2.1.12 Retrieved from https://www.entree-katendrecht.nl/ Chapter III – Rotterdam Metropolis Figure 3.1 Neon Film/TV.(1997). In Ulzen, P. van. (2007). Imagine a Metropolis. Rotterdam’s creative class, 1970-2000. Rotterdam: 010 Publishers. 9 Figure 3.2 Groot Rotterdam, July 27, 1928. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/i/web/ status/1088733136354271232 Figure 3.3 Retrieved from http://zienenweten.blogspot.com/2010/05/een-stad- zonder-hart.html Figure 3.4 Stadsarchief Rotterdam. In Provoost, M. (1990). Stadstimmeren. 650 jaar Rotterdam stad. Rotterdam: Gemeente Rotterdam. 27 Figure 3.5 Heijenbrock, H. (1928). Witte huis bij avond. [Painting]. In. Brinkman, E. (2001). Interbellum Rotterdam. Kunst en cultuur 1918-1940. Rotterdam: NAi uitgevers. 302. Figure 3.6 Ivens, J. (1928). De Brug. [Film]. Retrieved from https://vimeo. com/42489531 Figure 3.7 Slot, C. Retrieved from http://www.industriespoor.nl/ AanvullingenKromhout10.htm Figure 3.8 Oorthuys, C. (1959). Leuvesluis en Leuvehaven-oostzijde, and Leuvehaven Westzijde. [Photo]. In. Oorthuys, C. (1963). Dynamische Stad. Amsterdam: Contact. 145-146.

213