Analysis of de Plussenburg Building in Rotterdam, NL

BUILDING ATTIRE

BUILDING PRESENCE

limited access

retracting from the road

DYNAMIC ELEMENTS

ARCHITECTURAL STUDIES

2015 Q1

Xu Bai Arzu Kayhan Hana Marisa Mohar Jiayuan Wei

Tutor: Wouter Deen

PLUSSENBURGH

Arons and Gelauff | Rotterdam | 2001-2006

PLUSSENBURGH Arons and Gelauff Architecten Rotterdam 2001-2006

CONTENTS

PLUSSENBURGH

PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DATA CHARACTERS DESIGN HISTORY

BASIC DRAWINGS

PLANS SECTIONS

URBAN SCALE

VOID & MASS GREEN & WATER BOUNDARIES TRANSPORTATION & ACCESS ADJACENT LANDSCAPE PROGRAMMES & ACCESSIBILITY SETTING

BUILDNG SCALE

VOLUME BUILDING ELEMENTS BUILDING STRUCTURE BUILDING SKIN FACADES LANDSCAPE ACCESS CIRCULATION

DWELLING SCALE

FLOOR PLAN OVERVIEW DWELING TYPES EXAMPLES

REFERENCES

IZOLA SOCIAL HOUSING LAGINJA APPARTMENT BUILDING HET KASTEEL DE ROKADE BUMPS TWO OF A KIND DARBISHIRE PLACE COLLIERS GARDENS BLOCKBUSTER BIBLIOGRAPHY

|3|

PLUSSENBURGH

PLUSSENBURGH | PROJECT DESCRIPTION

view of plussenburgh

Plussenburgh is an apartment building for the elderly located in the heart of the IJsselmonde, one of the Rotterdam’s former garden suburbs - Tuinsteden. This area is now progressively developing as a more urbanised part of the city. In this urban regeneration scheme, Plussenburgh was one of the key participators. It was the first building of such scale, intended to formulate a new identifiable centre of IJsselmonde.

There was much demand for independent housing for the elderly in the area, with a focus on active, outgoing seniors. Therefore, the architects settled on a dynamic composition of

the building and its elements as well as playful, colourful finishes. They respected the existing spatial typology of towers and slabs in the surroundings, hence, the building is a fusion between the the two. It consists of two large masses: a seventeen storey tower that is anchored firmly in the ground and an elevated slab adjacent to the tower that seemingly floats above the water.

The columns supporting the horizontal volume are are slanted, forming a playful truss-like structure that allows for thinner structural elements and reinforces the illusion of the floating volume. With this detachment from the ground, the building is counteracting

|6|

its vastness, allowing for uninterrupted views across the lot and better integration with the existing program.

From the South-East, the site meets wit h an existing nursing home where the personnel is located. To soften the junction, there is a third, smaller volume floating above the water which acts as an extension of the existing building axis. Different from the rest at the fist glance and more related to the ground, this building is the communal area for Plussenburgh residents.

The fusion of two typologies is on display in the interior organisation of

Formal name of project: De Plussenburgh Location: Rotterdam, The Netherlands Gross square 15.678m²

footage :

Total construction â‚Ź15.100.000

cost :

Owner : Stichting O uderenhuisvesting R otterdam

Architect : Arons en Gelauff

architecten

balcony facade

apartments accordingly. The tower, consisting of 48 apartments, has two elevators and two sets of stairs making the vertical communication adjacent to all 3 apartments on each floor. Internal disposition of the horizontal slab is much the same as in a gallery typology, except the vertical communication is shared by both volumes. There is also an additional elevator and fire escape staircase on the furthest end of the enclosed gallery that lead directly to the common area on the ground floor.

Units are mainly two-bedroom apartments but the span of 9.80 m allows for a flexible layout and the possibili-

ty of an additional room. Inside the apartments a hallway with toilet, large bathroom, laundry room, kitchen and storage room are clustered around the entrance whereas all other rooms open to the balcony.

The three-dimensional, curvaceous balconies make for a very recognisable facade that is in texture and colour very different from the colourful glazed gallery on the opposite side. Since the two volumes are standing bact-to-back with their glazed sides, both variations of the facade are visible form the street.

Use of materials is consistent with the overall dynamic of the building. Brick, concrete, steel and colourful glass are

|7|

used in a rational and traditional way but together the acquire a very exuberant character.

Attention was given to the space beneath the building as well. Landscape architectural office Inside/Outside designed an accessible recreational area around the building a large water feature which is the parks most prominent theme. With its ripples and reflection of the floating volume it strengthens the playful architectural approach of the architects.

PLUSSENBURGH | PROJECT DATA

MAIN

SITE

Site address: Grote Hagen 566-722,

3078 RD Rotterdam D ate: 2006 Architect : Arons en Gelauff Architecten Building costs: € 15.100.100 N umber of dwellings total: 104

T otal plot area : Public / common area : T otal area of housing blocks:

|8|

47232 m² 685 m² 15.678 m²

COLUMN

BASEMENT ROOF

ROO

COLUMN

COL COLUMN

FLO SLA

FLOOR SLABS

BLOCK A:

BLOCK B:

Dimension h x l x w : 22.350 x 80.030x 13.150m Number of floors: 7 Amounts and types of dwellings incl. Square meters: 5 dwellings between : 82-96 m² Gallery width: 2.2 m Common stairs width: 1.1m

Dimension h x l x w : 53.000 x 30.130x .15.190 m Number of floors: 16 Amounts and types of dwellings incl. Square meters: 5 dwellings between : 82-96 m² Gallery width: 2.2 m Common stairs width: 1.1m

types

|9|

types

PLUSSENBURGH | CHARACTERS

Arons and Gelauff Office Architects

Petra Blaisse Landscape architecture

The Arons en Gelau architectural o ce was founded in 1996 in Amsterdam by Floor Arons (1968) and Arnold Gelau (1963). Their projects primarly focus on large scale housing projects, a large number of them being homes for the elderly such as Plussenbrough. Thus they have positioned themselves as sort of specialists in housing and care for senior citizens. They strive to create cheerful and bright spaces for their users which in turn results in architecture that is quite exuberant in its appperance. Thier involvement with Plussenbrough project started in 2001 when they were invited to make the proposal by the SOR agency.

Petra Blaisse (1955, London) started her career as freelance designer and won distinction for her installations of architectural work. Gradually her focus shifted to the use of textiles, light and nishes in interior space and, at the same time, to the design of gardens and landscapes. She found Inside Outside in Amsterdam in 1991. The designer prefers to work side by side with architects throughout all design phases and construction. Together with her team Blaisse worked on the Plusseburgh ground area garden and entrance lobby interior from 2002 to 2006. She focused on designing an accessilbe surface for easy movement and wheelchairs.

| 10 |

SOR Client

Plussenburgh Inhabitants

The SOR fundation was established in 1986 in Rotterdam.

The company provides adequate property for elderly citizens of Rotterdam, focusing on recognising di erent housing needs and market demands. They currently provide around 7500 homes with additional services and fa- cilities for diferent target groups such as low income or special medical care seniors. The com- pany is characterized by taking big interest in innovation in the eld of sustainable and energy e cient homes as well as implementing up-to-date technology in their home automation and monitoring systems. They were the initiators of the project for Plussenburg and are now renting those out units from € 754, - to € 907 per month.

The target group of inhabitants for Plussenbrough are active and outgoing 55+ seniors, which can be in a way evident from the design. The architects state that “the project is inspired by the forthcoming retirement of the hippie generation and embraces its target market’s denial of aging by proposing a playful, coloured apartment block”. Plussenburgh residents are provided with part time care-taking servies but this is not an special medical care housing. Moreover, an underground garage attracts seniors with a car who like to stay independant and mobile. The choice between 2, 3 and even 4 room appartment makes it possible for a lot of couples to live there very comfortably even with the family visiting. There are lots of spaces for social interaction and engagement between the residents which they value a great deal.

| 11 |

resitents

PLUSSENBURGH | DESIGN HISTORY

Winning

Plussenburgh , "Why aging?"

competition design for the the motto :

published under

The office of Arons and Gelauff established a consistent set of principles in designing housing for seniors. Many of their housing projects display attempts to integrate assisted living and medical facilities into urban and suburban residential complexes. Their design doctrine was inspired by the characteristics of the baby-boomer generation; the generation that grew up with Mick Jagger, Elton John, Tina Turner; the generation that gave meaning to “youth culture” and the generation that defined “an entirely self-determined lifestyle and the ideal of eternal youth”. The goal was to counter the popular notion that the elderly should be assigned to peaceful and pastoral environments. Instead they aimed to integrate the aging into a vision for age-diverse community.

approach to defy the common perceptions of aging as a condition of withdrawal and isolation.

Lourie Harrison, in the book Architectural Theories of the Environment: Posthuman Territory describes their approach as “post-human”, which utilises technology and an integrative

On a wider scale, the project was part of an ongoing re-invention process concerning Dutch housing for the elderly. This movement originated in the 1980s when it became possible to

In 2001, Arons en Gelauff architects were invited to submit a retirement housing proposal for a design competition, aimed for seniors aged 55 and above. The overarching goal of the project was to address a series of urban and social challenges faced

by Rotterdam’s district of IJsselmonde and satiating the demand for elderly housing in close proximity to amenities and public transport. The client, housing agency SOR, envisioned the new facility as a revitalizing element that would engender the formation of a neighborhood center by preparing a backdrop for a renovated transport hub and other dispersed activities.

| 12 |

have care services outsourced and delivered upon request. Consequently the luxuries of living at home took centre stage, and care became an accompaniment as opposed to being the priority in elderly living.

The neighborhood had undergone some development in 1970s, characterized by cement, brick,and lowscale blocks. As a post-war suburb, IJsselmonde suffered from architectural monotony, an endless repetition of un-engaging buildings and an absent spatial hierarchy.

It is evident that the new Plussenburgh is visually at odds with the bland architecture in the area, as well as institutionalised buildings we have come to expect from housing for the aged.

This can be interpreted as the architects’ solution to the urban problems discussed above. The expressive form distinguishes it from other apartment blocks in the area, making a new urban accent in the neighborhood, and

IJsselmonde,

rotterdam

established a spatial hierarchy, marking out the centre of activity within the neighborhood. This was achieved through its building height, in which fifteen instead of ten floors was constructed. Façade design also played a central role. The balconies are staggered and undulating, reinforced by twisted steel railings. Colour was extensively applied, with panels of 200 different colours. All of these design decisions were made to exaggerate the site’s prominence and help to bring urban density to the suburb.

Despite the extrovert nature of Plussenburgh’s design, a lot of its functional features remain purposely concealed. The connections with nursing facilities are discrete within the building or obscured with slanted columns where the building connects to the old hospice. In that way, the visual and programmatic markings of aging and its requirements are put to the side so that the energetic visual impact would prevail.

| 13 |

This kind of a semi deceiving approach can also be seen in how the building actually relates to its surroundings.

While the aim is to integrate the elderly inhabitants into the community, the building is, on its ground level, very detached from the encircling activities and pedestrian routes. The Plussenburgh grounds are intimate and secure and the program behind the facade is not revealed.

Besides the close proximity of amenities and transport, we could say that the integration of the inhabitants thus happens on a different, less literal level. The architects relied on the visual impact of the building to energise and revitalize the surroundings. In this way the “old” could be argued as sparking a change for “new” in its vicinity.

The architects approach to aging was implemented in a lighthearted manner, so this oxymoron could be interpreted as one of the motives behind Plussenburgh’s design.

BUILDING STRUCTURE

BASIC DRAWINGS

PLUSSENBURGH | PLANS

site plan

1:1250

n

| 17 |

PLUSSENBURGH | PLANS

ground floor plan

1:500

| 18 |

fourth floor plan

1:500

n

| 19 |

PLUSSENBURGH | SECTIONS

section a - a

1:500

a

a

| 20 |

section b - b

b

1:500

b

| 21 |

URBAN SCALE

URBAN SCALE | VOID & MASS

Green and water Void and mass

1-2F 3-4F 5F-8F

| 24 |

URBAN SCALE | GREEN & WATER

Green and water

Buffer belt

| 25 |

URBAN SCALE | BOUNDARIES

Buffer belt

| 26 |

URBAN SCALE | TRANSPORTATION & ACCESS

Modes of transportation and entranc e

Car parking Bicycle Tram stop Green path Traffic

| 27 |

URBAN SCALE | ADJACENT LANDSCAPE

ansportation and entranc e

Landscape by the side of shopping center and Plunsenburgh

Car parking Bicycle Tram stop Green path Traffic

Shopping center

Dwelling Nursing Social housing Social housing

Public transport

| 28 |

URBAN SCALE | PROGRAMMES & ACCESSIBILITY

Programs and accessibility Shopping mall function as district center

pe by the side of shopping center and Plunsenburgh

600m

550m Shopping center

Dwelling Nursing Social housing Social housing

Public transport

| 29 |

URBAN SCALE | SETTING

| 31 |

landscape

BUILDING SCALE

BUILDING SCALE | DYNAMICS

| 34 |

| 35 |

BUILDING SCALE | BUILDING ELEMENTS

landscape

| 37 |

BUILDING SCALE | FACADES

front facade

| 38 |

back facade

| 39 |

BUILDING SCALE | BUILDING STRUCTURE

BUILDING STRUCTURE ROOF

ROOF

LOAD-BEARING WALLS

LOAD-BEARING WALLS

FLOOR SLABS

CORE

STAIRCASE

FLOOR SLABS

COLUMN

BASEMENT ROOF COLUMN

FLOOR SLABS

| 40 |

COLUMN

ROOF

LOAD-BEARING WALLS CORE

FLOOR SLABS

BASEMENT ROOF

COLUMN

COLUMN

FLOOR SLABS

| 41 |

BUILDING SCALE | BUILDING SKIN

BUILDING SKIN

BALCONY GLASS FACADE

GLASS FACADE

WALLS

WALLS

GLASS FA-

BALCONY GLASS FACADE

| 42 |

BALCONY GLASS FACADE

WALLS

GLASS FACADE

| 43 |

BUILDNG SCALE | LANDSCAPE

landscape plan nts

landscape elements

| 44 |

exploded axometric

| 45 |

BUILDING SCALE | CIRCULATION

hallway

hallway

| 47 |

apartment

elevator

apartm

stairs

DWELLING SCALE

DWELLING SCALE | FLOOR PLAN OVERVIEW

A.M. SUN

B1

A

B2

B2

P.M. SUN

We identified six types of units within the project, with varying floorplan layouts.

The units are arranged along a north-south axis to ensure maximum sunlight exposure in each individual dwelling.

| 50 |

B2

B2

C

D

B2

E

B2

DWELLING SCALE | DWELLING TYPES

BED

BED LIVE

BED

BED

LIVE

BATH

LIVE BATH

TYPE A

TYPE B1

BED

BED

BATH

BED

LIVE

LIVE BATH

BATH

BATH

BED

TYPE C

TYPE D

| 51 |

BED

TYPE B2

BED

BED LIVE

BED

TYPE E

BED

DWELLING SCALE | EXAMPLES

TYPE A

| 53 |

DWELLING SCALE | EXAMPLES

TYPE B1

| 54 |

gallery

balcony

TYPE B2

| 55 |

DWELLING SCALE | EXAMPLES

TYPE C

| 56 |

TYPE D

| 57 |

| 58 |

REFERENCES

| 59 |

REFERENCES | LAGINJA APPARTMENT BUILDING

OFIS / architect 2006/ year 6310 Izola,Slovenia / The project proposed a veranda for each apartment, thus providing an outdoor space that is intimate, partly connected with the interior, shady and naturally ventilated.

A textile shade protects the balcony and apartment from prying eyes, yet due to its semi-transparency, it allows the owner to enjoy the views of the bay. The strong colours create different atmospheres within the apartments.

Both of these project designed modular balcony as an efficient system with asthetic apperance, providing shading and ventilation for the apartments. In Plussenburgh, the common prototype of balcony was developed into undualatiing slab and shades and repeted into a dynamic balcony facade.

In Izola Social Housing, the common prototype of balcony was developed into colorful semi-enclosed boxes witrh different size and further arranged into concavo-convex box facade with orderly rythmn The function of balcony is differences In Izola Social Housing, the balcony boxes function as air buffer zone" In the summer hot accumulated area behind the shadings is naturally ventilated through perforated side partitions of the balconies. In the winter the warm air stays in the area and provides additional heating to the apartments.

| 60 |

location

REFERENCES | IZOLA SOCIAL HOUSING

| 61 |

REFERENCES | LAGINJA APPARTMENT BUILDING

Ivan Vitic / architect 1958 / year Z agreb, Croatia / location Laginjina high-rise is a project designed by the Croatian architect Ivan Viti in 1958. The dweling complex consists of 3 main volumes, the main consisting of 12 oors and two aditional 3 and 4 oors high. e complex containst 65 apartments from 70 to 120 sqm. Vertical and horizontal comunications are solved with two entrances and verticals connecting 3 galleries. e typical two room apartment spans between two structural walls on a distance of 7.2 meters. ere are also one and three room apartments in the complex.

In both buildings the programme is devided between multiple volumes, forming a dynamic composition achieved by combining wertical nad horizontal slabs and li ing the main volume of o the ground, bringing new qualities to the site. Both front facades are colorful

and dynamic in their apperances and have a blank facade on the ank. e internal routing and appartment typology is very simmilar aswell.

The main dfference between the projects, except the time and style that they represent, is that Plussenburgh has one continuous coridor and two volumes function as one building with one enterance. Laginja buikding is more a sequence of semi-independent buildings, conencted at one level but its main task is to form a urban ansamble and to arciulate the existing unhierarchial character of the urban fabric in which it has been placed.

Therefore Laginjina high-rise has three enterances, dispersed around the lot.

| 62 |

REFERENCES | HET KASTEEL

PLUSSENBURGH retracting to create a buffer zone

tra

m

tra

m

retracting to create a buffer zone retracting to create a buffer zone

sto

p

sto

p

retracting to create public space retracting create LAGINJA to APPARTMENT public space retracting to create public space

tram tram

| 63 |

REFERENCES | LAGINJA APPARTMENT BUILDING

Studio Nine Dots /architect 2007 / year Amsterdam, NL / location Het Kasteel is a dweling complex in the new developing part of Amsterdam designed by Studio Nine Dots. The volume of the building is a U shaped 3 -4 storey block with a vertical extrusion in one part that rises for additional 11 floors. The characteristic of this project are big typological variations of living spaces, internal courtyard and the railway tracks in close vicinity. The problem of nosie from the trains led to a specific design solution for the facade.

The glazing is broken in many smaller planes with varying tilt angles.

The facade thus becomes a sculptural building element, similar to Plussenburgh, but the motive behind it is primarily functional.

Both buildings consist of both horizontal and vertical masses. They both

have a close confrontation with the water durface, which acts as a protective buffer zone for the residents.

Playful facades are amplified with the refections and refractions of light in the surrounding water.

The main difference between the two is the relationship of the buildings with the ground and the organisation of appartment typologies and programme inside the building. Plussenburgh floats above the water and allows for uninterrupted views to the surroundings while Het Kasteel estabilshes itself firmly on the ground with apartments sharing the common courtyard. Plussenburgh consists of multiple identical gallery apartments while Het Kasteel accomodates a wide array of typologies.

| 64 |

PLUSSENBURGH exclusive limites access limited acess acess limited EXCLUSIVE EXCLUSIVE

limited acess acess HETlimited KASTEEL DEFENSIVE DEFENSIVE defensive limited access

| 65 |

REFERENCES | DE ROKADE

similarity to

Plussenburgh

Both of them have a rigid column grid with two mass combined together.

The units are repeated as well.

De Rokade

difference to

Plussenburgh

open corridor semi-open corridor

| 66 |

De Rokade de-emphasizes the corridor and create open spaces at the coner of two rectangulars . In the Plussenburgh, the wide undulating balcony is exposed to exterior landscape and street which ensure a visual permeability for elderly dwelling and nursery houses at the bakc of two volumns

REFERENCES | BUMPS

Bumps

similarity to

Plussenburgh

Both interlaced units highlight the concave-convex facade by two types of facade composition, namely, black and white modular boxes in Bumps and interleaved undulating slabs in Plussenburgh. The two whole buildings are repetitions of these units.

Bumps

difference to

Plussenburgh

Type 1: Setback areas used for terraces

Type 3ďźš Exterior wall

The interlaced relationship between black and white boxs in Bumps has function purpose. The set-back areas are used for terraces. The main typology used is stacking back and take advantage of the terrace spaces .

Type 2: Horizontal shift make way for balcony

| 67 |

REFERENCES | TWO OF A KIND

similarity to

Plussenburgh

Both of the buildings are orientated to take advantage of the waterfront view and the availability of outdoor green spaces.

Two

of a

Kind

difference to

Plussenburgh

Plussenburgh is made of two volumes (one vertical , one horizontal) joined together via a shared circulation space, whereas in "Kaanalzone: two of a kind" the two volumes are complete separate entities with their own vertical circulations.

| 68 |

REFERENCES | DARBISHIRE PLACE

Darbishire Place

similarity to

Plussenburgh

Both of the windows and balcony are oriented towards east and west, facing the main road on one side and courtyard on the other side.

N

Darbishire Place

difference to

Plussenburgh

The Darbishire aims to blend into context and to be visually cohesive with adjancent building, showing a introvert characteristic Whereas Plussenburgh tried to differentiate itself from the neighborhood to create a visual impact, showing an extrovert characteristic

| 69 |

REFERENCES | COLLIERS GARDENS

C olliers Gardens similarity to P lussenburgh

Both of the site is effectively enfolded in landscape.

C olliers Gardens difference to P lussenburgh

Based on two slab units, Colliers garden is developed to sprawl out in a horizontal clustering layout. The landscaped communal area promote greater movement to the outside.

Plussenburgh is stacked up to be a vertical tower.

| 70 |

REFERENCES | BLOCKBUSTER

Blockbuster

similarity to

Plussenburgh

Both of the gallery that spreads along the project and the volumetry partly floats above the ground and makes new urban situations alowing vistas, air flow and light.

FLOATING VOLUME TYPOLOGY - GALLERY DIFFERENT FACADE TREATEMENT

Blockbuster

difference to

Plussenburgh

The Plussenburgh possess a dominant verticality and horisontality opposed to the Blockbuster monolitic block shaped. Besides, there are far more types of apartments in the Blockbuster than Plussenburgh.

SAME APT TYPE DIVERSITY IN APT TYPES

| 71 |

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BOOKS Marc Encke, Sietse Bolhuis, Onderzoek naar de uitwisselbaarheid van studenten- en ouderenhuisvesting: Ouderen voor studentenhuis gezocht, 2006, pp 48-49.

Ariane Lourie Harrison, Architectural Theories of the Environment: Posthuman Territory (2013), pp 88-93.

Architectenweb Magazine, September 2006, pages 48-53.

B, J. Noorlander, Echt Wonen, uitwerking ondernemingsplan SOR, Rotterdam, Augustus 2002, pp 12.

Stadsarchief Rotterdam

WEBSITES http://www.archdaily.com/3959/de-plussenburgh-arons-en-gelauff-architecten http://aronsengelauff.nl/nl/woningbouw/swinging-apartments-for-the-elderly http://www.architectuurinrotterdam.nl/building.php?buildingid=38&lang=nl http://www.reflexxion-architecture.eu/?page_id=1295 http://www.architectenweb.nl/aweb/redactie/redactie_detail.asp?s=1&iNTypeID=29&iNID=7977 http://www.greenbuildingaward.nl/award1.asp?id=218

| 73 |

ARCHITECTURE STUDIES

Bai, Xu Kayhan , A rzu Mohar , Hana Marisa Wei , J iayuan