Methodology

Our research of this case study is mainly based on qualitative methods. Throughout the research process we investigated multiple sources from different time periods to create a wide view of its context, this varies from: basic information about the Kasbah and its original design, the current situation of the people involved in the Kasbah and various types of information related to the future development of the Kasbah. To ensure a certain depth within the research, we made use of a split-point method of analysis to gain insight into the various elements of the building. These were based around the following elements: the social context and background, the architectural design, the public space, the urban context and the structure.

To ensure that all information was synchronised and efficient, it was important to create a central working space where all information could be archived and combined. Miro board and Google Drive gave us the option to create this central working space, which served as a basis throughout the entire research. Miro board‘s support for various flow charts also allowed us to organise the articles more quickly and link them to multiple elements within the research. By implying this intervening way of researching, it should ensure that all parts can be connected to create a wide and deeper conclusive view of this case study. To present our research in a comprehensive manner and also visually implement the temporality subject, we have chosen a video approach as a way of comparison and analysis. In that way we can visually represent the past situation and compare it to the current situation, also enabling the possibility to envision the Kasbah and its possible future development. By using an old interview with Blom and past footage of the Kasbah we were able to create an image of his original views and intentions. During the site visit we were able to recreate some of the same standpoint from that original footage, in that way a direct comparison between the two time periods was clearly visible.

Some research methods are more suitable for a certain time period than others, by that fact our ways of researching can be divided into these different time zones. More precisely described below: Basic information about the Kasbah (past) experienced the Kasbah on a daily basis and in what ways it changed over time, what would they improve to the buildings and its general context, in what ways did Blom succeed and what went wrong, and so forth. This gave us a wide view of how the neighbourhood was experienced by its residents, quite important from an insider point of view rather than general information that was available on the internet.

For the past time period we made use of Piet Blom’s design drawings and vision drawings, interviews with the Piet Blom at that time and obtained information from the museum volunteers about Blom and his visions on different subjects. This has enabled us to understand, as precisely as possible, the various elements of the buildings and the reasons why the architect designed it the way he did. At the same time, in order to gain a better understanding of the context of the design, we compared the architecture and design concepts of Piet Blom during different time zones. For a wider view to the general context, we looked at the development of structuralism and other related theories of architectural projects.

Future development Elements of the Kasbah(future)

While envisioning the future of the Kasbah, after the point analysis, we extracted some key elements and grouped them into five categories: City position, Expectation, Personal ideas, Architectural layers and Site. We hope to explore the future possibilities of the Kasbah by using them as a tool box and then changing the elements, allowing us to investigate possible future reassemblies.

Current status of the Kasbah (present)

In order to understand the current state of the Kasbah, we went to the site to take photographs and videos of the buildings and the way people live. For a deeper understanding of its context we interviewed different people such as one of the residents and the volunteers, who worked in the Piet Blom museum, about their views on the Kasbah. Mainly focussing on how they

Blom and Society: a Derivation

Blom and the Architectural Debate

Who is Piet Blom?

The Dutch Architect, Piet Blom is nowadays known for his unusual housing complexes, with very unique formal expression and a strong focus on the connection between the public and private sphere. His architectural approach is deeply rooted in his views on society and its role within the built environment. To get a better understanding of how this architect came to his very unique views, it is necessary to look at where he came from.

Born on the 8th of February 1934, Blom grew up in the district Jordaan in Amsterdam. The district was considered problematic or even a slum in Amsterdam at that time. When describing his childhood, he draws a very vivid image of the streets of his youth. Almost all residents held animals that time. The people in the district were very dependent on each other. Small businesses and the close relationships of the people shaped the character Jordaan.

Neglecting the functioning public space because it was seen as poor peoples district with many issues, the city Amsterdam consecutively began with the gentrification of Jordaan. Especially the destruction of old buildings for new housing projects or the renovation of houses, led to a complete change of atmosphere in the district. For Blom the gentrification of Jordaan was the crucial point for his critique towards the politics of urban planning. To clean up the slums, is nothing else than to clean up the community within them or to subjugate them to aesthetics. By cleaning up district of its characteristics and separating housing and living, society was led to create living environments with the only purpose of senseless isolated existence.

Temporalities as crucial factor of architecture was always a concern of Blom regarding his work. The image of his neighbourhood changing dramatically over time had a big impact on Bloms view on how living surroundings should be designed, which becomes very clear in the following quote:

„What ages gain humanity, so do houses and environments. But to grow older and more human in process, houses, their surroundings and their occupants must have core of vitality within them.“3 text. With this position Blom was a strong counterpart to some other architectural thinkers during that period. Especially in comparison to architects like Oswald Mathias Ungers, with his focus on the historic role of buildings within city, interesting comparisons can be made and a lot of differences and similarities can be found.

For Blom spatial planning was clearly a fourth dimensional task, with time as the fourth factor or dimension. Considering time as a basis for the public sphere, Blom intended to create spaces for the uncertain within an adaptable framework allowing change to happen over time. With this position Blom was close to his colleagues of Dutch structuralism, who all saw the collective space as a crucial starting point for each architectural design. Just as the public sphere was very much connected for Blom it was also for his Dutch colleague Hertzberger. For him it was necessary to “keep striving with architectural and urbanistic means to uphold the openness of the private bastions and the continuity of the street so that the collective doesn’t get reduced in consolidating the private”.4 It is this very continuity of the public and the private that was typical for the structuralist way of organizing space. Whether it was a city or a building complex, the image of the continuous flow in a streetscape was always a direct reference for most structuralist architects.

Blom and him once took part in the same competition for student housing complex in Enschede. As Ungers states about his competition entry: “The plan reassembles quasi miniaturized city with components and elements recollected from actual city plans.”

Within this quote some interesting connections between these both architects can be made. Whilst both take city as reference for the design of the space in the complex, the conclusions made are very different. Places and streets are one inspirational factor for the architects, yet Blom stays within this field of the public space itself. For Ungers in comparison the city consists of another important factor, which is the historic component of the architectural surroundings. He reassembles “prototypical parts and set pieces” always using the archetypal character to create references to known public spheres. By using historic references Ungers shows a way back in history to places, projecting them into the future and herein “relating the present to continuum of collective memories” In comparison Blom does not use historical elements in the way of using them as archetypical references towards certain collective past. It was a new society he envisioned and therefore new architectural language had to be found.

Blom in Framerates new dimension became visible in Bloms understanding of the relation between the public realm and the dimension of time. Kids playing on the street and people working in front of their stores on the streets; it was the artificial character of the original footage in comparison to the empty space in our video that uncovered big gap of his vision to today‘s reality. For me personally the parallels to footage of the Jordaan became just as obvious as the thought of Bloms misconception of future society regarding the empty public space at the Kasbah nowadays. Instead of a vivid neighbourhood, all we found were cars parked underneath the structure. It was this very image that brought back this quote back to me that is from Blom himself:

„Living was separated from life, from struggles and from everything why and for what one lives. [...] Just to live for the sake of being, in senseless isolation?“

Conclusion public space at the Kasbah today. Where Blom imagined children playing and small gardens to be worked on, nowadays most space is used for parking. The collective character of the Kasbah seemingly has changed a lot or was it staged from the beginning?

Regarding the current status of the Kasbah today, it becomes more and more obvious that Bloms vision of future society was a rather utopian one. Todays society can therefore only be seen as distorted version of what Blom imagined. The development of our way of living towards a very private and individual housing was something Blom clearly wanted to prevent. A functioning society for him was based upon collectivity and the vividness of using space together as a community. If it was mostly Bloms fault in envisioning a different future is to be questioned. The following essays will investigate various aspects of this paticular case study leading from descriptive passages to possible futures of the Kasbah and can be seen as a search for the layers of possibility underneath the Kasbahs reality nowadays.

The collective for Blom was the active part in architecture moving through time and space and therefore creating history. His buildings were always meant to play the part of a changeable surrounding instead of becoming a historic con-

But did this new society take form as Blom imagined it? An investigation had to made. By using the methodology of comparative screens as a presentational technique for the case study of the Kasbah [Fig. 1],

Through the site visit, the comparative movie frames and the research on the opposing position of Oswald Mathias Ungers and his historical understanding of architecture, Bloms thinking regarding architecture, society and time can be understood more precisely. His vision of society within architecture for me seems fueled by nostalgia to his childhood neighborhood. Blom visioned a future that was more collective and therefore this aspect should also be seen within the public spaces. The buildings and their urban surroundings should be able to change in time, to be adaptable. For Blom it was never just a surrounding that was historic, it was always society itself that played the role of creator of history. The only purpose of the built environment is to leave enough space for society to evolve with all its uncertain encounters and happenings. This was the true purpose of architecture for Blom.

That Bloms image of a future society was rather an utopian one can be easily seen in the frames in the film [Fig.1] of the

The Importance of Context

Introduction of the Kasbah‘s context not the response of the building to the site during/before the design period, but the adaptability of the building to the development of its surroundings, which is also an expression of temporality. Therefore, I hope to select two structuralist buildings of similar scale, such as Cube House and the Kasbah for comparison, and discuss the impact of different contexts on whether the building can be used well over time. of the building to the site during/before the design period, but the adaptability of the building to the development of its surroundings, which is also an expression of temporality.

The Kasbah is located at the border area of Hengelo, a part of the city which is poorly served by cars and bike paths and with little public transportation. The surrounding buildings are all residential houses of the same time period, with a mix of social and commercial houses. At the same time, the buildings are surrounded by a natural environment with large amount of grass and small rivers.

What is visible from the surrounding texture of the Kasbah and the personal data of the architect, is the fact that the Kasbah didn’t correspond to the current surrounding texture in graphic sense and in the traditional design sense; which refers to those echoes such as the orientation of the building, the surrounding landmarks and so on.

Comparison about the Context of the Kasbah and the Cube Houses

Fig. 2.2

Table by the Author, Surrounding Context Comparison, Maps retrieved from: https://www. google.de/maps

Comparison of the outside Context

u d n a o - u e H u u d n a o -D s h u H u D s h architectural space of the Cube House and the Kasbah in this way. This should help to understand the order of the site and the relationship between the site and the people.

Site-level:

Outside...Connecting to the outside y e o o n B d -C e Ho e o n B d -D a a

Courtyard...Piazza b o e n n y e mp e e n b d w n mp n n g h u d n m e d h p e u n c e h m e n e e o v a e a e y e w o h u h e c n g h m

The Connection of Context & Time

The freedom which is provided by the design of the neighbourhood, makes sure that its residents have multiple ways to interact with each other when they participate. For example, during the field research, the residents told us that they organise a market at the ground floor public space on the first Saturday of every month. The concept of „Living as Urban Roof„ gives them the potential to increase public activity in the future, but because of the site, it is not possible to be as dynamic at Hengelo as the Cube House at Rotterdam. So the context is perhaps

After comparing the urban context from both locations, transportation and surrounding buildings, it becomes clear that there are major differences. Although the Cube House and the Kasbah are buildings of the same scale and concept and are designed by the same architect, the difference in location makes it possible for the people who have a relationship with the building and to have activities that can be generated in the building have all changed. If we are going to envision the future of the Kasbah, then the location of the building in the urban context should play a part in the consideration.

Definition of Urban Space

When thinking about how to study the internal texture of the building, referred to Van Eyck’s concept of „City is House and House is City„ and the attention given to in-between spaces in structuralist architecture (often setting up spaces similar to urban squares, streets, etc.). Therefore, hope to also divide the v a e a e y b e w o p e b e o g h o d u g o D a h a v s mp e n o d h e d b d n h me a e h ow m me om h u o n g n n n e h a o ow h a d m - o u p e v n

O e u d o a C u y

Transition Space...Street

Corridor...Small streets and squares

Interior...Units with strong links

Conclusion: After comparing the internal texture of the building, it can be found that there are still subtle changes in the spatial hierarchy of the Cube House and the Kasbah. For example: a p n- u H u a p n- e K b h

1. Spatial homogenization: Although all buildings are composed from the same units, some large and small atriums are consciously set aside, but the atrium distribution of the cube house is more directional.

T p e n n e a u u e H u s w v e h e a o p a d d e y p o h h u u H u n n e n g ow o o o d n o v m omm c o C b o e h e a k o p n o a o u d D s h n e o n o wh h e e c o a n o n w h h d e o d C o e o n

2. External boundary: The Cube House is more organized than the external boundary left by the Kasbah. The boundaries of small blocks combined to leave large square, which is more suitable for the Kasbah‘s small and regular boundary changes. Staying in the space, so that various activities occur to attract the flow of people. At the same time, in terms of function, most of the functions are placed on the boundary of the building complex (that is, the edge of the overpass).

These subtle differences have brought me a lot of ideas. For example, when the managers of the Kasbah want to increase the commercial activities of the ground floor space, they can choose the border area of the building complex to set up commercial functions; or the residents may choose to have activities in the high-rise area of the Kasbah ground floor, and more functions that do not require high spatial experience (such as chicken breeding) are placed in the low-level area. At the same time, people can also choose the large lawn outside the building for many interesting activities. (In fact, now they will hold some parties on the lawn, which is as vibrant as the square outside the cube house.)

Perhaps with the change of time, the Kasbah will have various changes due to the people in it, and the spatial ambiguity gives it enough room for change. It may not be the roof of the city, but just to become the roof of this area, there is enough fun dancing with time.

3. Space publicity: Although both can have five levels of space, the transition space of the Cube House will be more public. (The Cube House unit enters from the first floor, and the corridor space is shrunk in one vertical tube so that the space of the transition space is kept connected to the greatest extent. The unit of the Kasbah enters from the ground floor and the corridor space is very narrow and long, which makes the transition space more depressive and often interrupted.