Adaptive Reuse in Post-Industrial Urban Regeneration by clin94

Contents 1. Introduction 1-4

Introduction to Adaptive Reuse and Why the Sites

In dedication to my better half, Joey. Also to my thesis tutor, Mr. David.

2. In-Appropriate-ion 5-14

How the Sites were Reused before the Interventions

3. Ups-and-Downs 15-28

The Initiation of the Interventions

4. Masterplans 29-36

The Detailed Schemes as a Whole

5. ReUse and Developments

the Individual Interventions

37-52

6. Conclusion 53-58

A Review back on the Approaches

7. Appendix 59-66 8. Bibliography & References

67-74

1 Intoduction

Redressing the Grievances The general media wax lyrical about success story of NDSM and King’s Cross, neglecting the ‘dark’ transition time of the sites before transformation. How were buildings used, or reused in this period then?

Fig. 1 & 2: Duisburg Park & Zolle Zolverein in Germany. The appreciation of decay itself of leftover industrial structures becomes a form of AR.

he urban regeneration of postindustrial cities has been based on the protection of buildings since the wake of conservation movement. Adaptive reuse (AR) plays an important role as a strategy to utilise these structures. The unification of different elements through AR is employed successfully in Germany, epitomised by Duisburg North Landscape Park (Fig.1), a preserved industrial-site as park in the Ruhr just before the turn of this century, and Zeche Zollverein (Fig.2), a coal-mining industrial site being converted into an industrial heritage site due to high perceived cultural value. Either site acquires one unified purpose by being a group host, with the contribution of each ancillary buildings: the former as a park and the latter as a cultural heritage site. Group hosts are differentiated by whether these buildings are elements that comprise part of one single complex or individual elements in an overall urban environment; and as a single complex, the aim will most often be the preservation of a historic event, community or moment in time1.

Instead of focusing on isolated

sites and group hosts, the pressing need for cities to regenerate postindustrial sites of disparate buildings is targeted for this study. Given the power of urban growth forces the network society beyond the scope of architecture and urban planning, any urbanistic intervention - if it is to be an intelligent and bespoke response that is also progressive - needs to be based on a precise analysis of what is going on in terms of geo-political and social transformations, and why2. The models of urban regeneration through adaptive reuse in Europe is chosen and compared to carry out empirical study. Thus, two sites chosen as the ultimate case studies of AR as the core strategy are: Netherlandsche Dok En Scheepsbouw (NDSM) of Amsterdam in Netherlands, and Kings Cross Central (KX) in London. NDSM was a thriving shipbuilding company at the northern bank of River IJ, while Kingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cross was an industrial goods depot. These two European sites are at variance with each other in terms of context, approach, finance, beneficiaries and building purpose. The comparison between the two would express the multifaceted

nature of AR to pose the question:

â&#x20AC;&#x153;How does the best practice of Adaptive Reuse prevail in the urban regeneration of post-industrial sites in contemporary cities?â&#x20AC;?

Through the critical analysis of the two case studies, this paper aims to evaluate the issues of AR and examine both models from the scale of macro to micro. The first section introduces the transition period after the initial purpose of the site has vanished, and seeks to scrutinise the purpose of the buildings and validate the occurrence of AR in the period. The second section describes the

origination and the evolution of the AR in the regeneration schemes. The third section delineates the context and the conditions surrounding the AR sites. The fourth section details the pertinent buildings that are reused from each site and compares them to one another while the last chapter summarises and interprets the analysis as they attempt to answer the primary question.

1 Wong, L., Adaptive Reuse: Extending the Lives of Buildings, Basel, Birkhauser, 2017, p.119 2 Bullivan, L., Masterplanning Futures, Abingdon, Routledge, 2012, p.1

1 In-Appropriate -ion Fig. 3: NDSM in 1962 before its fall as a ship-building & repairing facility

Fig. 4: KX Central Aerial View 1995 showing its use as goods depot hub (Regeneration Area drawn in red)

he desertion caused by the bankruptcy of NDSM spurred the prevalence of shoddy activities of prostitution and drug trades, with the latter epitomised by an article of Het Parool mentioning the use of warehouses in the wharf as drugdealing headquarters3. Artists, filmmakers and creative young people seeking affordable spaces followed, sparking the subcultures of the lesser-known Amsterdam North4. The shipbuilding hall at that time was owned by Vervaco shipyard and sub-rented to small companies in 1993, and Aarding started a heavymetal construction company5. Occurrences inside these buildings of the era contributed to the notoriety of the area, worsened by their use as dens for junkies, prostitutes, and property criminals; such generalised statements about these deeds were found in the studied resources. In London, by the 1970s, the distribution buildings and warehouses of King’s Cross fell into dilapidation as its role as an industrial transport hub regressed; by the 1980s, the district was the lowestrent area for central London offices, hence densely populated with lowerincome groups, council tenants, and

local enterprises6. Nightclubs moved in and these buildings became the pulsating heart of party scene in Central London. Inevitably, the associated acts of drug-dealing, prostitution and street crimes soared especially around King’s Cross Station7 before its privatisation. Great bits of industrial storages like keeping tarmac, freight, goods did occur especially as constructions happened nearby. For both periods, this investigation is on what is the situation of the sites and if adaptive reuse (AR) happened. In simple terms, AR indicates the act of using existing buildings in purposes other than for which they are originally built. The definition, when applied to the events aforementioned, presumably suggests that all types of possession including those unsavoury acts exemplify the notion of ‘reusing’ old buildings. The first group will be the illegal or the indecent, such as the drugdealers or the prostitutes. The post-industrial leftovers set up a highly conducive environment for the undesirable group of people as they are highly private and off the public realm. The colonisation of

these pre-existing ‘habitats’ by these ‘pioneer species’, akin to process of secondary ecological succession in nature happens when buildings are left unmanned and unmanaged. This then raises the question of the social responsibilities on the effects of reuse of buildings, or perhaps, taking a step back, the question of if these kinds of uses could even be regarded as ‘adaptive reuse’. As these people occupy a deserted building for these unpleasant purposes, the relationship of the building and the ‘users’ dwindles to the point where the disused building only ‘acts’ as a shelter due to its physical and social characteristics. Physically, the use of the building did not add value to the user and viceversa, and poetically the building was stripped to its bare functions of walls and roofs only, where the sum of both parts is less than the whole idea of the word ‘building’. Socially, the vicious cycle of general public avoiding the area and hence, or because of, the borderline crimes, happen, enhancing the appeal for these people to take over the buildings, and use them for trades and protection.

sense does. Nonetheless, ‘adaptation’, defined by James Douglas as ‘any work to a building over and above maintenance to change its capacity, function or performance’8 implies a responsibility and interest to maintain or even make improvements to the building. It is routinely inferred, and often true, that the likes of these occupiers have no initiative or need to do those. Instead their unhygienic practice often blemished the site, its damage second only to pillaging. The use by drug-dealers and prostitutes informally would not be regarded as AR of the site because of their detrimental imprints on the occupied buildings. This in turn questions if AR concerns legality. The next group who follows, the squatters, is introduced to aid in the inquiry. Squatting is defined in the broadest sense as the occupation and transformation of land and buildings that are unused or underused9. Only few generalised statements are written on the squatting conditions in NDSM and King’s Cross, in lieu of that, a city movement will be discussed.

Perhaps the latter term, ‘reuse’ in a

n Netherlands, the legitimacy of squatting fluctuated as the battle between owners and squatters ensued in the late 20th century10. Squatters influenced the city-planning of Amsterdam by objecting to road building, hotel and office plans: they opposed the large-scale demolition of historic part of the city and the displacement of residents to gigantic housing estates outside the city; they converted occupied offices and warehouses into housing and ancillary spaces like cafes11. In the UK, adverse possession is a crime only if occurring in residential Empty properties properties12. were derelict through neglect or intentional vandalism by owners to discourage squatting, and therefore the first task for squatters is usually to bring about repair to cover the tracks of breaking-in13. Then they created a community and developed projects such as food co-ops, cost-price shops and workshops. Properties left empty affects the whole community due to lack of hygiene maintenance, declining trades and demoralisation of community14, but squatting, the upshot of lack of affordability of houses, potentially

revitalises the community. From the restoration and modifications work done by the community of squatters, the buildings without purpose gained new purposes, in other words, being reused, legality aside. Squatting can be conceptualized as a form of adaptive reuse, as a way of reinterpreting the function of a building and reinserting worth and value into a space that is otherwise ignored15. The rudimentary understanding of the beginning of a building is that it is constructed to serve the user(s). The functions, purposes, or ‘uses’ of a newly constructed building, the culmination of different intents of the users who include the owners, shape the building. Industrial buildings of both sites served the function in which the workers did their jobs, but as the industries died off, and new users or owners possessed the buildings, but the new ‘use’ would now have to be adapted to the buildings instead. For the case of squatting, the owners of buildings do not change hands, and they definitely do not intend to allow buildings to be occupied by squatters (users). Nonetheless, it is the absence of owners as users that allow possession by squatters to happen. The squatters’

Fig. 5 Amsterdam drydocks getting abandoned and squatted.

Fig. 6: Newspaper article in 1995 showing Theatre Troupe Dogtroep was using the waters over the slipways to perform in the Ij Festival.

relationship to their buildings is freer and more spontaneous than owners who are usually constrained by considerations of market value and saleability; this more imaginative and uninhibited attitude towards the physical limitations of their dwellings encourages squatters to creatively test the potentials of the space creatively that include other type of reuse besides habitation16. The last group is the legal but regarded as unhealthy for the image of the city by the idealists. In NDSM, most of the young entrepreneurs seeking economic spaces for workshops and creative spaces rented the space. The owners of the building had to charge lowly in order to attract more renters while deterring squatters, who would have issues squatting even in partially-used buildings. In King’s Cross, the more dominant examples were the nightclubs in the disused coal drops yard area, which they had to obtain permits for that use. The abandoned site and buildings provided a closed environment where raves could happen and businesses need not worry about noise. The artists of NDSM occupied the spaces in the shipbuilding hall and

the slipways, working within the rigid functionalist structure. This either meant they had huge space of generous width and height (hall) or the column-filled slipways. The nature of these activities alter their environment. Artists have tools and equipment as well as their works that fill the space, while nightclubs have lighting and sound systems that change the dynamics of the space. There is a clear intervention that disrupts the original intent of the space. Cultural layering occurs when a format clearly belonging to one building type is employed for a different purpose, or when blatantly incongruous period styles are juxtaposed in a single building or complex17. The AR of the industrial buildings as studios and nightclubs creates a ‘titillating cultural tension, sending disparate messages about function in the conflict between obvious original format and the transforming décor’18. Undeniably, AR had been happening in NDSM and King’s Cross even before any formal processes or masterplans took place. Before critiquing the projects that happen in both places, the bits of the history deemed unglamorous that made the sites

Fig. 7: DJ booth at the Cross, night club at former Wharf Road Arches

Fig. 8: Bagley’s Night club at southern end of Eastern Coal Drops (demolished)

they are today is acknowledged. The creative ways people, unknowingly, in their own circumstances, have been reusing the sites have to be appreciated and understood. These buildings, if retained, are architectural

archaeology for the future that can embrace apparently unwelcome reminders of the past, and if reused, offer compensation to society by contributing in a new role19.

3 Het Parool, ‘Nieuw IRT Ontmantelt Gewelddadige Drugsbende’, Het Parool, 1994. 4 Klerk, E., An Artist’s Kiss, [website], [no date], Available at http://www.evadeklerk.com/en/ boekmanlezing/ (Accessed 04/02/2019) 5 Stealth Group, Unconventional Coalitions in Amsterdam Noord, 2003, p. i03, Available at: http://www.stealth.ultd.net/stealth/projects/03_amsterdamnoord.tmp/download/book_1.pdf (Accessed 09/12/2018) 6 Urban Land Institute, ‘King’s Cross Case Study’, ULI Case Studies, 2014, Available at http:// casestudies.sandbox.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/98/2016/01/kingscross_16pgs_v11.pdf (Accessed 21/01/2019) 7 Goodchild, S., ‘King’s Cross Vice Defies the Camera’, The Independent, 1999, Available at https:// www.independent.co.uk/news/kings-cross-vice-defies-the-cameras-1114232.html (Accessed 06/02/2019)

12 UK Government, Squatting and the Law, [website], [no date], Available at https://www.gov. uk/squatting-law (Accessed 20/02/2019) 13 Gimson, M., Lwin, C., and Wates, N., ‘Squatting: The Fourth Arm of Housing?’, Architectural Design, April 1976, p.211 14 Ibid. p.212 15 Iemma, K., ‘Squatting as Adaptive Reuse’, AMST 2666: Repair: Museums, Material, and Metaphor [Web Blog], 21 March 2018, Available at https://blogs.brown.edu/amst-2666-s012018-spring/2018/03/21/squatting-as-adaptive-reuse/ (Accessed 22/02/2018) 16 Gimson, M., Lwin, C., and Wates, N., op. cit., p.211

8 Douglas, J., Building Adaptation, London, Butterworth-Heinemann Publishing, 2002, p.1

17 Hearn, F., Ideas that Shaped Buildings, Massachusetts, The MIT Press, p.314

9 Spatial Agency, Squatting, [website], [no date], Available at http://www.spatialagency.net/ database/squatting (Accessed 20/02/2019)

18 Ibid.

10 Stealth Group, op. cit, p.64, (Accessed 09/12/2018)

11 Gimson, M., ‘Everybody’s Doing It’, in N.Wates and C.Wolmar (eds.), Squatting: The Real Story, London, Bay Leaf Books, 1980, p.208

19 Latham, D., Creative Reuse of Buildings (Volume 1 & 2), Shaftesbury, Donhead Publishing Ltd, 2000, p.4

NDSM AMSTERDAM

2 Ups and Downs Retracing the Developmental Steps NDSM started as a bottom-up movement at the shipbuilding hall that spurs other private developments around while Kingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cross Central is a private development from start to end. How do these two models of urban regeneration differ?

Fig. 9: NDSM in 1965, Divided into North, South and East now (red lines)

he city municipality of Amsterdam North held a design competition in 1999 to temporarily turn the wharf into a cultural gathering place for at least 5 years, while giving ample time for the municipality to devise a strategy and investment decision to evolve from industrial park to a mix of residential, work and recreation area20. Kinetisch Noord, which was formed the pioneers, artists and entrepreneurs already active in the area, won the competition with a thoroughly

elaborated proposal that included the business plan, architectural redesign framework, catering services, access, and finance and management21. The plan also called for the preservation of the existing buildings in NDSM and the creation of a gathering place for artists comprising studios and ateliers in the shipbuilding hall, which is later known as â&#x20AC;&#x153;Kunststadâ&#x20AC;? or Art City. This marked the beginning of Kinetisch Noord as the lead for the bottom-up approach of AR in NDSM East.

ORGANISATION STRUCTURE Kinetisch Noord had to be structured legally in order to obtain financial support from the Amsterdam Breeding Places fund, and changed its name to “Stichting Kinetisch Noord” (SKN), or Kinetic North Foundation. They also received other financial supports, as well as an IPSV (innovative projects in urban renewal) grant from the Dutch Ministry of Public Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment. The budget was very tight due to the nature of the cultural output of the area. In 2003, the actual construction was ready to begin, and renovation of various parts took place, but was upset by polluted grounds, and the buildings were in a very bad shape. The project delayed, and artists could only begin construction of their studios in early 2006. This caused an unexpected loss of income that had been previously assumed to be received, and SKN had to plead for financial aid from the Municipality. The Municipality relieved the debt but they wanted to elect a new chairman for SKN, while shrink and restructure the organisation. This meant that the foundation is under a stricter control by the municipality

and the city district. The direction under SKN continued to cost substantially, while feuds with the artists at the wharf reflected the ongoing change in the course. The people from municipalities had pretty much involved in the organisation of processes. It was difficult to collect rent on artists’ studios as well. The delay in filling up the Shipbuilding Hall also exacerbated the financial position that the District wanted to get rid of it. The appointment of Bouwe Olij helped transferring the ownership of the building from District to SKN so that they could collect rent themselves while pay leasehold fee to the Municipality. To help finance the building he had planned to rent more spaces commercially but the artists were frustrated, claiming that they were not being consulted. FINANCING The low rental solely became the generated amount to compensate the cost, and the invisible hand of capitalism would have forced the sale of the building to private developers, ending up in the displacement of the original users, as a substantial rent would be charged. In order to secure

Fig. 10: The complex network of Stichting Kinetisch Noord

these artists and entrepreneurs to maintain the image of Amsterdam as a creative hub of Europe, extra funds have to be generated via the grants from the ministry on the Breeding Places policy and from District North to cover the costs. The protection afforded to the sub-cultural pioneers drove big investment away. For instance, Nikeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s interest in using the Docklands Hall as village for kids with and famous football players triggered protest, due to their childlabour policy, in relation to the antiglobalisation movement, and the idea was subsequently rejected by SKN22. Also, the Municipality wanted an organic process but also big money projects which were at odds with the users, because they were into social interest only. The interest of SKN is more in the development strategies instead of a Masterplan or Blueprint plan23 but a masterplan is still drawn up to ensure different projects on the northern IJ border have coherent development. All possible initiatives on the IJ border are categorised: green light if not concerning the masterplan; change if it casts doubts as it goes; and if unsure the project is going on a good way it can be viewed at a larger

scale. For instance, the initiative from the wharf to make a big office building and while the wharf is still functioning, it might need a noise wall to the new housing area, but as looking further in the future the Wharf is going to stop, then a redundant barrier would be left24. Since then, the bottom-up led regeneration poses a huge problem: no single acknowledged person to make the final call. There were difficulties in keeping up with promises because of this and assignments were given out with too many people involved25. For example, there was once where builders were unsure to fix the roof or wait until the big renovation start, which would take 2 years. Big organisations take away initiative from the people, hence SKN had to stay small, and therefore its inability to be empowered. Even within the organisation, ideas clashed as the intention to spend money on basic infrastructures and architectural interventions to prepare space for different user groups was met with the favour towards an open-ended process allowing different group to build its own environment26. The development is very complex,

Fig. 11 All current AR buildings, where all the information could be found on appendix. Note that it goes with the number first then word so eg. X and Y slipways (slopes) are at N5.

with so many parties involved â&#x20AC;&#x201C; individual artists, collectives, foundations with their own boards, associations, youth initiatives, the SKN board itself and the council,

all with different ambitions and dealing with them is an art27. In 2005, Mediawharf signed a long-term lease of Carpentry workshop with the District to develop head office of

MTV Benelux. The developing parties of NDSM East (SKN, District and Mediawharf) joined up to stabilise the relationships and experiment a form of joint development, management and programming of the area28. Heritage Protection IJ Industrial Buildings Guild (IIBG), a response to the ambitious plan to redevelop IJ banks, was formed in 1993 by the users of the 12 squatted buildings along the river bank of IJ to counteract cultural depletion of Amsterdam in a constructive way29. They developed a new model for city development in the manifesto “De Stad als Casco”, or City as a Hull, a bottom-up approach to city renovation by and for residents and users. They acknowledged mutability as a factor in planning: a building, an area is never ‘finished’; this perspective offers more dynamic urban environment, where blending among old and new users is encouraged, instead of homogeneous groups replacing one another30. The industrial buildings at that time were adaptively reused but gained no protection from any authority. Therefore, in NDSM, this is the grassroots that fought for the

preservation and reuse of historically and architecturally significant buildings. The eventual disbandment of the ambitious plan did not stop the threat of demolition from the government. 12 groups of people from the IIBG, whose building on the IJ banks were planned to be cleared out, appealed to Amsterdam North stating that they had invested themselves, that they are the public and that if the city could do something had the cultural production been threatened, and the city council acknowledged the problem; ‘Breeding Places’ policy resulted from the initiative between Amsterdam North and these people as a constructive settlement policy31. During those years, some of the industrial buildings in the NDSM wharf were listed as monuments. First they were protected as municipal listed monuments in 2004, and then as “Rijksmonument” or national monuments in 2007. This meant that permits are needed for any modifications to the buildings, which were welcomed by the indigenous cultural producers. This was the fruit of their battle with the government and private developers who had desired

to introduce various developments to the area. However, it is a doubleedge sword to the local cultural producers because they as well could no longer make any modifications as they wished. SKN became the owner of the Shipbuilding Hall in leasehold

for 50 years in 2014 and in 2017, the X-slipway was protected as a cultural ‘free space’ by the city council32. The afforded protection allowed AR projects to blossom in the area, while all new developments have to respect the context.

KING’S CROSS LONDON

Fig. 12 Old Map of King’s Cross.

efore any development began, the northern half of the site were industrial wastelands, full of railway tracks and structures that had survived the Victorian era, while the southern half were densely occupied with structures from the transport hub, like gasworks, gasholders, residential buildings and more interchange buildings. Planning policies for large-redevelopment of the site were outlined decades before the masterplan today, but the spark of the regeneration was the decision in 1996 to relocate Britain’s first highspeed railway, the Channel Tunnel Rail Link, from London Waterloo railway to St. Pancras. In addition to this, underground and mainline stations were set to undergo major upgrades and restorations. ORGANISATION STRUCTURE King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership is established to deliver the regeneration project. It consists of Argent King’s Cross Limited Partnership backed by renowned property developer Argent and Hermes Investment Management, state-owned London and Continental Railways Limited (LCR), and DHL Supply Chain (formerly Exel). The last two companies were replaced by

Australian Super. As strategic planning guidance required residential and community facilities be used to support and regenerate local communities, highest densities and most commercial uses had to happen closest to the rail termini. The London Plan and Camden Council’s Unitary Development plan illustrated the objective of distinct identity that enhanced features of historic and conservation importance. Nevertheless, the developers decided against high rise as high density and sacrificing high-quality urban environment33. They commissioned Allies and Morrison, Porphyrios Associates and Townshend Landscape Architects to create a masterplan design, while engaging in consultations with London Borough of Camden and Islington, as well as stakeholders such as mayor of London, English Heritage and local people, revising plans.The core challenge was to organise complex land ownership to avoid future costly legal problems related to rights and restrictions. The final approval in 2006 was outlined in terms of “total permissible use” that allowed for flexibility so that floor space for one sector could

Fig. 13 Stakeholders and Partnerships in the Redevelopment Scheme of King’s Cross

be traded against another34. This is to allow the plan to be adapted to market conditions and individual buildings could be changed35, because of the uncertainty on policies and necessity for more offices or housing and also to accommodate social and technological trends in-between the long building process36. Only the important criteria such as key routes, public spaces, maximum and minimum building heights were defined along with density and scale. Design guidelines governed building techniques, materials and how they were used. FINANCING King’s Cross Central Limited Partnership KCCLP raised working capital from early development and plot sales but had no intention to hold on the site for the long term, and hence more than half the potential

development and commercial space had been sold or committed by early 201337. Equity, senior debts and recycled receipts has been funding the project, while disciplined cash flow management has enabled the partnership’s equity to be stretched and recycled across numerous projects. Since 2009, the partnership has made a £250m investment infrastructure at King’s Cross, and their equity funding went towards new roads, public spaces, a new bridge across the canal, canal-side improvements, and the Energy Centre and its associated district heating and distribution networks. A collaborative process is required as the tenants of the reused buildings fill in details of the masterplan so that they could contribute to how

the building would be developed. The design had reservations about tone, character and feel to encourage specific details of the new district to emerge over time, coupled with a master plan that allowed room for change. HERITAGE PROTECTION King’s Cross Central site consists of two conservation areas. King’s Cross Conservation Area, designated in 1986 contains listed buildings such as the Great Northern Hotel, German Gymnasium and Stanley Buildings; while Regent’s Canal Conservation Area, designated in 1974 contains Grade II listed Granary Complex and Eastern Coal Drops, as well as the Fish and Coal Offices38. While dealing with the historic bits became important, the development team did not fully design the reuse of historic buildings initially but guidelines only. Even though the interpretation on planning policies was that it had inclined towards seeing those details, it was meaningless if the designs which did not have any backers or adopters were put forth early39. The flexibility of the plan became an uncertainty to the eyes of the conservationists. The final masterplan proposed the

demolition of three buildings in the site. The developer received backlash against decisions for demolition, which was one of the reasons King’s Cross Railway Lands Group launched a judicial review in February 2007 and challenged the outline planning permission. They had solid and reasonable grounds to defend their decision and the high court dismissed the case. Comprehensive reports on the benefits of demolition of these three buildings elaborated justifications for the demolition. Stanley Building North bent the road access of Pancras Road and Camley Street40; Culross Building blocked the envisaged primary access pedestrian route linking the stations in the south to the rest of the site due to its perpendicular frontage to the road41; Western Goods Shed barricaded the public use of canal at the west42. It was therefore decided that these should be demolished, for the benefit of this new neighbourhood and the wider area. The case against unlisted buildings are that they can be materially altered, adapted to a wide variety of uses, and re-presented to the community, remodelled and with a new image in keeping with their new role43. In contrast, Gustavo Giovanni

Fig. 14 King’s Cross Conservation Area consists of sheds and warehouses at north and residential and service at south.

proposed the principle of ‘selective restoration’ in which historic centres could be represented by buildings of a key period that characterises a district44. As an alternative approach to an indiscriminate demolition of historic areas, buildings of lesser significance could be demolished to make way for modern amenities, such as open spaces and circulation. Whether a plan comes from the public or private sector or a stakeholder, partnership between

both is significant: governments working within statutory planning frameworks are more likely to be riskaverse because of the consequences of public mistakes, while in the private sector, if businesses do not risk making mistakes, they are not really advancing. Wide-ranging objectives, a mix of local priorities, and elements of national and central government policies have to be melded together with a high degree of reconciliation and clarity about advantages and what can be traded off45.

20 Jannievinke, NDSM Scheepsbouwloods, Dynamo Architecten, [website], 2012, Available at http://learningfrommultifunk.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/ndsm-scheepsbouwloods (Accessed 21/02/2019)

34 Ibid., p.4

21 Kinetisch Noord, Projectvoorstel NDSM-terrein Amsterdam-Noord, 1999, p.1

36 Ibid., p.5

22 Stealth Group, op. cit, p. i45 (Accessed 09/12/2018)

37 Ibid., p.6

23 Ibid., p.i26 24 Ibid., p.i27

38 Historic England, King’s Cross, London: Development by Argent, Case Studies, 2017, Available at https://content.historicengland.org.uk/content/heritage-counts/pub/2017/casestudy-argent-developer.pdf (Accessed 21/01/2019)

25 Ibid., p.104

39 Urban Land Institute, op. cit, p.6 (Accessed 21/01/2019)

26 Ibid., p.i45

40 ARUP, King’s Cross Central: Supporting Statement for a Listed Building Consent Application to Demolish the Stanley Building North, 2004, p1, Available at https://www. kingscross.co.uk/media/18-Sup-State-Stanley.pdf Accessed 24/02/2019)

27 Ibid., p.i47 28 Stichting Kinetisch Noord, Kunststad NDSM-Werf: Projectverslag IPSV 2240, 2006, p.15 29 Klerk, E., Guild of Industrial Buildings Along the River IJ, [website], [no date], Available at http://www.evadeklerk.com/en/het-gilde-van-werkgebouwen-aan-het-ij/ (Accessed 20/02/2019) 30 Havik, K., ‘Monotony and diversity along the banks of the IJ’, OASE 73 Gentrification, Avidar, P., Havik, K., and David, Mulder (Eds.), Rotterdam, NAI, 2007, p.129–136 31 Stealth Group, op. cit, p.69 (Accessed 09/12/2018) 32 Unceta, P., Nederlandsche Dok En Scheepbouw Company (NDSM) Amsterdam (the Netherlands): A Critical Evaluation of the Role of Strategic Spatial Planning in Its Development, 2018, p.8 33 Urban Land Institute, op. cit, p.3 (Accessed 21/01/2019)

35 Ibid., p.6

41 ARUP, King’s Cross Central: Supporting Statement for a Conservation Area Consent Application to Demolish the Culross Buildings, 2004, p1, Available at https://www.kingscross. co.uk/media/22-Sup-State-Culross.pdf (Accessed 24/02/2019) 42 ARUP, King’s Cross Central: Supporting Statement for a Listed Building Consent Application to Dismantle Gas Holder No.8 so as to relocate and re-erect its guide frame and a Conservation Area Consent Application to demolish the Western Goods Shed, 2004, p2, Available at https://www.kingscross.co.uk/media/20-21-Sup-State-GH8WGS.pdf (Accessed 24/02/2019) 43 Latham, D., op. cit, p.12 44 Zucconi, G. and Giovannoni, G., ‘A Theory and A Practice of Urban Conservation’, Change Over Time, Vol.4, No.1, Spring 2014, p.80 45 Bullivan, L., Masterplanning Futures, Abingdon, Routledge, 2012, p.1

3 Masterplans

Giving Accounts of the Scheme The Masterplan of the Urban Regeneration comprises reused buildings as well as new developments. How would these developments affect or complement AR at a larger scale?

Fig. 15 All new buildings at NDSM north and south except for Afbramerij, NDSM east (Grey Area) are the heritage places.

n the west of NDSM, Shipdock Amsterdam came into business as a ship repair company reviving the shipbuilding at the area. Subsequently acquired by Damen Shipyard, it is officially called Damen Shiprepair Amsterdam (DSA) and performs repair, maintenance, refit and conversion work46. Cornelis Douwesweg Region at river IJ maintains its industrial function at a larger scale, with DSA in ship

repairing and construction at the core despite the fall of NDSM. The spirit of shipbuilding-related tradition is still maintained in the area until now. In the UK, after the havoc of wartime and the Nationalisation of 1948, the transport of freight by rail suffered a speedy decline. The improvement of connectivity to the station, opening of East Coast main line connecting London to Edinburgh, privatisation

and a series of investment in refurbishments and restoration of the buildings tremendously powered the King’s Cross railway station to its current success. The region remains the hub for freight and passenger transport, with the use of its underground station substantiated by the opening of Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) at St. Pancras International. Despite the difficulty to measure the spill-over effects of the rejuvenated shipyard and train station have on the extent of success of their respective adaptively reused sites, it must be acknowledged that the initial functions of both sites persisted through times of change, and serve as the anchor for the regeneration of the sites. In these kind of large projects, before any new developments start, the renovation of buildings designated for AR would be carried out first to recreate the sense of identity and this would serve as the basis for the upcoming developments. IMPROVED ACCESS The primary regeneration strategy is the opening-up of the sites to the public. At Amsterdam, the city council sponsored the ferry lines

that bridge both side of banks of the IJ river, so pedestrians and bikers could easily, for free, access NDSM from Houthavens, the Centraal Station or Buiksloterweg. At King’s Cross, underground tube and train stations were renovated, enhancing the comfort and the ease of access for the site. Building developers when doing individual buildings of AR, could not influence the area outside of their projects boundary. The public domains of NDSM or KX could be designed to enhance the success of the AR buildings they surround, hence the appeal of tackling a site with AR buildings. PUBLIC SPACE The public space of the NDSM consists of those leftover spaces between the buildings and empty buildings that are rentable for public events. The uninspiring hardscape is dominated by asphalt roads and lifeless granite stones. These are the signs of lack of funding, as well as the overdependence on car or bicycles, though in a way, they enhance the rugged industrial look of the site. The green landscape is still being developed, but the access to the bank of IJ river has already been improved. The studies and observation have

Fig. 16 Final Masterplan of KX, London. More information on AR projects could be found at the appendix.

illustrated the abundance of vacant spaces available for new developments, and these are serving as temporary parking spaces currently. All parking spaces are over-ground to avert the high cost of soil remediation needed for treating brownfield site47, and

the absence of need to shove parking or traffic underground, due to vast spaces available. This applies even for new buildings where the parking is normally located nearby. For King’s Cross Central, high quality

landscaping and public spaces are designed, such as the Granary Square and the Lewis Cubitt Park, along with the new pavers that encourages walkability, while almost all car parks are located underground. The reduction of cars on street level boosts the use of greener alternative transportations and the visual clarity of the regenerated sites, with the public exploring the site without the need to be alert of cars. This has a knock-on effect on the maintenance of the reused buildings due to less emission of corrosive elements, while allowing people to appreciate the aesthetic quality of the Victorian King’s Cross. The Regent’s canal-side is redesigned so that it is available for public use, contrary to its former use as a private transport route for steamships and boats. A high quality public pedestrian space is a ‘true democracy’, giving everyone a sense of belonging and creating a more socially integrated community48. However, there is a problem with some of the new public spaces: that they are not strictly public at all. Instead they are privately owned public spaces, or POPS, where private owners can refuse right of entry to members of

the public, closing off swaths of the city. It is warned that these spaces are designed on corporate model that favours ornament and high levels of footfall for retailers in place of community spirit and sustainability49. The feeling that it is a bit too neat and tidy, clashes with the vibrancy of the reused Victorian buildings. EVENTS A common noteworthy strategy for both sites to improve the exposure and image while the conservation and construction works for the AR buildings were ongoing is the use of events as mediators. Events were organised to stir the interest of the public and private corporations to come in and invest. NDSM were formalised as event venues that carry artistic content that correlate with the context of the territory and atmosphere which is characterized as brutish and powerful50. In KX, events targeted different groups of users, ensuring a healthy mix of people. RESIDENTIAL At NDSM, the target of 40% residential area is being hit through the construction of new buildings such as the Pontkade, the Yard and the North Dock. The main reason

buildings could not be reused as residential areas is because of the noise level from cultural and event spaces at NDSM East, even though limited by controlled size and volume of the event as well as application of sound limiters on tents and other constructions, the location of stage and speakers, sound generators and etc51. Its counterpart in London includes Rubicon Court, Saxon Court and Roseberry Mansions. The conserved sites are mainly reused as offices and restaurants. ENERGY SOLUTIONS In NDSM, the shipbuilding hall was initially powered by unconventional solutions: the energy supply came from a windmill placed in the monumental crane, the electricity produced from generators on vegetable oil and the heating of studios via groundwater heat52. It was very sustainable but in the end electricity, water supply, gas, electrical power grids still need to be provided by the Municipality. Compare and contrast this to the sustainable solution of King’s Cross. The scheme has installed a combined heat and power plant and each building is connected to the centre. This dispenses with the need for boilers in the buildings themselves

and targets 5 percent reduction off energy bill53. This is a very important key element especially to AR projects. The space within the reused Victorian buildings could be optimised because there is no need of accommodating a boiler room within, which brings a cheaper rental per usable floor space. ADAPTIVE REUSE FUNCTIONS The particularly interesting disparity observed occurs between the extent of monetisation of the reused sites of NDSM Amsterdam and King’s Cross London. In Amsterdam NDSM the reused buildings are mostly studios, offices and workshops for the creative industry as well as sites for temporary events at a low rental. For the King’s Cross site, however, most of the reused buildings erected are leased to big corporations as offices and headquarters, as well as luxury retails. The interesting contrast here is that the former is attempting to resist gentrification because of the protection to the renters but the latter invites gentrification. It seems to confirm what the critics argue, that it is really about expanding the wealthy core of London into an area that was previously mixed, and that its values are ultimately those of retail and property54.

EFFECTS ON URBAN AREA The opening up of Regent’s Canal tow path for the first time in the site unlocks east-west movement via the tow path. There is hence an idea of use of the path as access routes instead that increases the accessibility of the site. In Amsterdam the city found its place for arts people but also opened

up public ferry routes to improve access, slowly populating the area. Saving the site from dereliction through this development, however, also signifies the loss of creative spaces, underexploited and potentialfilled zones on which cities thrive5.

46 Damen Shiprepair & Conversion, About, [website], [no date], Available at https:// www.damenshiprepair.com/en/shipyards/damen-shiprepair-amsterdam/about (Accessed 24/02/2019) 47 Gemeente Amsterdam North, Investeringsbesluit NDSM-werf, 2012, p.54 48 Bullivan, L., op. cit, p.13 49 Vasagar, J., ‘Public spaces in Britain’s cities fall into private hands’, The Guardian, 2012, Available at https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/11/granary-square-privately-ownedpublic-space, (Accessed 24/02/2019) 50 Hoogland, A., Once Something is Finished It Becomes Dull, [interviewed by Archmap. lt], [no date], Available at http://archmap.lt/en/articles/lietuviu-uzbaigti-dalykai-tampanuobodus (Accessed 24/02/2019) 51 Gemeente Amsterdam North, op. cit, p.25 52 Stichting Kinetisch Noord, op. cit, p.3 53 Urban Land Institute, op. cit, p.12 (Accessed 21/01/2019) 54 Moore, R., Thomas Heatherwick’s Coal Drops Yard – shopping in the Instagram age’, The Guardian, 2018 55 O’Sullivan, F, King’s Cross – London’s Changing Landscape in Microcosm, CityLab, 2015, Available at https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/10/kings-crosslondons-changing-landscapein-microcosm/410668 (Accessed 24/02/2019)

Shipbuilding Hall NDSM vs Granary Building KX Fig. 17

4 Reuse & Development Scrutinising & Comparing Singles At each building level, how are they similar or different with each other?

Fig. 18

he Shipbuilding Hall becomes the haven for the squatters and artists, the users of the site. There were about 250 studios within the complex. Central Saint Martins moved into the Granary Complex as a university. Both were targeted to lead the effort in regeneration of their respective sites. Both the Shipbuilding Hall and the Goods Yard Complex served as the primary buildings delivering the functions of the sites, regardless of the past or the present. Their colossal size relative to other buildings of their sites posed issues in regeneration of the area. The primary feasibility issue that has to be well-managed is the viability of the development of the shipbuilding hall and the Goods Yard Complex. Given the size, the amount of economic gains has to be larger than the new replacement of structural parts too feeble to continue their function, the designed new spaces and the maintenance of it, the main cost of AR. In accordance to the idea of City as a Hull, the shipbuilding hall solely functions as the shell of the Art City.

The individual studios, with their own electricity and water supply, are built, absolved the need of heating and cooling the whole building. Else, fitting the walls and roof of the whole building with adequate insulation and installing extensive service entail a significant cost unaffordable and unviable. The negative space between of the building and the studios become a flexible semi-public area where events and commercial works too large to be contained in studios happen. While the Goods Yard Complex brings together all the disparate parts of the Central St. Martins, it is a largely privatised building, where the main educational buildings open to staffs and students only. The central atrium is a huge space flooded with rooflights that is serviced with a range of heating and cooling strategies. There is hence a massive load of service works being carried out to fit piping networks into the building. The roof of the goods yard complex was completely rebuilt for the use of the university, with concrete and timber blocks structure inside.

Fig. 17 & 18 : Shipbuilding Hall before and after Fig. 19 : The facade of the Granary Building is maintained. Fig. 20: Granary Building is now the art school of Central St. Martinâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s.

Fig. 19

Fig. 20

Slipways NDSM vs Coal Drops Yards KX

hile the two functions seem to be at variance with each other, the interest for this comparison is the redesign of the buildings uses with relative to their height. The open areas of the slopes at the slipways and the yard level in between the Eastern and Western Coal Drops buildings are for public access. The spaces beneath the slipways and the London buildings are privately reused, for creative workspaces and highâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;end retail respectively. Therefore, the nature and intent of the two public spaces are different. Being a â&#x20AC;?Rijksmonumentâ&#x20AC;? (national monument), motorised transport is banned from going over the slopes and works that might cause damage to the slipway is not allowed56. Slipway X is prohibited from hosting events, unlike Slipway Y, and has to be fenced by organisers during events nearby. Other than that, the slipways are mostly devoid of reasons that allure people to stay or use that space. The temporality of the spaces allows incidents to happen, and the appreciation of their raw and industrial quality if nothing happens. The temporariness of the place is

Fig. 21

definitely not what the informal space between Eastern and Western coal drops buildings had intended to achieve. The irony of the site is that although it is indiscriminate to all kinds of people, the high-end retail shops reduces the engagement of the buildings to the general public, instead perhaps only appeals to the window shoppers and offer little incentive for the public to stay there. Their reuse as luxury retail outlets with stimulating public spaces introduces exclusivity to the rich and psychologically deter public use that they simply are used as connection. This could perhaps be interpreted as an attempt to fulfil the societal obligations of providing public spaces while monetising the buildings. Photo: the retail shops do not require critical mass as a means to increase potential customers because of their niche market, and less use of definitely does not indicate a bad design of public spaces, but the potential use of the space could have been maximised. Design issues persist, such as the introduction of glass to the kissing roofs at the south-facing side reflecting blinding sunlight or

Fig. 22

the perception of old structures being haphazardly placed but in truth they are deprived of support functions by the new ones57 - a touch of modernity gone awry. The workings of both places before their respective interventions were very interesting. Cranes at the perimeter had to haul ships or boats from the shipbuilding hall, and slipways were used to festively launch mammoth tankers and ocean liners. They allowed dry-docking of smaller ships as well for reparation works too. In London, the Victorian buildings served as coal storage and a depot for transporting coal from rail wagons to

road carts. The change in level was to harness the power of gravity: the coal would be dropped from the bottomwagons through a hole in the middle level where it was sorted and graded before being shovelled into sacks at yard level to be transported by horse and cart58. There are traces on the sites that hint their original uses, but the explanation on the historical s have been basically found wanting: no indications of what activity happened where, and how stuffs work. The retention and restoration of old structures are laudable, however, they alone are not enough to match the ambition of presenting the historical credentials of the sites anew.

Fig. 21, 22: X&Y Slipways was a squatterâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s haven for artists, then are repurposed for mainly art functions. Fig. 23, 24: Coal Dropyards before and after repurposing, with extension of upper floor with roofs that connect and becomes the public space for retail shopping.

Fig. 23

Fig. 24

Crane 13 NDSM vs GasHolder Triplets KX Crane 13 was used to move heavy components of the ship but it has been abandoned for over 20 years. The whole crane was dismantled and taken off from the site, due to absence of maintenance. The Gasholder Triplets frames suffered similar fate, for the extension to St. Pancras Station Channel Tunnel Rail Link project, and stored adjoining Gasholder No.8. These redundant structures would have been scrapped and disposed if not for the conservation movements by the grassroots. The idea of AR subsequently extends to non-buildings: structures deemed obsolete to the contemporary developments but crucial to the historical narrative. The issue with these structures ancillary to their industrial functions is their irregular and functionalist forms. Typically, functionalist buildings â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;derive their artistic character directly from the way the challenge of function is met, and all the qualities they have in common - forthrightness and simplicity, the emphasis on the basic geometry of architecture rather than ritual of the historic styles, the use of building materials in a way

Fig. 25

that brings out most strongly their intrinsic qualitiesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;59. In this sense, the rectangular and long-span form found in industrial warehouses makes sense the maximum exploitation of every inch of space available, and is poised to be reused in multiple possible ways. However, the slender and circular forms of the respective structures set limitations on their reuse. The shapes are therefore repackaged as a culmination of design masterpiece and history - industrial luxury. Single components of the crane in NDSM were reinstalled back on the site as a three-unitsonly luxury hotel. The gasholder frames are restored and relocated to the north-west of coal drops yard. Proposals for the gasholders include apartments, urban rainforests and offices60 but the final outcome is luxury apartments. Redesigning for habitation is a viable solution as a profit-maximising alternative to being frozen as monuments, but the process has to be scrutinised in order to make sense of the extravagance in design. The painstaking issues lies on the restoration and designing works of the structures.

Fig. 26

Before the crane was reassembled, a chunk of money was splurged on the site works. Quay recovery and soil remediation due to land pollution was not insurmountable; instead, tremendous cost was due to bureaucracy and the search for a 500-pound bomb dropped during WW261. In King’s Cross, the delicate bits were the disassembly, transport and reassembly of the long structural members of the skeleton of gasholders. One of the technical challenges of the crane was adapting to wind load, therefore the structure is fortified in critical spots, as well to deal with extra weight62. The crane gently rotates in face of wind to reduce maximum wind load while giving a 360⁰ view from the tower. Thus, a rotating shaft and a gold pivot bearing with swivel assembly where all piping work passes through have to be specifically designed63. Big challenges were the fire and safety requirements. The required water capacity for fire-fighting was provided by the water tanks and the spa pool on top, while water needs to

be pressurised adequately to reach the high levels of shower areas due to the verticality of the crane. The designers of the Gasholders had to deal with three different size of blocks and work within the confines of the circular shape; the gasholder plinths that support the frameworks had to be secured by huge bolts; the frameworks are freestanding so a building sequence had to be worked out; offsite manufacturing and prefabrication had to be done to increase fast delivery and onsite safety64. Various reasons like these inflated the cost of AR, leading to the question if projects like these are worth the effort and cost, corresponding to the idea of AR that includes “economically viable new purpose” by Urban Land Institute65. Financially, the projects are expected to make a return in investment and therefore, the value of the new products have to be high enough to entice restoration which would have never happened without

Fig. 25, 26: The abandoned Crane 13 and restored as a hotel. Fig. 27: Gasholder Triplets in St. Pancras before it was repurposed. Fig. 28: Relocated and repurposed Gasholder Triplets as a high-end residential.

Fig. 27

Fig. 28

the money. The eventual cost of refurbishment of crane is more than € 3,150,000 with each room costing more than €650 per room per night. The Gasholders Apartment construction costs £100m66, containing 145 apartments ranging at least £825,000 for a studio apartment, to £7m for the highest specification and rising, which should not take too long before the developer started earning profits. While appreciating the results of AR, the motive of the developer seemed more on reaping the financial benefits, which undeniably is still a win-win. Nonetheless, one could

only wonder if there is an extent in monetising historicism and memory.

Fig. 29

The practice of AR is rich and varied and its importance includes not only the reuse of existing structures but also the reuse of materials, transformative interventions, continuation of cultural phenomena through built infrastructure, connections across the fabric of time and space and preservation of memory - all of which result in densely woven narratives of the built environment with AR as their tool67.

OTHER REUSES The sites also offer another type of creative reuse where even nonbuildings are reused. Most of the NDSM site deal with repurposed ships and shipping containers. For example Kapitein Anna was a passenger and freight ship converted into hotel and restaurant69, or MAHU 880 was a minesweeper built during the cold war before being adapted by former navy men to a learning place and participates in maritime events71. However, in KX, this kind of

repurposing rarely occurs. The equivalent of that in NDSM would be train structures in KX site and perhaps rail system, but it is because the train system is still working. Only buildings and public spaces would be repurposed. The only reusing of material that happens is the skip garden. The budget allocated to renew the space is also huge enough to allow new designs, and therefore less smart compared to its Dutch counterpart.

Fig. 30

Fig. 31

Fig. 33

Fig. 29: Pollux Pacific Ship served as a maritime training ship68 before it is used

as the current bar restaurant.

Fig. 30: AmstelBotel is a river-cruiser-turned-hotel built in 1993. The hotel is a

combination of luxurious architecture and contemporary facilities70.

Fig. 31: The reuse of materials are also prevalent with shipping containers

creating offices like Treehouses, Student Village, Pllek restaurants.

Fig. 32: The original concrete structures for docking were used as foundation to build the Kraanspoor office building above. Fig. 32

Fig. 33: The skip garden was built from recycled wood as well in the Kings Cross site.

56 NDSM.nl, Helling-X, [website], [no date], Available at http://www.ndsm.nl/location/ helling-x/ 57 Hyde Park Now, Coal Drops Yard: A Critique, [blog], 2018, Available at https://www. hydeparknow.uk/2018/10/28/coal-drops-yard-a-critique/ (Accessed 24/02/2018)

24/02/2019) 69 Kapitein Anna, History, [website], [no date], Available at https://www.kapiteinanna.nl/ about-kapitein-anna/history-kapitein-anna (Accessed 24/02/2019)

58 Coal Drops Yard, History of Coal Drops Yard, [website], [no date], Available at https:// www.coaldropsyard.com/history-of-coal-drops-yard (Accessed 24/02/2018)

70 Dutch Amsterdam, Amstel Botel: Floating Hotel in Amsterdam, [website], [no date], Available at http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/255-amstel-botel-floating-hotel-amsterdam (Accessed 24/02/2019)

59 Richards, J., The Functional Tradition in Early Industrial Buildings, London, The Architectural Press, 1958, p.15

71 Historic Naval Ships Association, HNLMS Mahu, [website], 2015, Available at https://www. hnsa.org/hnsa-ships/hnlms-mahu (Accessed 24/02/2019

60 Allies & Morrison Architects, Porphyrios Associates, Townshend Landscape Architects, Kings Cross Central: Urban Design Statement, (no date), p.83 Available at: https://www. kingscross.co.uk/media/25-Urban-Design-State.pdf (Accessed 12/12/2018) 61 Faralda Crane Hotel, [no date], Available at http://faralda.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/ Facts-and-Figures-English-7-Long-.pdf (Accessed 24/02/2019) 62 SID Studio, Faralda NDSM Crane Hotel, [no date], Available at http://www.sidstudio.nl/ projecten-pages/p0025-hensenkraan.html (Accessed 24/02/2019) 63 Kurt, Converted Crane: 150-foot-tall Dutch Hotel Spins in the Wind, 2015, Available at https://weburbanist.com/2015/02/19/converted-crane-hotel-150-foot-tall-resort-spins-in-thewind/ (Accessed 24/02/2018) 64 Kenny, J., Squaring the Circle at Kingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cross, Construction Manager, 2016, Available at http://www.constructionmanagermagazine.com/onsite/squarin6g-cir4cle-ki5ngs-cross/ (Accessed 24/02/2018) 65 Jo Allen Gause and others, New Uses for Obsolete Buildings, Washington, Urban Land Institute, 1996, v. 66 Hoare Lea, Hoare Lea & Gasholders London, p.3, Available at https://hoarelea.com/app/ uploads/2018/11/HL-Gas-Triplet-Hero-Story-WEB.pdf (Accessed 23/02/19) 67 Berger, M., Hermann, H. and Wong, L., Adaptive Reuse Today - Editorial, The Int|AR Journal, Vol. 1, 2009, p.4 68 Pollux Pacific, [website], [no date], Available at http://polluxpacific.nl/en (Accessed

To conclude, Matteo Robiglio’s toolkit on a series of AR approach will be contextualised to summarise the key findings.

5 Conclusion

Boiling Down the Ideas How can we examine the essence of both ideas?

1) Explore possibilities – use tools to find potential reuse opportunities72 Selecting buildings to retain or eliminate is the key to optimise resources. In NDSM, almost all the surviving industrial leftovers are homogeneous single volume large structures tailored to accommodate parts of a ship. This allows almost infinite possibilities of reuse. In King’s Cross, varying types of buildings exist, encouraging diversity. 2) Assess potential – choose the right place, determine the appropriate scale of intervention, maximise the potential of existing structures, link a contemporary story to a powerful memory73 Feasibility studies have to be done in order to justify the decision made. Both the sites in Amsterdam and London are brownfield sites with contaminated land and public access has to be opened up and

ensure no disruptions to the flow. In NDSM, the funding was limited so the project had to start only in the Shipbuilding Hall, the Lasloods and the Slipways. Only later did the surroundings got developed through private investment. However, the private developer of KCCLP had rich experience in dealing with large projects hence they could renovate the buildings and sell it quickly, maintaining the liquidity of cash flow while continue to develop. Both sites have more than enough building space. The history of the industrial sites is used to generate cultural appreciation as well as investments. 3) Envision the future – create a positive vision of the future that aligns with local and global trends and interests74 Positive projection of legacy into future is showcased in NDSM where the masterplan is built around the model of incubator spaces. The masterplan of King’s Cross and its flexible framework allow designs to adapt to the latest trend and needs. 4) Involve Partners – maximise

potential mix of activities75 SKN was the congregation of users of NDSM that initiated the project. They later cooperated with private developers, District and Municipality to develop NDSM into what it is now. King’s Cross development involved private developers, councils, English Heritage, local communities and interest groups in the planning process to formulate a successful design. 5) Colonise the Place – bring people to the space to attract attention, resources and experimentation75 Marginal communities especially squatters and artists seeking cheap space are early adopters of the plans of NDSM, in addition to the success as event spaces brought fame to the site which further attracts investment. From film screenings that can be watched from the canalside steps to food festivals and one-off gala events, King’s Cross Central hosts all-yearround events that keep footfalls sustained.

plan that mutually benefits use, users and spaces, taking advantage of any industrial features that might help lower costs or attract attention76 NDSM is a site of flexibility, for example the temporary spaces of Lasloods was an event space before it is turned into a street art museum. Historic buildings of KX are supplied with one energy centre that relieves the need of having a complex service piping and boiler room in old structures, allowing efficient reuse

that will steer the project through uncertainty and opportunity78 NDSM-werf foundation is an organisation that is currently managing the shipbuilding hall and the outside space, whereas the other buildings are managed by District and BMB Development. Even though

there are conflicting interest with regards to the reuse of space the three bodies manage to succeed in the conservation of the sites. In London, Argent King’s Cross is the entity that manages the site, supported by Argent LLP, which has a strong portfolio in managing large estates.

7) Place-making and Funding – events to help raise money and draw attention, take advantage of public and private funding opportunities77 NDSM receives grants and benefits as a cultural production hub from the municipality and the ministry, while earning rental income as a prominent event space. As KX is a private development, KCCLP was responsible for the development funds, but they earn incomes as well from managing the public space as well as rental for events.

72 Robiglio, M., ‘The Adaptive Reuse Toolkit: How Cities Can Turn Their Industrial Legacy into Infrastructure for Innovation and Growth’, GMF Urban and Regional Policy Paper, no.38, 2016, p.12 73 Ibid., p.13-14 74 Ibid., p.14 75 Ibid., p.17 76 Ibid., p.19 -21 77 Ibid., p.21-22

6) Design to Reuse – comprehensive

8) Run, and Evolve – find a champion

78 Ibid., p.22

NDSM Wharf, AMSTERdam

6 Appendix

Detailing The Individual ARs What functions are the buildings adopting or being planned?

Shipbuilding Hall-> Kunststad ‘Art City’ The shipbuilding hall houses the Kunststad (Art City), which is a complex of studios, workshops, rehearsal and working spaces. SKN provided the steel frames and concrete to build the “casco” or the hull that hosts these spaces, and they are completed by the artists and entrepreneurs themselves, hence the similarity of structures but with individual looks and finishes. The Oostvelugel (East Wing) contains 12 studios with a mezzanine that houses travelling theatre groups, set builders and artists who produce large pieces. The south side contains a multipurpose area with a mezzanine. The Vrije Kavelstrook are free plots reserved for tenants to design and build their own studio. Section 4, on the west is earmarked for youth-oriented projects and initiatives. A floating skate park was built but removed later, and various programmes were occurring underneath, such as puppet shows, a hiphop school, an internet café and chill-out areas. At the Noordstrook (North Strip), a vast former shipyard workshop attic space is available for theatre performances, exhibitions, festivals or parties to be set up. Slipways X and Y -> Workshops and Event Spaces Through the monumental ramps X and Y formerly 'downland' new mammoth tankers and ocean liners were festively launched. Renters were already present here since 1994, and they were included in the breeding place policy initiated by the SKN. It was sold off to Amsterdam North to due to debt of SKN in 2008. Under the two slipways are a number of spaces, including workshops and studios that sculptors, painters, a photographer, set builders and a coppersmith use for their profession. The concrete Y-slope, where dozens of artists had their workspace, is currently being renovated. In its place 33 more modern, but also smaller workspaces,

which offer a much higher rent. Also the X-slope, the little brother of the Y-slope, needs to be repaired. Here are especially the artists who make large sculptures or spatial works. They feared the same fate as that of the users of the Y-slope, but the council puts a stop to this. X-slope: These are ten workshops, under a slipway of 1900 square meters. Users pay a small user fee to SKN. Minus a small amount for office expenses that compensation will be paid to urgent maintenance jobs such as the construction of sewage and water up to the ramps and renewing the electricity to the meter boxes. Users provide their own necessary minor maintenance. They organize joint exhibitions and workshops there. Docklands -> Event Space Docklands hall is mainly used as a large-scale event space, with huge empty space without partitions, stages or bars, allowing flexibility to clients. However the rent income is below expectation, and was demolished in 2010 because it had asbestos containing materials. The building was used by SKN as a venue for festivals and events. The now-open space currently serves the same purpose but Biesterbos plans to building new office spaces and parking garage here. Smederij -> Office, Restaurant & Studios Smederij is the smithy of the shipyard where ship components were forged and assembled. The Hoofdloods, or the main hangar building now offers office spaces for different companies, such as Foundation Greenpeace Netherlands Brooklyn Hotel and Emolife Campaigning Group, and restaurant Brooklyn. The Puntloodsen, comprising 4 pitched-roof warehouses also does the same, and is occupied by the head office of Red Bull Nederland and ‘Fronteer Strategy. The original roof rafters and doors have been reused in the workspaces, while the rough masonry, the concrete floors and a metal construction also ensure that the monumental character of the sheds has been preserved. In between the two buildings is the Brooklyn Hotel, subsequently acquired by Double Tree Hilton.

Baanderij -> IJ-Kantine + Office The building was called ‘Gebouw Kersten’ and served as an office building, drawing room, assembly hall and the canteen of NDSM since 1957. After the NDSM demise, the laid-off workers established Belaarsvereniging Baanloos Scheepsbouwers (association of unemployed shipbuilders) and took over the building. The building functioned as an association where billiards, drinking happened, hence its subsequent name, De Baanderij. On the ground floor is now brasserie "De IJ-Kantine" located and the first and second floor are rented out as office spaces. Crane 13 -> Hotel Crane Faralda It transformed into Crane Faralda Hotel with 3 luxury suites, a professional TV Studio as well as a spa pool and a bungee jumping platform on top. A new business model was devised to control the extremely high costs: financial commitment from (sub) contractors, determination by value of its marketing and tight supervision of the constantly changing development. Timmerwerkplaats -> VIACOM Media Networks Northern Europe The carpenter workshop is part of the industrial heritage. Mediawharf revived the place into MTV event hall and office units for new media since 2005. VIACOM Media Networks Northern Europe, formerly known as MTV, moved his headquarter to the NDSM wharf in 2007. Afbramerij -> Falck Safety Services & Pizza restaurant The Afbramerij was the warehouse where deburring occurred. Streelder Metaal, specialising in cold cutting and cold forming, moved into the building until 2006. Remco Streelder acquired the building and “De Afbramerij in between” was initiated to realise temporary uses: a bakery, a workshop and possibly a business space . The owner set up Booiz Projectonwikk BV and devised a reuse scheme that increases the floor space through the additional built space on top of the building , but had not been issued a building permit. There was another idea on making the building a maritime training centre by Collo Architects but it did not happen. It is currently occupied by Falck Safety Services, which

supplies training in the fields of safety, contingency and crisis management.

alongside exhibition areas, a roof garden, bar and ticketing area.

Lasloods (Welding shed) -> Street Art Museum The building is still empty and rented out for events and activities with no permanent use. It is being renovated and restored by BMBontwikkeling (Mediawharf B.V.). Aarding Construction BV was a company that builds ships and ship sections, industrial equipment and the execution of offshore activities, but the rental expired in 2006. The former user of the hall was not displaced by new users with a higher socio-economic status but instead by the local government with the intention to transform the hall into other stuffs. Boxpark Amsterdam was planned in this building , however with unstated reasons the scheme did not happen. Currently the building is being transformed into Street Art Museum.

Coal Drops -> Retail Shopping The Victorian building served as coal storage and a depot for transporting coal from rail wagons to road carts. The change in level was to harness the power of gravity: the coal would be dropped from the bottom-wagons through a hole in the middle level where it was sorted and graded before being shovelled into sacks at yard level to be transported by horse and cart . As Regentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s canal slowly took over the place where coals were offloaded, a huge portion of the site was converted to warehousing, until being purchased by glass manufacturer Bagley, Wild and Company.

KINGâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S CROSS LONDON Granary Building -> Central St. Martins The Granary Building was built to store Lincolnshire wheat for London bakers, while the transit shed used to have railways that direct trains into them to drop and pick up freights avoiding the passenger station in Kings Cross station. The north-south direction that the railways were lined up rationalised the shape of the transit shed to allow efficient moving of goods. Off-loading from the rail carriages was made easier by cranes and turntables powered by horse and, from the 1840s, hydraulic power. Stables were located under the loading platforms and today they contain bike sheds for Central St. Martins University. The offices at the flanks were added in 1860s to provide more clerical space . Central St. Martins occupies the Goods Yard Complex except for the street level of Western Transit Shed and the Granary Building. Part of the University of Arts London, the university offers courses from arts to fashion. The Granary building is converted to two restaurants at street level, a library on the first floor, Train Assembly shed to studios, workshops at Eastern Transit Shed, a performance spaces including two theatres and dance studios are designed

The decreased popularity of railways in favour of road transport coupled with the blaze at the Eastern Coal Drops caused the buildings to be abandoned, but were given a new life as the heart of night life at Kings Cross, where nightclubs flourished. The buildings were used as studios and workshops as well . Now, they are restored and have become a new unique retail quarter called the Coal Drops Yard where restaurants, galleries, music venues and retail fashion stores are. West Handyside Canopy -> Event Space The canopy roof spans across Eastern Transit Shed and Midland Goods Shed to shelter the unloading of fish and other perishable goods like potatoes from railway carriages for distribution around London. The space also served as roadway access to the goods shed on both sides and the Goods Yard beyond. The roof was cladded again with corrugated asbestos sheeting in the mid20th century, and the glazing has been largely replaced with metal sheeting and translucent plaster later . In the 1970s the area continued to be used for deliveries and parking even when the railway traffic ceased . The canopy, since the start of regeneration of the site, has been restored to be used as event space and to house weekly and seasonal markets, such as food market KERB and the Canopy Market. Stanley Buildings -> Office Group

The buildings were built by Improved Industrial Dwellings Company to provide low-rental ‘philanthropic’ housing to working men. One block remained from five as they were destroyed by bombings in WW2 and demolished for proposed road improvements. The location of Stanley Buildings was rational, rehousing those displaced by the planned construction of Midland Railway’s London extension terminating at St. Pancras that had involved extensive demolition and clearance on the streets in the area . They were durable multistorey construction and exhibited high density usage of the site. Flat roofs were provided for clothes drying and children playing space.

frames and telescopic lifts . Pancras Gasworks ceased to make gas in 1904, but the gasholders continued to store town gas piped from other gasworks . They were later dismantled for the extension to St. Pancras Station CTRL and stored adjoining Gasholder No.8.

Today, the building serves as serviced offices for The Office Group, with a new build office wrapped around the single building, providing serviced offices, club rooms and meeting space to Londoners. It is an example of coworking space , where the office space is shared and could be hired per hour suitable for freelancers, startups and small businesses who could not afford yearly rented space. These kinds of buildings were lost to wartime bombing and ‘slum’ clearance for urban development.

Coal and Fish Building -> Tom Dixon The offices were built to administer the growing trade of incoming coal and fish, and provided accommodation for the clerical staff needed to handle the paperwork of the trades . As observed, the buildings consisted of different phases in the same style with different height and length. The trading in coal was stopped and the offices served throughout the working life of the railway goods yard until its disuse caused by a blaze. The Coal Offices have been restored as the new home of Tom Dixon and serves as the Headquarters with a flagship store, showroom and a café .

German Gymnasium -> Restaurant The Gymnasium was the first purpose-built gymnasium in 1864-64 for the German Gymnastics Society, and held the indoor events of the first Olympic Games . The gymnasium and its ancillary buildings such as society rooms were initially designed as one. The frontage on Pancras road was developed to provide shops where the rental helped compensate the cost of maintenance of the building. The original single-volume space was lost to the subsequent alterations made within the hall to separate shop units from the main building . Only the main hall remains from the demolition for the CTRL, and it is now the home to German Gymnasium Restaurant by D&D London, styled after the European grand cafes and brasseries. Gasholder Triplets -> Apartments The triplet group (Gasholder No. 10, 11 and 12) were built to expand storage capacity of gas cylinders as the Pancras Gasworks obtained extra space to the west of the original gasholder, and enlarged with new interconnected guide

The gasholder frames are restored and re-erected around a series of apartment buildings. The buildings consisted of 145 apartments, 9 penthouses each with a roof garden. These offer views over the water and they are close to the Gasholder Park which is contained within the frame of the restored Gasholder No. 8.

Regeneration house -> Art Fund HQ The building served as the principal office for the Goods Yard and can be seen as the ‘nerve centre’ for freight operations across the site, then functioned as railway offices. The building was reconstructed after the WW2 bombardment and refurbished again in the 1980s by the London Regeneration Consortium. The building has been refurbished and renamed Two Granary Square, and houses the Art Fund headquarters (upper floors) and House of Illustration (ground and lower ground floors). The Art Fund is the national fundraising charity that helps museums and galleries buy and show works of art while House of Illustration is a registered charity and the UK’s only public gallery dedicated solely to illustration and graphic art.

Allies & Morrison Architects, Porphyrios Associates, Townshend Landscape Architects, Kings Cross Central: Urban Design Statement, (no date), Available at: https://www.kingscross.co.uk/media/25-Urban-Design-State.pdf (Accessed 12/12/2018)

7 Bibliography &Reference Tracking the sources of information Final compilation of all references and images.

ARUP, Kingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Cross Central: Supporting Statement for a Listed Building Consent Application to Demolish the Stanley Building North, 2004, Available at https://www.kingscross.co.uk/media/18-Sup-State-Stanley.pdf (Accessed 24/02/2019) Berger, M., Hermann, H. and Wong, L., Adaptive Reuse Today - Editorial, The Int|AR Journal, Vol. 1, 2009 Bullivan, L., Masterplanning Futures, Abingdon, Routledge, 2012 Coal Drops Yard, History of Coal Drops Yard, [website], [no date], Available at https://www.coaldropsyard.com/history-of-coal-drops-yard (Accessed 24/02/2018) Damen Shiprepair & Conversion, About, [website], [no date], Available at https://www.damenshiprepair.com/en/shipyards/damen-shiprepairamsterdam/about (Accessed 24/02/2019) Douglas, J., Building Adaptation, London, Butterworth-Heinemann Publishing, 2002 Dutch Amsterdam, Amstel Botel: Floating Hotel in Amsterdam, [website], [no date], Available at http://www.dutchamsterdam.nl/255-amstel-botel-floatinghotel-amsterdam (Accessed 24/02/2019) Faralda Crane Hotel, [no date], Available at http://faralda.com/wp-content/ uploads/2015/09/Facts-and-Figures-English-7-Long-.pdf (Accessed 24/02/2019) Gemeente Amsterdam North, Investeringsbesluit NDSM-werf, 2012, p.25

Gimson, M., ‘Everybody’s Doing It’, in N.Wates and C.Wolmar (eds.), Squatting: The Real Story, London, Bay Leaf Books, 1980 Gimson, M., Lwin, C., and Wates, N., ‘Squatting: The Fourth Arm of Housing?’, Architectural Design, April 1976 Goodchild, S., ‘King’s Cross Vice Defies the Camera’, The Independent, 1999, Available at https://www.independent.co.uk/news/kings-cross-vice-defiesthe-cameras-1114232.html (Accessed 06/02/2019) Havik, K., ‘Monotony and diversity along the banks of the IJ’, OASE 73 Gentrification, Avidar, P., Havik, K., and David, Mulder (Eds.), Rotterdam, NAI, 2007 Hearn, F., Ideas that Shaped Buildings, Massachusetts, The MIT Press Het Parool, ‘Nieuw IRT Ontmantelt Gewelddadige Drugsbende’, Het Parool, 1994. Historic Naval Ships Association, HNLMS Mahu, [website], 2015, Available at https://www.hnsa.org/hnsa-ships/hnlms-mahu (Accessed 24/02/2019) Hoare Lea, Hoare Lea & Gasholders London, Available at https://hoarelea. com/app/uploads/2018/11/HL-Gas-Triplet-Hero-Story-WEB.pdf (Accessed 23/02/19) Hoogland, A., Once Something is Finished It Becomes Dull, [interviewed by Archmap.lt], [no date], Available at http://archmap.lt/en/articles/lietuviuuzbaigti-dalykai-tampa-nuobodus (Accessed 24/02/2019) Hyde Park Now, Coal Drops Yard: A Critique, [blog], 2018, Available at https:// www.hydeparknow.uk/2018/10/28/coal-drops-yard-a-critique/ (Accessed 24/02/2018) Iemma, K., ‘Squatting as Adaptive Reuse’, AMST 2666: Repair: Museums,

Material, and Metaphor [Web Blog], 21 March 2018, Available at https://blogs. brown.edu/amst-2666-s01-2018-spring/2018/03/21/squatting-as-adaptivereuse/ (Accessed 22/02/2018) Jannievinke, NDSM Scheepsbouwloods, Dynamo Architecten, [website], 2012, Available at http://learningfrommultifunk.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/ndsmscheepsbouwloods (Accessed 21/02/2019) Jo Allen Gause and others, New Uses for Obsolete Buildings, Washington, Urban Land Institute, 1996, v. Kapitein Anna, History, [website], [no date], Available at https://www. kapiteinanna.nl/about-kapitein-anna/history-kapitein-anna (Accessed 24/02/2019) Kenny, J., Squaring the Circle at King’s Cross, Construction Manager, 2016, Available at http://www.constructionmanagermagazine.com/onsite/ squarin6g-cir4cle-ki5ngs-cross/ (Accessed 24/02/2018) Kinetisch Noord, Projectvoorstel NDSM-terrein Amsterdam-Noord, 1999 Klerk, E., An Artist’s Kiss, [website], [no date], Available at http://www. evadeklerk.com/en/boekmanlezing/ (Accessed 04/02/2019) Klerk, E., Guild of Industrial Buildings Along the River IJ, [website], [no date], Available at http://www.evadeklerk.com/en/het-gilde-van-werkgebouwenaan-het-ij/ (Accessed 20/02/2019) Kurt, Converted Crane: 150-foot-tall Dutch Hotel Spins in the Wind, 2015, Available at https://weburbanist.com/2015/02/19/converted-crane-hotel-150foot-tall-resort-spins-in-the-wind/ (Accessed 24/02/2018) Latham, D., Creative Reuse of Buildings (Volume 1 & 2), Shaftesbury, Donhead Publishing Ltd, 2000 Moore, R., Thomas Heatherwick’s Coal Drops Yard – shopping in the Instagram

age’, The Guardian, 2018 NDSM.nl, Helling-X, [website], [no date], Available at http://www.ndsm.nl/ location/helling-x/ (Accessed 24/02/2018) O’Sullivan, F, King’s Cross – London’s Changing Landscape in Microcosm, CityLab, 2015, Available at https://www.citylab.com/equity/2015/10/kingscrosslondons-changing-landscape-in-microcosm/410668 (Accessed 24/02/2019) Pollux Pacific, [website], [no date], Available at http://polluxpacific.nl/en (Accessed 24/02/2019) Richards, J., The Functional Tradition in Early Industrial Buildings, London, The Architectural Press, 1958 Robiglio, M., ‘The Adaptive Reuse Toolkit: How Cities Can Turn Their Industrial Legacy into Infrastructure for Innovation and Growth’, GMF Urban and Regional Policy Paper, no.38, 2016 SID Studio, Faralda NDSM Crane Hotel, [no date], Available at http://www. sidstudio.nl/projecten-pages/p0025-hensenkraan.html (Accessed 24/02/2019) Spatial Agency, Squatting, [website], [no date], Available at http://www. spatialagency.net/database/squatting (Accessed 20/02/2019) Stealth Group, Unconventional Coalitions in Amsterdam Noord, 2003, Available at: http://www.stealth.ultd.net/stealth/projects/03_amsterdamnoord.tmp/ download/book_1.pdf (Accessed 09/12/2018) Stichting Kinetisch Noord, Kunststad NDSM-Werf: Projectverslag IPSV 2240, 2006 UK Government, Squatting and the Law, [website], [no date], Available at https://www.gov.uk/squatting-law (Accessed 20/02/2019)

Unceta, P., Nederlandsche Dok En Scheepbouw Company (NDSM) Amsterdam (the Netherlands): A Critical Evaluation of the Role of Strategic Spatial Planning in Its Development, 2018 Urban Land Institute, ‘King’s Cross Case Study’, ULI Case Studies, 2014, Available at http://casestudies.sandbox.uli.org/wp-content/uploads/ sites/98/2016/01/kingscross_16pgs_v11.pdf (Accessed 21/01/2019) Vasagar, J., ‘Public spaces in Britain’s cities fall into private hands’, The Guardian, 2012, Available at https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/jun/11/ granary-square-privately-owned-public-space, (Accessed 24/02/2019) Wong, L., Adaptive Reuse: Extending the Lives of Buildings, Basel, Birkhauser, 2017 Zucconi, G. and Giovannoni, G., ‘A Theory and A Practice of Urban Conservation’, Change Over Time, Vol.4, No.1, Spring 2014 Image Reference Fig. 1 Hellman, S., View from the blast furnace to the most impressive part of the Landschaftspark Duisburg-Nord, Available at https://www.ruhrgebietindustriekultur.de/images/landschaftspark-nord15.jpg (Accessed 25/02/2019) Fig. 2 Stiftung Zollverein Editorial Team, Zollverein UNESCO World Heritage Site: The Cultural Heart of The Ruhr Area, Essen, Stiftung Zollverein, [no date], p.2 Fig. 3 NDSM 1962, Available at http://www.ndsm-werfmuseum.nl/wp-content/ uploads/1962.jpg Fig. 4 King’s Cross Conservation Area, ARUP, King’s Cross Central: Supporting Statement for a Listed Building Consent Application to Dismantle Gas Holder No.8 so as to relocate and re-erect its guide frame and a Conservation Area Consent Application to demolish the Western Goods Shed, 2004, p8.,

Available at https://www.kingscross.co.uk/media/20-21-Sup-State-GH8WGS. pdf (Accessed 24/02/2019) Fig. 5 Stichting Kinetisch Noord, De legendarische locatietheater voorstelling Noordwester Wals van Dogtroep uit 1995, p.11 Available at https://www. ndsm.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NDSM_Artistiekplan2017-2020_NL4-1. pdf (Accessed 24/02/2019) Fig. 6 Available at https://images.fd.nl/Bfc6P7VCqmjKb1G0AEBenac3TYA. jpg?auto=format&w=564&q=45 (Accessed 24/02/2019) Fig,.7: Naki, DJ Booth at the Cross, [no date] Available at https://48cdp72nsn98y4xzwvlsdhp1-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/ uploads/sites/13/2013/07/DJ-booth-at-The-Cross-300x194.jpg (Accessed 24/02/2019) Fig. 8: Kihl, T., Bagley’s Main Dancefloor, 2015, Available at https://www. gasholder.london/2015/07/17/amazing-photos-inside-bagleys-nightclub-2015/ (Accessed 24/02/2019) Fig. 9: NDSM 1965 Available at https://www.ndsm-werfmuseum.nl/de-werven/ ndsm (Accessed 24/02/2019) Fig. 10: Stealth Group, NDSM Organogram, Unconventional Coalitions in Amsterdam Noord, 2003, p.45 Fig. 11: Amsterdam City Council, Valuable Cultural-Historical Elements, NDSM-werf Oost Ontwerp-bestemmingsplan, (no date), p.65 Fig. 12: King’s Cross, (no title), (no date). Available at https://www.kingscross. co.uk/history-kings-cross-area (Accessed 24/02/2019) Fig. 13: PPIAF, Stakeholders & Partnerships in the Redevelopment Scheme around King’s Cross, Railway Reform: Toolkit for Improving Rail Sector

Performance, (no date) p.457 Fig. 14: ARUP, Conservation Area & Heritage Buildings, Supporting Statement for a Listed Building Consent Application to dismantle Gas Holder No.8 so as to relocate and re-erect its guide frame and aConservation Area Consent Application to demolish the Western Goods Shed, p.17 Fig. 15: Amsterdam Town Council, Plankaart Investeringsbesluit NDSMwerf, Investeringbesluit NDSM-werf , 2012, p.4 Fig. 16: Argent Property Development Services, Redevelopment Schemes of the King’s Cross Opportunity Area, Railway Reform: Toolkit for Improving Rail Sector Performance, p.455 Fig. 17: Stealth Group, NDSM Organogram Unconventional Coalitions in Amsterdam Noord, 2003, p.55 Fig. 18 - 21, 22, 24, 26, 28 - 31, 33: By Author Fig. 23: Plowman Craven, Property Coal Drops Yard London 15, (no date) Available at https://www.plowmancraven.co.uk/projects/kings-cross-coaldrops-yard/Accessed 02/02/2019) Fig. 25: Harry Marmot, Hensen crane at the NDSM wharf, 2013. Available at https://www.flickr.com/photos/harrymarmot/5388522666/in/set72157631901851815 (Accessed 18/02/2019) Fig. 27: SquareMileHealthWalks, St. Pancras Gasholders, 2017. Available at https://squaremilehealthwalks.wordpress.com/2017/08/20/st-pancrasgasholders/ (Accessed 20/02/2019) Fig. 32: IAmsterdam, Kranspoor, (no date). Available at https://www. iamsterdam.com/en/amsterdam-qr/north/het-kraanspoor (Accessed 24/02/2019)

Adaptive Reuse in Post-Industrial Urban Regeneration

Articles inside

4. MAsterplAns

5. reuse And developMents

3. ups-And-downs

2. In-ApproprIAte-Ion

1. IntroductIon