2. In-ApproprIAte-Ion

The 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.

Perhaps the latter term, ‘reuse’ in a 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.

In 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 properties12. Empty properties 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)

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

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

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

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

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

18 Ibid.

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

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 King’s Cross Central is a private development from start to end. How do these two models of urban regeneration differ?

ndsM AMsterdAM

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

The city municipality of Amsterdam North held a design elaborated proposal that included the business plan, architectural redesign 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 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 “Kunststad” 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, Nike’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 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

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, with so many parties involved – individual artists, collectives, foundations with their own boards, associations, youth initiatives, the SKN board itself and the council,

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.

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’scrosslondon

Fig. 12 Old Map of King’s Cross.

Before 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 .