Privatising the Public Space, in order to generate ‘the Common’ and ‘the Self’

Participation in International Projects: Revisiting the Flemish Modern Project, Social Housing KU Leuven - Sint-Lucas Brussels - Organizing Committee: Martino Tattara - Andrea Migotto

Privatising the public space, in order to generate ‘the common’ and ‘the self’.

Anneleen Brandt - R0456475 - anneleen.brandt@student.kuleuven.be - Master of Architecture

Table of contents

Jan de Voslei

3

Privatising the public space by means of the allotment

4

‘the common’

5

‘the self’

6

Public, private, common?

6

Conclusion

8

Bibliography

8

Pictures

9

2/13

Privatising the public space, in order to generate ‘the common’ and ‘the self’.

An attempt to address and strategically deal with a variety of problematic aspects linked to postwar social housing, illustrated with the specific case of Jan de Voslei, Antwerp.

Jan de Voslei The Jan de Voslei social housing complex, located in the south of Antwerp just outside the city ring, houses 7 slabs and 3 towers on an area approximately the size of Antwerp’s city park. The slabs were constructed in the late 1940s as a part of the post-war urban renewal program, [1] the towers followed around the 1960s. The construction of the Jan de Voslei complex mainly served as an answer to the rapidly increasing population and its need for affordable housing, alongside the necessity to reconstruct large parts of the city and to free the population from the bare post-war conditions of the inner city. Furthermore the project was also a counterreaction to the process of suburbanization, stimulated by the De Taeye Act (1948) [1], hence its prime location in close proximity to the city centre, and its surroundings of dense urban fabric.

The slabs were constructed according to the (then) new modernist way of living in large apartment complexes, as illustrated by Le Corbusier’s sketch. (figure 1) The ground level was kept fully open, made possible by raising the apartment buildings on pilotis above a vast continuous landscape that was meant for sports, social encounters, public facilities, etc… A majority of the generally known problems regarding social housing are often induced by the lacking quality of the apartments itself. Some of them being built over 70 years ago can be in a very bad condition today, for example: too little square meters per person, not enough natural sunlight, deteriorated water- and electrical supplies, outdated elevators and so on. These types of problems however are less present in the case of the Jan de Voslei social housing complex.

The complex is owned by a social housing company ‘Woonhaven Antwerpen’ and the buildings have been added to the list of protected heritage [2], hence the apartments are in a very good condition and are granted a large budget for renovations to meet the current social housing standards. At the moment the 3 towers are being fully deconstructed and rebuilt to practically the same design, originally by architect Jos Smolderen, but now adapted to the current requirements in terms of social housing but also energy-efficiency [3].

However a whole other set of problems arises when looking into the modern inheritance of the open ground level draping itself as a carpet under the buildings. In contradiction to Le

3/13

Corbusier’s as well as Renaat Braem’s vision (figure 2) of a lively and green common outdoor space for the inhabitants, this green carpet often resulted in a grey carpet of unused left over space. This phenomenon in combination with poor housing quality led to very extreme conditions in some cases. (e.g. Rabot, Gent) Conditions of violent, ghetto-like, marginalised societies. The extreme cases created a very stigmatised image of social housing in general, no matter how good or bad the conditions, no matter how integrated or marginalised the inhabitants. The case of Jan de Voslei also has to deal with this stigmatised image, however it is probably one of the cases with the best living conditions. As the Jan de Voslei complex is embedded in a dense urban fabric, located next to large traffic routes and is generously served by public transport, there is a lot of social control present which takes away any possible feeling of unsafety. Thus the problem nor the potential for Jan de Voslei lie in the quality of housing, but they lie in the undefined left over space, which was intended for common use. The space is not only left over in terms of being unused by the inhabitants, but it is also left over by the surrounding urban fabric. The left over space today is a patchwork of parking lots, green fields, dog parks and pathways, all characterized by an ambiguous relation between public, common and private. In theory, we are dealing with public space, owned and cared for by the city, independent from the social housing company. The space is fully unbound, enhanced by the fact that the slabs are floating on pilotis above the space, which makes it publicly accessible from every direction. Upon walking there, it becomes very clear that the space is not publicly used because of the strong feeling you get that you are walking in someone’s backyard. This feeling of invading someone’s space is a justification for the original intention of the space as a common ‘backyard’ for the inhabitants. However this notion of ‘the common’ is also not present when assessing the area, exactly due to the unboundedness. A square only works as a square because of its surroundings binding it on all sides. A typical Flemish backyard only works as a Flemish backyard because of the fencing on all sides. So how do we deal with this undefined and unbound left over landscape?

Privatising the public space by means of the allotment An allotment, described by Cambridge Dictionary as ‘a small piece of ground in or just outside a town that a person rents for growing vegetables, fruits, or flowers’ [4], used to mainly be an escape for men after a day of working in the factories. Factories or companies such as the railways would even provide land for their employees to be used as allotments. Originally these allotments would be located on left over land, land with no designated use, such as next to trainlines, hence the characteristic views of the allotment landscapes observed from the train 4/13

windows in England [5]. Like social housing, the allotment tradition also has a loaded image.

A first factor contributing to this image is the location, when the allotments were located on a left over space they were seen as less valuable land, as if they had failed in the competition for urban space. The allotment was seen as ‘not desirable or exciting in the eyes of the consumer city’ [6]. However when the allotments possessed a more valuable piece of land, they had to fight the battle against consumerism, densification, gentrification and development in general.

If the cooperative holding the allotments was not strong enough, the allotments would be replaced on a whim for a football stadium, housing, city expansion, … for any use that would make the land more profitable. This strength of the cooperative all came down to the allotment holders, to their initiatives and to the work they put into the land. When a plot had not been worked on for a while and started growing weeds, the plot would look vacant, indicating a better and more profitable use for the land could be found [5].

A second factor that created a stigmatised image regarding allotments is the wrongful idea that allotments were an act of charity, as in a way social housing can be seen as an act of goodwill instated by the government to the less fortunate. Allotments in fact, have always been originated in ‘self-help’ [7]. Originally self-help to provide for your family, but also self-help as a means of getting away from the daily routine, even in a therapeutic way. Working in the allotment brought up childhood memories of their fathers, of first romances and first friendships. Today working in the allotment or in some cases also in the typical Flemish garden could even be a means of self-help towards a more sustainable way of living by producing your own crops. It is clear that this method of self-help is not bound to a specific social class, which makes allotments a very socially diverse matter [5]. ‘the common’ As the cooperative holding these allotments had to be powerful in order to keep the land from being developed into something more profitable, the social notion of ‘the common’ also grew stronger. The allotment used to be about our deep agricultural relationship with the land and the need to provide food and therefore income for the family [5]. More and more it has become a story of leisure, social encounters and attachment. Attachment to the activities linked to the plot but also to the other plot holders. The plot is now not only a portion of the land but it also a portion of a strong social entity of people and activities, the plot and its holder are a portion of ‘the common’.

5/13

‘the self’ Not only the notion of ‘the common’ was strengthened by the tradition of the allotment, but it was also a way to fully celebrate individualism and to express ‘the self’. The allotment was the painter’s blank canvas, free to be filled in by flowers, sheds, crops and hard work, all as individual trophies on display on his very own piece of land. This was again therapeutic in a way of self-development but also as a means to break out of the order and structure of the daily life. As David Crouch explains: ‘Today, it [the allotment] may offer a way in which we can realize individual potential and endowments that find no room or recognition in our culture, in the outside world.’ [8] Public, private, common?

This notion of ‘the common’ and ‘the self’ so strongly created by the tradition of the allotments, is exactly what is missing in the case of the Jan de Voslei social housing complex. As explained before, social housing already has a pre-existing stigma, in the case of Jan de Voslei the stigma gets enhanced simply by having a visibly different urban fabric which does not match the tissue of its surroundings. It appears as if a chunk was cut out of the city, leaving the urban fabric with a gaping hole. A hole that is not a city park, not a second urban centrality, but a left over space without any facilities to attract people from the surrounding urban fabric. Not only typologically, but also socially this difference in urban fabric has its consequences. The utter lack of private outdoor space creates a significant difference between the inhabitants of the social housing complex and the inhabitants of the surrounding urban fabric which contains typical Flemish rowhouses with an adjacent private back yard. The difference in percentage of public and private space between the social housing complex area and the adjacent typical urban fabric is a seemingly very theoretical matter (figure 3), however the following simple example will clarify the intensity of its impact on the everyday life of the inhabitants: Child A:

12 years old

Child B:

12 years old

4 person household

4 person household

low income

middle income

social housing apartment

Flemish rowhouse

Jan de Voslei

urban fabric

6/13

An event as an illustrative case for the differences in everyday life caused by the divergent percentage of public and private space: Child A and B, both wanting to celebrate their birthday together with their classmates. Child B invites everyone to his home, to celebrate in the backyard. His parents set up a tent, installed some tables and chairs along with some decorations. The celebration happens in the fully closed off private backyard, which provides protection from the streets and a safe environment for the children. Child A, having the same desires, is not capable of having this sort of event whatsoever, due to the lack of private outdoor space, along with the unboundedness of the available public space.

Introducing a system like allotments could potentially be an answer as a way in how to deal with this undefined and unbound left over landscape, for numerous reasons: For starters it would be a way to balance out the percentage of private and public outdoor space. By allocating an allotment to each of the social housing households (figure 4), if desired, the inhabitants would be able to express ‘the self’ through their plot. The plot now becomes a very powerful tool of individualism, which is desperately lacking in any social housing project since every unit is exactly the same, only differing in the number on the door and the postbus. By stimulating the use of the allotments and hence the use of the former public outdoor space which is now privatised, the former public space will actually witness an increase in use and so become more publicly used as well. Why also publicly and not only privately (since the allotments are private)? Exactly due to the power of allotments to create a notion of ‘the common’. The collection of allotments will now function as a common backyard for the inhabitants (as originally intended by Renaat Braem and Le Corbusier), but will also attract public use, from the social tenants themselves but also from the inhabitants of the surrounding urban fabric. The allotments become a social attractor. To enhance the public and common use of the space, it is recommended to also add public- and/or common devices (figure 5). These devices will structure the space, in order to deal with the issue of the space being unbound and undefined. By the input of private allotments and public- and common devices into this former green carpet, the gaping hole gets filled in until it becomes more and more an extension of the existing urban fabric (figure 6). Ultimately maybe also a way to tear down the pre-existing stigma piece by piece, issue by issue?

7/13

Conclusion Although it seems paradoxical: privatising the public space could induce a potential increase in public use. The idea of using the tradition of the allotment to deal with the undefined, unbound, unused, leftover public space, inherited by the modernist ideals, could possibly be considered as a bit farfetched. This makes it the perfect architectural and theoretical exercise to open up the discourse about the meaning of public/private/common space and use. This is an idea with plenty of diverse unsolved issues (maintenance, rent, regulation,…) to be figured out. However, this old allotment tradition has the potential to revive as a hyper-modern tool to deal with the issue of public space modernism left us.

Bibliography [1]

KU Leuven, “Summerschool booklet, Revisiting the Flemish Modern Project, Social Housing,” 2019.

[2]

“Woonhaven ons huis jouw thuis.” [Online]. Available: https://www.woonhavenantwerpen.be/article/woonhaven-bouwt-energiezuinigerfgoed-op-het-kiel.

[3]

“Vlaanderen Onroerend Erfgoed.” [Online]. Available: https://inventaris.onroerenderfgoed.be/erfgoedobjecten/302578.

[4]

“Cambridge Dictionary.” [Online]. Available: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/allotment.

[5]

D. Crouch and C. Ward, The Allotment, Its Landscape and Culture. Nottingham: Five Leaves Publications, 1997.

[6]

D. Crouch and C. Ward, “The Allotment, Its Landscape and Culture,” Nottingham: Five Leaves Publications, 1997, p. 4.

[7]

D. Crouch and C. Ward, “The Allotment, Its Landscape and Culture,” Nottingham: Five Leaves Publications, 1997, p. 12.

[8]

D. Crouch and C. Ward, “The Allotment, Its Landscape and Culture,” Nottingham: Five Leaves Publications, 1997, p. 16.

8/13

Pictures Figure 1: Le Corbusier, sketch of an apartment building.

Figure 2: Renaat Braem, view of an apartment block in the park. ‘Project for a linear city’, 1933-34

9/13

Figures 3-6 and the cover image were produced during the course of the summerschool.

Team: Anneleen Brandt, Diego Martinez, Joke Oelbrandt, Stefano Rossi, Andrea Sanguedolce Tutors: Nicola Russi and Federico Coricelli

Figure 3: The different percentage of built/public/private space between the typical building block (surrounding urban fabric) and the social housing complex area.

Figure 4: Allocation of allotments situated in the former unused public space, to each social household.

10/13

Figure 5: Public- and/or common devices to structure the open space.

For example: 1. Hostel 2. District market 3. Open field 4. Playground 5. Main entrance square with public facilities 6. Secondary entrance 7. Teenage strip

11/13

Figure 6: Input of private allotments along with public- and common devices to enhance the integration of the Jan de Voslei area in the surrounding urban fabric.

12/13

13/13