amsterdamn, netherlands
de waterwijk gwl-terrein
a 2019 case study by: Jorge Zapata Ariel Quintana Josiah Lindquist
introduction This case study explores the redevelopment of a former municipal waterboard terrain into a car-free, environmentally-friendly residential area in the Westerpark neighborhood of West Amsterdam (See pg. 10). Between 1851 and 1994, this site provided drinking water for the City of Amsterdam, pumping water from the Kennemerduinen dunes to a fountain at the Willemspoort city gate where residents could buy pales of water for one cent. With increased demand, a pumping station was built on site at the turn of the century, allowing water to reach into multi-story homes, but after 80 years of use, the pumping station became obsolete. A new station was planned at a separate location, leaving behind a vacant space for ideal for 600 dwellings. In 1994, the Amsterdam city council decided to zone the site for housing and so began the residential chapter of Gemeente Water Leiding (GWL) Terrein, retaining the name given by the municipality of Amsterdam after taking control of the company which operated the station.
2
Photograph: Jan Bitter
3
06 08 10 06
history
How did the project come about?
vision
08
What were the goals of the project? For whom was the project intended?
10
maps
Macro-Context Location The Project Street Network Figure-Ground Public Amenities Massing Strategy
4
24 29 30 24
29
30
current
children
diagnosis
Is it being used as intended?
How do the children use the neighborhood to get to school?
Successes and failures?
What changes have taken place? Is their community organization
Lessons for future settlements?
How do children use the play areas?
How is the space used? What facilities are used? Mobility, walking patterns, and place of work? Evidence of household income, satisfaction?
5
1.
history How did the project come about? The GWL Terrain project began in 1989 with a vision to transform a formerly municipal water company site into a car-free, sustainable residential community. In 1989, local activists began the effort to transform the area by first lobbying the Amsterdam city council for a zoning change to allow residential use at the site. Local companies would have benefited from industrial use, but the activists gained the necessary support from the city council to change the zoning in their favor. Upon the request of local residents, the Westerpark Urban District conducted an investigation into whether a car-free, eco-district at the GWL site would be feasible. The findings of this investigation were shared with and supported by the local community center, residents, and politicians. Surveys were conducted to gain insights into local residents’ perceptions of the potential GWL project. Of the roughly 3000 responses, 50% indicated that they would choose to live in the new car-free eco-neighborhood. This positive response propelled the project into the financing stage. Private developers did not believe that an environmentally-focused development would provide lucrative profits, so five housing cooperatives decided to collaborate on developing the site. In early 1994, these housing cooperatives established a partnership through the formation of the ‘Ecoplan Foundation’, created to oversee and fund the project. Next, architects were selected, and though lacking prior experience in environmental design, instead were selected for their propensity toward innovation. The architects split into working teams with future residents to address varying aspects of the development. Construction of the 600 homes on the six-hectare plot began in 1994 and was completed by 1998.
6
1: www.iamsterdam.com 2: www.iamsterdam.com 3: www.gwl-terrein.nl
3.
2.
7
vision What were the goals of the project? The goal of the GWL Terrein project was to create an environmentally responsible, car-free neighborhood with a cohesive community feel. The community had an environmental mission that focused on sustainable materials, reduction in energy and water use, and efficient waste collection. Energy savings were obtained by collecting solar energy through the northsouth orientation of buildings and most notably through a cogeneration plant, which heats homes with the excess heat generated from energy production. An innovative ‘greywater collection system’ designed to keep rainwater out of the sewer system and also provide water for flushing toilets contributes to reduced water use. GWL was also one of the first districts to have waste collected underground with recyclables separated by type. Moreover, a car-free lifestyle was made possible
"
through the provision of public transportation access, reduced parking, and a bike/ped-friendly design. GWL Terrein’s community focus was apparent in the design of the community center and public green spaces to encourage public interaction. Green space designs also included private allotments for which local resents are responsible, contributing to a sense of accountability and pride. For whom was the project intended? The project was intended for residents from neighboring districts, and they had preference during the application process. Additionally, half of the units were set aside as social housing, while the other half were for sale. Of the units up for sale, two-thirds were dedicated as grant-aided owner-occupied units.
"We want to create a car-free and eco-friendly project. Would you be interested in participating?"
8
Photograph: Aerodata National Surveys
-Ad posted in a local newspaper by local residents to generate interest in the project.
9
maps Macro-context
GWL Terrain is located in the Netherlands, a country in northwestern Europe known for its extensive practices in urban design, topography and hydrology management.
10
11
location City of Amsterdam
GWL
12
Terrein
13
the project Building footprint
14
15
street network GWL emphasizes pedestrian flow
16
17
figure-ground built morphology - open space relation
18
19
public amenities integrate the community by pedestrian connections
20
21
massing strategy Open space definition and relation with the grid H = HISTORIC
H H H
H
22
H
23
current conditions Is it being used as intended? The community continues to foster a resident environment that focuses on both social and environmental sustainability. To this day, the physical character has been well maintained and all 600 residential units are still in use. The eco-sustainable foundation on which it was built continues to improve with the help of motivated residents and neighborhood management. What changes have taken place? The city established a solar energy cooperative with the goal of making each resident a member, subsidizing the cheap purchase and installation of solar panels on building roofs. Each panel costs 125€ and residents receive reimbursement for the energy they produce. At maximum utilization, the model estimates solar panels would pay for themselves in four years and provide: (1) cheaper electricity for residents and (2) profit after the upfront cost was paid off. In addition, electric car charging stations have been added to their already-limited supply of parking space on the city peripheries. Is their a community organization? With the information gathered from GWL’s newsletter, there appears to be strong resident participation in collective services. They developed a unifying, umbrella organization “Koepelvereniging” to ensure the intentions of the development stay alive. The community put extra emphasis on two key areas: (1) social sustainability and community cohesion, and (2) environmental goals. They often do, however, merge the two, organizing four “livability consultations” per year to discuss safety and maintenance issues and to share general concerns as well as two “DIY Days” 24
per year to collectively improve the community (i.e. fixing fences, planting vegetation for bees, cleaning the river, repairing trees).
"
Together we ensure a nice, safe and sustainable living environment, where we know and meet each other, roll up our sleeves for maintenance, use specific competencies for the living environment, share ideas and concerns and solve them”
- newsletter from 2019
This type of organization is key for future planned towns looking to design communities with environmental and social sustainability at the forefront. How is the space used? What facilities are used? The space is almost purely residential, though it hosts a handful of cafes, including the Grand Café Amsterdam housed inside the old machine pump building, a community center, a church, and several other repurposed historical buildings. The neighborhood is ideal for housing families, with options to both rent and buy. It has numerous outdoor
1: www.rainproof.nl 2: Jan Bitter Floorplan: www.funda.nl
1.
2.
25
public spaces that are open to residents of adjacent neighborhoods. It forms a barrier between the Staatslieden blocks’ traditional housing and business and industry to the west.
closest supermarket is less than 0.5 km away.
Mobility, walking patterns, and place of work?
Housing in Amsterdam is a civil right, though there’s currently a 14-year waitlist for those looking for subsidized housing. Their social housing model adjusts to one’s income—so long as residents fall within a certain threshold. This makes collectively defining the income of GWL’s residents a challenge as some pay full price, some extremely reduced rates, while some fall in the middle. The most recent housing data available online comes from real estate web listings for two separate condos. Both listings included 2 bedrooms (3 rooms) 1.5 bathrooms on around 850 square feet for 400,000€. The average cost per square foot in GWL is around 483.09 €/sq foot, compared to 697.37€/ft2 inside the city center and 460.94€/ft2 outside the city center. There is little turnover in the community due to in part to the desirable location and the high rate of satisfaction. According to the neighborhood association, the most common situation for housing turnover occurs when families with two or more children outgrow the space or would like a house with a private garden. The GWL official website and real estate descriptions noted that turnover was much less in GWL as compared to the rest of Amsterdam. As for resident satisfaction, the newsletter portrays a high level of social cohesion and describes GWL as a “village in the city where residents enjoy living”.
GWL is a dense area, containing 600 residential units on 29,000 square meters (100 dwellings per hectare). Since it is car-free, GWL residents rely heavily on walking and biking to move throughout and to the city’s edge. Once on the perimeter of the city, there are four bus stops and a tram station as well as limited street parking spots shared among the entire resident population. There are a mere 0.2 parking spaces allocated for each residential unit, standing in sharp contrast to the 2.3 to 3 spaces per unit in the surrounding city of Amsterdam. (See Fig. 1) The city of Amsterdam is already famous for its bike networks and a high share of bike users, though they still pale in comparison to GWL residents’ travel patterns. Car trips take up only 6% of the total share, and there are only 190 cars per 1,000 residents (370 per 1,000 residents in Amsterdam) and bicycles outnumber people at 1,300 per 1,000 (730 per 1,000 in Amsterdam). (See Fig. 1) The neighborhood itself lacks some public services and necessities (i.e. supermarket, health center), but almost everything can be reached on foot in less than ten minutes. The
1.
26
Evidence of household income, satisfaction, turnover?
2.
Mode of travel for residents as compared to surrounding area 100%
80%
car
percent of trips
public transport 60%
bicycle wallk/cycle
40%
20%
0% GWL Terrein (2001)
3.
GWL Terrein (2010)
Amsterdam West (2000)
Amsterdam West (2008)
Amsterdam Amsterdam (2000) (2008)
Importance of various factors on GWL resident decision not to own a car
bike makes car superfluous public transit makes car superfluous environmental reasons healthier lifestyle too expensive difficult to find parking near residence 12 not important
4.
34
very impor tant
Mode of travel to work 100% car 80%
public transport bicycle walking
60%
40%
20%
0% GWL Terrein (2010)
Amsterdam (2008)
Graph 1: City of Amsterdam, ITDP Europe; Graph 2: City of Amsterdam ITDP Europe, Scheurer 2001; Graph 3: ITDP Europe; Graph 4: City of Amsterdam, ITDP Europe
27
"
“If I look at the Eco district now, then I think the bond is greater at ground level. Children playing in the street binds more than architecture"
28
children How do the children use theneighborhood to get to school? Two grammar schools and kindergartens are located less than 1 km away from GWL Terrein. The schools are roughly an 8-minute walk heading eastbound from the neighborhood. There are also three childcare centers within the community. How do children use the play areas? Children's’ play areas are located in the southern area of the site, protected from the street. Parents have described these spots as places where children can safely play near their homes. In the photo to the left, children are playing on a sports court near the water tower. Children also use non-formal areas for play, such as the walls in the city, though measures have been adopted to prevent misuses, protecting both the children and the bushes. The community organizes soccer and football tournaments for residents of all ages. There are also sports and recreation facilities within close walking distance from the GWL Terrein.
Photograph (left): ITDP Europe Photography (up): ITDP Europe
29
diagnosis Many successes arose from this model community. One major success of this project has been the continued participation of the local residents. The idea for the car-free eco-district emerged from the residents themselves, and even in the design phase, they worked in teams with architects to facilitate the planning process. Residents were taught by the architects to read building drawings over a series of classes, further encouraging participation and engagement. Another success was the creation of a functional, car-free neighborhood. While 129 street parking spots exist on the periphery of the site, only 6% of trips by GWL residents are made by car. When surveyed, residents said that the ease of biking and public transit rather than limited parking and associated costs were more critical factors in their decisions to forego car ownership. This project also created an eco-village with innovative, environmentally-friendly architecture, that at the time lacked creative design. A focus on social housing led to a partnership of housing associations that was formed to develop the project, setting aside 50% of the units for social housing, structurally no different from the ‘for-sale’ units. This system is still in place over 20 years later and it has created a diversity of residents and a cohesive community. While the GWL experiment has certainly been laudable, some aspects have been less successful; it does, however, provide valuable criteria and principles for the design of future settlements. In cases with room for improvement, not all technological innovations withstood the test of time and new technology is difficult to implement holistically. For example, the majority of the greywater collection systems faced clogging issues and greatly impacted the efficiency of the system. Moreover, several building blocks have still not agreed to install solar panels, inhibiting the community from realizing the benefits of full implementation, though this is less a reflection 30
on the entire community as it is a reflection on a subset of the population, typically a factor that is out of the control of the community. The social housing and ownership mix also creates a situation where social housing renovations rely on the association partnership for funding, while homeowners must individually pay for any new environmental upgrades. According to neighborhood newsletters, there has been a steady decrease in community participation over time, perhaps reflecting a changing nature of the community. Finally, we recognize a limitation in that a purely residential neighborhood fails to capitalize on the potential for commercial activity. We might recommend mixed-use, retail space wraps on the ground floor of apartment buildings, of which, real estate revenue could be funneled into either the housing association to subsidize social housing or into the maintenance of the community itself. Successes: - Car-free, high bike and public transit user rates - Resident participation in project development process - Innovative, green building design Failures: - Original technologies no longer functional and difficult to integrate new ones - Recent decrease in community participation - Lack of places of employment or retail incorporated into design
1: Giesbert Nijhuis 2: DRO Vorm 3: www.rainproof.nl
1.
2.
3.
31
32
sources Carfree. (2008, February 28). GWL Terrein: a car-free neighborhood in Amsterdam. Retrieved from Carfree.fr: http://carfree. fr/index.php/2008/02/28/gwl-terrein-un-quartier-sans-voitures-aamsterdam/ funda. (2019). Waterspiegelplein 40. Retrieved from funda: https://www.funda. nl/koop/verkocht/amsterdam/appartement-86595583-waterspiegelplein-40/ GWL Terrain. (n.d.). GWL terrain: an urban eco area. Retrieved from GWL Terrain: https://gwl-terrein.nl/bezoekers/gwlterrain-an-urban-eco-area/ GWL Terrein. (2019). Newletter. Retrieved from GWL Terrein: https://gwl-terrein.nl/ nieuws GWL Terrein. (n.d.). Fact sheet 5: Maintenance, Administration and Quality of Life. Retrieved from GWL Terrein: https://gwl-terrein.nl/files/factsheets/ engels%20factsheet%205%20maintenance.pdf GWL Terrein. (n.d.). Factsheet 2: Origins and construction of the eco-district . Retrieved from GWLTerrein: https:// www.gwl-terrein.nl/files/factsheets/engels%20factsheet%202%20origins.pdf GWL Terrein. (n.d.). the GWL site: the Netherlands' first sustainable neighborhood. Retrieved from GWLTerre-
in: https://gwl-terrein.nl/bezoekers/ het-gwl-terrein/ GWL Terrein. (n.d.). urban design and architecture. Retrieved from GWL Terrein: https://gwl-terrein.nl/bezoekers/ het-gwl-terrein/stedenbouw-en-architectuur/ iamamsterdam. (n.d.). Gemeente w Terrein. Retrieved from iamamsterdam:https://www.iamsterdam.com/ en/amsterdam-qr/westerpark/gemeente-waterleiding-terrein ITDP. (2011). Europe's Vibrant New Low Car(bon) Communities. Retrieved from GWL Terrain: https://gwl-terrein.nl/files/ artikelen/low%20carbon%20communities%20GWL%20only.pdf KCAP. (n.d.). GWL-Terrein. Retrieved fromKCAP: https://www.kcap.eu/en/projects/v/gwl_terrein/ Pos, D. (2009, April 4). GWL site 10th anniversary: birth of an eco-area. Retrieved from Vimeo: https://vimeo. com/3999503 Sustainable Amsterdam. (n.d.). GWL Terrain: Amsterdam’s first car-free neighborhood. Retrieved from Sustainable Amsterdam: http://sustainableamsterdam.com/2016/02/gwl-terrain-amsterdams-first-car-free-neighborhood/
33
"
“Owing to its strong cohesion and high density, the GWL site presents itself as a single, large-scale urban element in its surroundings [. . .] residential blocks in the midst of greenery, an oasis of calm in the metropolitan chaos.� Jorge Zapata Ariel Quintana Josiah Lindquist
34