Tenureship and the expression of identity in Dutch mass house projects - Reto Egli

Type:

History Thesis

Title:

Tenureship and the expression of identity in Dutch mass housing projects

Author:

Egli RE

Summary:

Post war austerity coupled with an urgent need for affordable housing in the Netherlands led to a proliferation of medium density housing complexes, establishing much of the social housing stock that is used to the current day. Different architectural and urban ideas led to social experiments in residential developments in Dutch cities from the 1920s onwards. These ranged from responses to tackle homogeneity in public housing by proposing communal style living, for example ​ Justus Van Effenblok​ , Rotterdam, designed by Michiel Brinkman in 1922, to physical manifestations of Le Corbusier’s ​ Radiant City​ , evident in the ​ Bijlmermeer development of Amsterdam throughout the 1960s and 70s. Whilst the debate on rejuvenating such areas is prevalent in Dutch political discussions, the attention turns to the role of locally based social housing associations, that own and manage 35% of the total housing stock in the Netherlands, in urban regeneration. The decentralisation of housing associations, since the 1989 ​ Nota Heerma​ , new policy for social housing, have allowed these associations to govern themselves in response to local issues, and accordingly, they have grown financially capable of enacting urban regeneration schemes on a large scale. Alternatively, is the transition into owner­occupier sector, allocating greater responsibilities to tenants to maintain their property and conduct alterations according to their needs, the key to alleviating neglect in these derelict areas? Is there a correlation between housing tenure and the quality of the social environment? Recent examples, in particular the ​ Borneo Sporenburg development of the 2000s in Amsterdam, aim to find a middle ground between a local architectural language, enabling social cohesion, and the ability for individual households to express their identity through bespoke designs. New policy of a ‘social owner occupier’ have also emerged to share ownership between housing associations and private households, enabling the benefits of private home ownership underpinned by social welfare, particularly for first home buyers. This paper attempts to discuss the tension between collective identity, individual identity and housing tenure in the improvement of social environments by evaluating the design, and subsequent renovations, of the ​ Justus Van Effenblok​ and Bijlmermeer Complex​ , and comparing it to design strategy and procurement methods of ​ Borneo Sporenburg​ .

Keywords:

Social housing and Land use policies, Public and Private ownership, individual and collective identity

Mentor:

Cor Wagenar

Faculty:

Bouwkunde

Department:

Architecture

Programme/Section/Other:

Msc2 / AR2A010

Hand­in date:

2016­01­05

Language:

English

Comment:

Study number:

4419553

Submitter email:

r.egli@student.tudelft.nl

ABSTRACT The intention of this study is to evaluate the relationship between housing tenure, namely owner­occupier and social housing rentals, the expression of collective and/or individual identities within these forms of residential architecture, and the subsequent satisfaction of the tenants with their social environment. A history of land­use and ownership in the Netherlands will be outlined, leading to a concept of communal land ownership that is deeply rooted in history.

The background of social housing policies in the Netherlands will be discussed, from its advent in 1901 to assist the disadvantaged, reformation of social housing policies in 1989 and decentralisation of housing organisations from the governments in 1995. These policy changes over time have had, in turn, implications on the renovation and management of previous, often declining, post­war housing stock in the Netherlands.

An analysis of Justus Van Effenblok, Rotterdam, and Michiel Brinkman’s vision for a revolutionary new housing typology that tackled the monotony of many post­war apartments will be evaluated, particularly the architectural innovations that enabled this idea of ‘communal living’ that was universally praised throughout much of the 20th century. The 1960s and 70s development of Amsterdam’s Bijlmermeer, in reference to Le Corbusier’s prototype of a Radiant City, will be discussed in relation to its oppressive architectural characteristics that attracted low­income tenants, leading to crime and neglect in the area. Whilst Bijlmermeer’s demise might have been evident from the onset, the decline of Justus Van Effenblok was arguably unforeseen. Attempts to renovate and rejuvenate both complexes have been made in recent years, and debates over ‘who’ is liable for these urban renewal schemes run parallel to questions over how these complexes should be managed to prevent future degradation and how to maintain a high quality social environment for the tenants.

The concept of ‘collective identity’, propagated by agency of a municipal entity to determine and enact design changes to a housing complex as a whole, will be compared to the expression of an ‘individual identity’, the ability for individual households to alter their own living spaces. Although no explicit correlation can be made between ‘collective identity’ and the prevalence of housing associations, and ‘individual identity’ and private ownership, certain conditions of home ownership will be outlined in relationship to what liberties the owner has.

INTRODUCTION

4

1.0 A history of communal land use in the Netherland

5

1.1 History of land use policy in the Netherlands

5

1.2 History of social housing policy

9

1.3 Defining an ideal socio­spatial residential environment

8

2.0 Benefits and Shortcomings of Housing Associations

10

2.1 Justus van Effenblok

10

2.2 Expression of collective Identity

11

3.0 Social housing in postwar period

12

3.1 Kleiburgflat renovations

13

3.2 Expression of individual Identity

14

3.3 Influence of a shift from public to private ownership

14

4.0 Demand for a collective of private­ public landownership

15

​ 4.1 Borneo­ Sporenburg Design

16

4.2 Co­ design and ‘social owner occupier’ as hybrid approaches

17

CONCLUSION

19

BIBLIOGRAPHY

20

ILLUSTRATIONS

22

INTRODUCTION

With 35% of the total housing stock owned by housing associations, the Netherlands has the highest percentage of its population living in social housing in Europe.1 Accordingly, social housing does not only target the low income groups, but a huge diversity in terms of rent levels and types of homes. “People from all walks of life rent social dwellings”.2 In 1902, the introduction of new land use policies established a top down regime for the development of the towns, culminating in the bestemmingsplan​ nen (municipal masterplans), that enabled local authorities to enact strict zoning plans and dispossess land from residents in adherence.

Not dissimilar to the communal land use policies already prevalent in Dutch history, this communal approach favours the ‘collective’ over the ‘individual’. The proliferation of mass housing schemes that provided few opportunities for tenant’s creative input was exacerbated by the urgency of low cost post­war housing and the continued growth of social housing associations throughout the 20th century. During the post and inter war periods, the Netherlands was faced with a shortage of housing stock and the population boom, culminating in functionalism as the main driver for architectural design. An ideal socio­spatial environment could be defined through a historic lense, namely the core ideas embodied in the land use policies and the housing associations that remained of great importance throughout the twentieth century. On a neighbourhood scale, social equality, social efficiency and neighbourhood improvement can be defined as the key pillars to ensuring an ideal residential circumstance. Individually however, whilst home ownership is not readily available to all households, the imperative to express an individual identity is essential in tenant satisfaction. How can different types of ownership impact this ideal socio­spatial quality on both levels? The focus will be set on the extreme situations; first: the dominance of public ownership that reached its peak in the first half of the twentieth century and second: the transition into private ownership as a triggered response, in order to clarify whether a hybrid approach might be needed.

Whilst many post­war buildings were criticised for its monotonous designs by architects in the 1959 issue of Forum​ , the Justus Van Effenblok​ , Rotterdam, designed by Michiel Brinkman in 1922, received praise for its innovative approach to creating a communal neighbourhood in a socially rented complex. Its subsequent demise, however, can be attributed to the deterioration of buildings, increase in living standards, deeming the complex as substandard and a new desire for tenants to enact alterations to their own dwellings. Though public ownership and a collective vision allowed Brinkman to build something innovation at the time, this alone was not able to prevent the eventual fall of the ​ Justus Van Effenblok​ .

With the aim to cater 100’000 inhabitants, the Bijlmermeer project started off as the most ambitious large scale project in the Netherlands. The masterplan that had been pinned down in the 1960ies was expected to be realized before the turn of the century. However, the lack in tenant’s diversity that conceptually arose from the standardization its building elements and floor plans, these complexes quickly fell into disarray as the architectural monotony prevented residents from expressing themselves and building up an individual relationship to their home. The renewal had been financed by private developers but remained in public associations in order to maintain their beneficial values on neighborhood planning. With a limitation in sale of some chosen public housing units, higher income families increased the variety of the tenants and positively influenced character of minimal variation through their individual impact in the renewal process.

Unlike the masshousing attempts, the project of Borneo Sporenburg ­ designed by west 8 in Amsterdam, 2000 ­ set the ideal precondition to shape a diverse community by including 60 parcels of undeveloped land within the masterplan. The joint­ venture of private parties and housing associations had been undertaken to define guidelines for the design to be established within. The tenants were allowed to individually design their buildings. The dissimilarity of the design regulations compared to other projects in the Netherlands enabled at most diverse constellation of community, thanks to the opportunity of individual exterior design freedom.

1

​ Scanlon, K., & Whitehead, C. (2007). ​ Social housing in Europe​ . LSE London, ​ p p5 Aedes, (2013) ​ Dutch social housing in a Nutshell, ​ Dutch association of housing organisations, Retrieved 2015, from http://www.aedes.nl/binaries/downloads/vereniging/about­aedes/20130807­dutch­social­housing­in­a­nutsh ell.pdf, pp1 2

The chosen three projects build up on the tension between private and public formation of neighborhoods.

The Justus van Effenblok forms a framework that suggests variation through the constellation of the group of dwelling types. The renovation of the Bijlmermeer suggests the individual’s variation of spatial relationship to flourish within the limit of drawing a minimum and maximum line. Similarly the Borneo Sporenburg project offers the tenant an individual relationship to the architects design, gaining maximum freedom by only defining the volumetric outlines of the building. Whether the gap between monotonousness and variation in building design, of tenants diversity or housing tenure ­ we will chronologically illustrate a compromise between private and public interests in the context of the Netherlands historical rooted expression of communal approach towards problem solving.

CHAPTER 01: A history of communal land use in the Netherlands 1.1 History of land use policy in the Netherlands Undoubtedly the Netherlands enacted a unique land use policy due to its geographic conditions. Planning called for communal activity in order to successfully reclaim land and prevent floods. From the ninth century, water management consisted of hand ditching boggy areas to help drainage. Subsequently, land dried out, the ground level decreased and the reclaimed land, named “polders”, had been appointed for further use.

Polders are defined as “a tract of low land, especially in the Netherlands, reclaimed from the sea or other body of water and protected by dikes”3 . The cost intensive process of building polders were typically communally financed and overseen by local boards set up by the inhabitants. The resultant land has to undergo a feasibility test to ensure revenue, subsiding the annual costs required for dike maintenance. Thus the Dutch relationship towards land had been very practical – agriculture aside, the land had been appointed to building potentially more land. As subdivided land had transformed into different self­sustaining villages, the obligation remained to negotiate without the polder to resist enemy attacks or natural catastrophes. In doing so, the development of green belts around the towns had been determined for military and defence purposes and typically fell into government hands. This ongoing process ensured that the government had accumulated a sufficient amount of property. This deep­rooted phenomena of the Dutch land development is being described under the chapter “nation of land managers” (Needham, 2014). He outlines the influence of the citizen’s impersonal relationship towards land on the count of the local government’s responsibility to determine land use based on a collective aspiration. This impersonal relationship towards land shaped Dutch mentality to an extent where “each citizen agrees on what desirable land use is (...) to which each citizen is prepared to accept limitations on her own actions so that the desired land use can be realized.4 Under the acceptance of restraints of individual actions, the focus on the societal goals 5 to be carried out by the government body had been of great significance ever since. The 1902 spatial planning and housing act arose from the dire social state of cities at the end of the 19th century.

The increasing demand for housing within the cities led to catastrophic living circumstances among lower class families due to the lack of available living space. At the same time the housing shortage worsened, the majority of the former building stock of the 17th and 18th century were in such substandard conditions. In working districts such as Jordaan in Amsterdam, 20000 people lived within 5000 basement apartments. Such environments encouraged the spread of cholera, leading to several epidemics between 1823 and 1866, causing more than 2000 deaths and most importantly, garnering public attention towards the dangers of substandard housing conditions. Prevention methods enacted by the government consisted of housing inspections to detect signs of poor living conditions, namely moisture penetration, supply of clean drinking water, waste disposal, provision of sewage and supply of ventilation and light. However, the shortcoming was that there were only three hired in Amsterdam, for 250’000 inhabitants, and two in Rotterdam ­ which counted a population of the current 100’000 inhabitants. (Hartig, 2013)

3

polder. (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged. Retrieved 2015, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/polder 4

​ Needham, B. (2007). ​ Dutch land use planning: Planning and managing land use in the Netherlands, the principles and the practice​ . Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. pp17 5

​ further explained in Chapter 1.2 and 1.3

The ongoing demand for housing through the economic boom of 1870s sparked the building of residential complexes based upon speculation. Building companies no longer built by order of clients but as speculative objects. Renting generated maximum profit. Vast areas like the Pijp in Amsterdam or Schilderswijk in The Hague had been built within a very short time period. Parallel with the shift in the banking sector, which enabled developers to get a home construction loan, a new sort of house building was established ­ the “revolution­construction”6. This definition emerged in reference to the bank’s concept: to gain a high profit margin, construction time had to be reduced and investments into material and workforce were kept as low as possible. Unfortunately, high density factor development areas, small dwellings with insufficient ventilation and light were the outcome. Additionally, compromise in material quality and workforce led to cases of building collapse. In this sense, the “revolution­construction” had conjured blatant negative connotations ­ privately funded undertakings had failed to supply housing to the public demand.

This temporary housing boom exacerbated the lack of available living space, since the dwellings produced during the “revolution­construction” were not affordable by the lower class families. At the end of the 19th Century, the housing shortage engaged political attention for the first time with the appointment of the new premier minister Nicolaas Pierson. Pierson represented a liberal party which came up with a legislative package in 1902, called the “volkshuisvesting”, intended to improve the current situation of the housing market. Up to this point, housing standards dictated by the municipalities were solely technical standards such as fire protection, building line and hygienic standards. The new set of laws ultimately underpinned the nature of social housing in the Netherlands, allowing the future of housing and urban development in the Netherlands to fall within government control.

The “volkshuisvesting” formed the following regulations: 1.

All local governments (municipalities ) were forced to introduce a “bouw­ en woningverordening” (construction and housing regulation)

2. Local authorities have been authorized and obliged to improve the apartments and, if not salvageable, declare them as being uninhabitable.

3.

Local governments and housing societies were given the power to gain land required through instant dispossession of its former owner.

4.

The boards of the municipalities representing more than 10000 inhabitants were obliged to come up with a “​ b estemmingsplan​ nen” (zoning/ masterplan)

5.

The possibility of financial assistance upon social housing on the part of communities and the state has been introduced.

After such municipal “​ b estemmingsplan​ nen” ­ as mentioned in point 4 ­ had been determined, they were enacted as binding plans and its implementation was the responsibility of the responsible municipality. Private property owners were invited to participate by voluntarily selling their properties or through the exchange of land at another location. Alternatively, the municipality was legally authorised­ as mentioned in point 3 ­ to purchase the building plots within that area to assist the development of the “​ b estemmingsplan​ nen”. In addition, any application for planning permission had been given approval only, when fitting into the concept of its “​ b estemmingsplan​ nen”­ area. Therefore all responsibility within the housebuilding sector of towns above 10’000 inhabitants was given to the cities and its municipalities within the provided frame “volkshuisvesting” of the state that supported it financially. Such bestemmingsplannen had been determined by social reforms to benefit the organisational structure of towns.

Practically, the soil conditions are undoubtedly shaping the backbone to the land use policies in the Netherlands, which as later on described result in the development of large integrated projects. Thus asking 6

Hartig, F. (2013). VI. ​ Die Geschichte der Wohnungsbaugesellschaften. ​ Retrieved 2015, from http://www.uni­muenster.de/NiederlandeNet/nl­wissen/soziales/vertiefung/wohnun smarkt/Wohnungsbaugesellschaften.html

for an adaption of the building industry that allows a feasible land division covering its costs by the creation of lots of housing­/ dwelling units. This stable configuration of the land use planning can only be disturbed in two ways, (see also Needham 2014) as briefly historically outlined in the next subheading; First, changes in the societal context due to economic recession, change in demographics and/ or financial crisis. Second, the change in structure of the government, to say political agenda.

1.2 History of social housing policy The formation of the housing policies is rooted in the aforementioned era towards the end of the 19th century.

As industrialization sparked a great rural to urban migration, the government took over the task of supplying them with quality standard housing units since the demand had not been successfully supplied through the private market sector. The efficiency of the economy was directly related to the policymaking of the social housing organizations, which at the time shared a direct fund ­ debt relationship. Public ownership at the time allowed a mobile market of the tenants which was advantageous regarding the societal structure of the Verzuiling 7 “a narrow­ minded adherence to a particular sect or party or denomination” that segmented the society vertically into different pillars of religious or ideology believes. The weak economy suggested innovative dwelling projects dealing with a high density, whilst taking care of community building to profit from security, service sharing and improvement of housing quality (light, layout etc.) Revolutionary in this context, was the attempt of Michiel Brinkman with the Justus van Effenblok, Rotterdam, in 1922. Goal of the social housing at the time was to maintain a variation of tenants, in particular to include the migrants and low income class.

Along with the population boom and the replacement of destroyed housing stock after World War II, the percentage of the public owned properties peaked. The economic situation led to masshousing, which characterised the landscape of the urban areas. The deterioration of the economy after the war paralyzed further creation of privately owned housing available. The target group of the social housing organizations included a majority of the population; whilst having expanded the main focus ­ maintained up to today ­ on unifying such groups that experience problems finding appropriate or affordable housing. Thus including “the elderly, the disabled, immigrants, the permanent and temporarily homeless, itinerant communities and asylum seekers.”8 However, from the 1960s onwards, the missing relationship between the architect and the tenant had been in focus and the imbalance of private ownership was addressed. Participatory forms in interior building design had been suggested by enabling the tenants a variety of spatial layouts within a dwelling that can adapt to several pre­determined configurations, primarily considering of a set service ‘nucleus’ and a structural core that can be incrementally added to. Furthermore, the housing associations did aim to improve building stock quality through the change in ownership, as well as the associated debts deficit in disproportion with the gained rent income. The benefit of these housing associations was that as they gained wealth and influence, they were able to enact urban renewal on a much grander scale than individual households, thus enabling them to play a big part in enacting the bestemmingsplan​ nen of the district. The second case study project; the renovation of the Kleiburg flat of Bijlmermeer will be discussed by elaborating its transitional impact on the whole neighborhood as such. After all, the democratic shift in the political agenda promoted the sale of public ownership which led to a vast shift from public to private owned properties, parallel to the breakdown of the political system ‘the Verzuiling’ in the late 1970s. In debate is the success of such, compared with the segregation of the neighborhoods as the most outspoken result9, that had been deliberately prevented by the the housing associations up to that point. This papers’ debate about the tension between public and private ownership as an ideal relationship to be achieved for the creation of an ideal socio­ spatial environment establishes upon this significant change.

In 1989 the national government announced an independent relationship towards the housing associations.

Their obligations of providing the associations with yearly subsidies to manage their deficit on the existing social housing stock were no longer necessary, since the financial result of the trade off that consisted of the

7

​ Verzuiling ­ Dictionary Definition. (n.d.). Retrieved 2015, from http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/nl/verzuiling 8 Aedes, (2013) ​ Dutch social housing in a Nutshell, ​ Dutch association of housing organisations, Retrieved 2015, from http://www.aedes.nl/binaries/downloads/vereniging/about­aedes/20130807­dutch­social­housing­in­a­nutsh ell.pdf, pp1 9

​ Boelhouwer, P., & Van Weesep, J. (1988). The sale of public housing and the social structure of neighbourhoods. ​ Built Environment,​ ​ 14 (3/4)​ , 145­155

amount of money to be repaid in loans was to be less detailed. Therefore the housing organizations restructured themselves in order to cover the funds needed for the rents below cost price. Social housing organisations did not only build and manage social rented homes, on a smaller scale, they also cater for the demand for more expensive rented homes and cheaper owner­occupied homes. The target group was households struggling, or deciding not to, be part of the private housing sector. Housing associations were given the opportunity to focus on activities that have priority at a local level. They were able to develop their own policies because they are highly profitable. Unlike the era following the second world war, the decrease in population and shortage of housing no longer guided the housing associations to invest their surpluses in accumulating large reserves of land. Supplementary, with the decentralization of the housing associations, the question of them being obliged to use their reserves to solve social problems had been newly interpreted.

“The municipalities often had high ambitions for the revitalization of post­ war estates concerning roads, play spaces, planting, schooling, health provisions and so on, all of which cost money. So the revitalisation was often a combined effort of housing associations and municipalities, with the contribution of the national government through the Urban Renewal Investment Budget (lnvesleringsbudgel sledelijke vernieuwing ­ !SV).”10 The decentralization of the housing organizations paved way for new agreements at local level, resulting in surpluses to be reinvested into housing. This reinforced the impact of social housing associations opposing the pressure of private market parties, to control the public­private ownership relationship, which due to the interest in profit maximisation of the market parties disregards the dispersion of the segregation of neighborhoods as stated above. In 1997, the owner­occupier households reached the majority for the first time in Dutch history. House prices have increased considerably, leading to affordability problems, particularly for first­time buyers. “Bridging the gap between the rented and the owner­ occupied sector is now a key concern”.11 The last chapter of this essay takes the ratio of private and public owned properties at the Borneo­Sporenburg area, a recently built area in the north of Amsterdam as an example to top off the critique raised on the socio­spatial impact within the tension of private and public ownership through the changes within the 20st century. Focus is the joint venture of private market parties and housing associations ­ the fusion of private and public ownership ­ that had created a middle ground embodying a nuisance profiting from each other's beneficial qualities in neighborhood forming.

As pillarization was professed as an era of the past, the determination of the Dutch societal values that were shaped in compromise, proportionality and objectivity had been determined not as evil but as a long tradition to be taken as a base for the proximate political system ‘the polder­ model’. The name is relating to the polder landscape, which had been appointed for an emblem of the societal values deriving out of its establishment and maintenance. Furthermore, the word polder­ model stands for an ideal of the Dutch societal construct which after (Zanden, 2014) is being defined as an ideal societal context that results out of the following three key figures: high levels of participation in civic institutions and organisations, a high degree of civic influence, and low levels of social inequality. Still the most important factors to result out of the built environment (see also Ouwehand & Van der Laan Bouma­ Doff 2007) are the following conditions, that desirably should result out of the policy of residential social mix in the Netherlands, based on three motives below; being discussed under the next heading. Thus in its theory do not differ much since the formation of the housing associations at the start of the 20th century and are still of central significance.

1. Social equality: improving the wellbeing of disadvantaged groups in the neighbourhood 2. Social efficiency: reducing social costs for society, such as crime, nuisance and deviant behaviour 3. Neighborhood improvement by upgrading the housing stock and facilities in the neighbourhood

10

​ Needham, B. (2007). ​ Dutch land use planning: Planning and managing land use in the Netherlands, the principles and the practice​ . Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. pp56 11 ​ Scanlon, K., & Whitehead, C. (2007). ​ Social housing in Europe​ . LSE London, ​ p p139

1.3 Defining an ideal socio­spatial residential environment What we aim to illustrate is that compromise between private and public ownership forms the ideal relationship for a context to be lived in. We aim to define the ideal through a historic lense, namely the core ideas embodied in the land use policies and the housing associations that remained steady throughout the twentieth century. Firstly, social equality, secondly, social efficiency and thirdly neighborhood improvement.

This allows us to judge the success of different temporary notions that had expressed ideas contrary to the land­use and housing policies. What we try to illustrate is how different types of ownership can impact those three “pillars” that form the ideal. Therefore we will focus on the two extreme situations; first: the dominance of public ownership that reached its peak in the first half of the twentieth century (elaborated into detail in Chapter ‘Social housing in post war period’) and second: the transition into private ownership as a triggered response, in order to clarify whether a hybrid approach might be needed.

Arguably, common misconceptions about the ideals epitomised in the 1902 spatial planning act and housing policies lead to the segregation of different social groups within neighborhoods. (Elaborated into detail in Chapter ‘Influence of a shift from public to private ownership’) Whilst the post­war urgency for housing necessitated standardised building elements and floor plans as a means to produce mass housing in a short period of time, these complexes quickly fell into disarray as the architectural monotony prevented residents from expressing themselves and creating a place they could call a warm home. The new spatial planning act that had been implemented in 1965 basically stated, that “decisions which will fix the physical development of an area for decades or even centuries, must not allow themselves to be lured into ad hoc decisions by passing fashions.”12 In the end a dominating ‘privately owned’ neighborhood is simply not able to pick up the communal organization qualities of a housing organization, and should therefore be leaned against its structure or being built ‘under the dome of it’. Ergo it is the structural concept that differs the most on a neighborhood scale; and that had been left out through the massive shift of sale into private ownership.

The first half of the paper will elaborate on the socio­spatial influence of public ownership on the living quality of the dwellings organised by housing associations, on an individual household scale to the neighbourhood context. Assuming a higher tenant turnover rate compared to privately owned dwellings, the lack of tenant participation in the design process of mass housing projects will be argued as the main shortcoming in tenant satisfaction of these dwellings. In many cases, a co­design process isn’t possible, however, as (Bakema, 1962) argues, dwellings should offer a degree of flexibility to allow tenants to express their individual identities on their space. The ability to customise an environment of residence is adversely linked with the satisfaction the tenants will have with the space. Various measures have been taken in order to structure neighborhoods based on mixture of private and public ownership, combating segregation and ensuring social cohesion by introducing a mixture of tenants from various socio­ economic backgrounds. Projects, such as the Bijlmermeer, have shown that this mix helps alleviates crimes and feelings of insecurities within the neighbourhood. Ever since, housing in the Netherlands was about covering the land costs that are being financed, maintained and protected by the public in relation with a non speculative attitude towards housing projects in order to feature equal conditions in housing tenure. (Vandevyvere & Zenthöfner, 2012) The control of the above stated ‘social equality, social efficiency and neighborhood improvement’ suggest a constant adaption and improvement of the housing associations’ internal structure to fight the profit­ maximisation driven private market parties that, otherwise would push towards the segmentation of the ideally achieved mixture of private and public ownership. Accordingly, policies that are able to provide, at least, partial homeownership to those who were previously unable to afford it, in particular first home buyers, are also deemed as contributing to the residency mix of a neighbourhood and thus increasing social cohesion.

The connotations of private ownership as used throughout this paper is linked with a greater freedom to enact changes upon the residential property, thus enabling the owner to express their own identity. On the contrary, households renting from housing associations do not share these freedoms as enjoyed by homeowners. This thesis paper will elaborate on the different advantages in picking three projects that illustrate the impact of the various housing tenures on the socio­spatial relationship within neighborhood building. Thus exemplifying chronologically three different stages in history as described in the previous chapter. The current political agenda shows, independently of the national change in relationship between

12

Needham, B. (2007). ​ Dutch land use planning: Planning and managing land use in the Netherlands, the principles and the practice​ . Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. pp29

public and private ownership, that housing associations are still commissioned by the same task of providing the conceptual framework for an ideal socio­spatial environment for its population.

CHAPTER 02: Benefits and Shortcomings of housing associations 2.1 Justus van Effenblok Following the improvement of hygiene conditions and the alleviation of housing shortage, attention turned to the improvement of the working class housing typology. Taking Rotterdam as an example, the municipality created the neighborhood of Spangen ­ an expansion area of the city, dedicated to new housing experiments.

Architects were challenged to think of new ways to improve the living condition and environment for the working class. (Brinkman, 1920) The Justus van Effenblok, an experimental proposition designed by Michiel Brinkman in 1922, was a reaction to improve social housing as such. Architect Michiel Brinkman and his client August Plate had a very clear vision to change the city on social grounds by proposing an alternative way of living. The volume of the complex forms a transition between the city and its “inner city”, an enclosed communal garden courtyard arranged in bays. The courtyard gives the complex the atmosphere of a village which coincides with the preferences of the working class, mostly people who migrated to Rotterdam. The aim was to create the quality of a small community within the big hectic city. (Lambala, 1998) Their vision was based on a human desire to belong to a group, reflected in this shared communal courtyard and elevated galleries with visual connectivity to the shared central space. According to them, despite the upcoming trend towards individuality, as explained in the next chapter, the basic human need is to be part of a community, a ‘brotherhood’.13 With this basic need in mind they shaped their vision of improving the living conditions based on the relation between the individual and the community. Its translation into the design has led to a new typology and was unique for its time. (Figure 01 + 02) Brinkman and Plate focused on an “inhabitants­ constellation” necessary for a variation in tenants. The choice for various types of housing units had been made to suit different family­sizes, 17 types in total, shows the aim of Brinkman and Plate for creating a diverse community containing 264 units in total. This was a different approach from than the housing units that will be developed in subsequent post­war years, which will be outlined in the next chapter, as an ever­increasing demand for housing led to monotonous complexes of repeating units. Brinkman took every dwelling into consideration, ensuring a healthy living environment by ensuring sufficient sunlight and street­facing galleries. (Figure 03)The elevated walkways enable chance encounters, allowing tenants to socialise and fostering the sense of a tight knit community. Another attempt to establish a sense of solidarity had been achieved through the accessibility of the dwelling and the program embodied in the centre of the complex. Inhabitants meet on galleries, the courtyard and also in the centre of the complex, where the largest building block is located which houses a laundry, bathhouse and a dry attic.

(Brinkman, 1920)This in particular had been revolutionary for its inhabitants since, at the time, no one would have been able to finance a washing machine. Its integration within the semi­ public area gave them access to amenities they could have not financed on their own.

The gallery embodies the economic situation after the WW1; it had been introduced, based on the economic view to achieve a higher density. Furthermore it had been developed in order to match the social ideal. The galleries are located on the inside of the block to ensure social security in the courtyards. This had also been described through the architectonic translation of the theory of the panopticon. Visibility as a trap that resulted out of a circular shaped prison building with a courtyard in the middle ­ a homogenous effect of power results in constant pressure that provides crimes and robbery to be committed. (Bentham, 1700) This is also concurrent with urbanist, Jane Jacobs’, idea of “eyes on the street”, suggesting that passive surveillance contributes to safety and security within a shared space, once again enforcing solidarity amongst the residents, although Jacobs’ book wasn’t published until some forty years later.14 The galleries had been

13

Lambala, K. (1998). Abstraction and Theosophy: Social Housing in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Architronic, Retrieved, January 2015, ​ http://corbu2.caed.kent.edu/architronic/v8n1/v8n102.pdf​ , pp 3 14 Jacobs, J. (1965) ​ T he Death and Life of Great American Cities, Random House, ​ Vintage Books, pp45

widened to allow spaces for activities that may normally occur in a front yard ­ sitting and playing spaces for the tenants, the delivery of goods, giving the galleries a street­like vitality that may be comparable to a small village. The staggering of the facades was a reaction against the common critique of mass housing producing monotonous frontages. Additional concrete plantation boxes, that protruded from the edge of the concrete galleries, reinforced the idea of Brinkman and Plate that greenery was essential to their vision of a healthy living environment. (Bakema, 1960) The building complex consists of green courtyards and private gardens for the apartments on ground and first floor. Responsibility over a shared public or semi public space will allow tenants to easily identify with their surroundings. Residents want the courtyard to look pleasant and will have certain expectations of the maintenance of their neighbours´ gardens as well to make the whole more attractive. (Bakema, 1960) Not only are the gardens a result of the realisation of the human need for green, also the flower boxes that are fixed to the balustrade of the galleries are designed to provide a warm and welcoming character.

The value of a garden on a piece of residential property had also been expressed by a study of Mugnys. His study focused on intergroup relations when a conflict is involved, including the reactions of those that hold a majority viewpoint and those that hold a minority. The tendencies of individuals are to protect their uniqueness by differentiating a connection with positive value connotations. This being defined as the effectiveness of adhering any style, relates to the intergroup situation that endeavors those who do not fail its content of statements that otherwise would lead to its definition as an outgroup, by the majority. It had been noticed that the group’s status differentials in power, social status, rank or privilege point to an implicit conflict between ingroup ­ favoring. As these differentials are often not immutable, a classic study in this area had been organized by Lemaine & Kastersztein15 (1972). Their field experiment, consisting of explicitly but randomly chosen boys from a holiday camp, aimed to determine a connective factor bridging the pre given conditions of the difference of quality in building materials, was given a task to build a hug. The hut as an outcome stands for the built environment that established as collective work, based on the above described differentials found in society. “the underprivileged group built a hut of indifferent quality but surrounded it with a garden. This act of social creativity, preceded by secret conclaves of the ingroup, was followed by sustained attempts to legitimize the garden as an integral part of the competition by the eyes of the outgroup and the adult judges.”

3.2 Expression of collective identity The case study of the Justus van Effenblok illustrates one benefit of mass housing schemes, as its large scale enabled a vision to be applied to the urban realm and shared space, thus allowing the provision of shared amenities. The building layout, program and the communal greenery emerged from the expectations to share a communal life. (Figure 04) The idea of creating a community through Brinkman's new typology had been successful to an extent, achieving social cohesion and receiving praise for its innovative typology from Jaap Bakema and Herman Hertzberger in the 1959 issue of The Forum​ .16 However, in a recently published historical review, Charlotte van Emstede described the the Justus Van Effenblok as a complex that, from the 1970s onwards, has lost social cohesion following the high turnover rate of tenants, hindering the development of a tight knit community. (Emstede, 2012) Whilst a renovation in the 80s served to increase apartment sizes that were now deemed subpar by modern standards, the increase in paved surfaces, removal of gallery planters, painting on the brick facade and replacement of all openings with standard elements contradicted many of Brinkman’s initial design choices. A later renovation, in 2010, (Figure 05) reversed many changes of the 1980s renovation, bringing about differentiation in the facade, exposing the brickwork and an increase in communal greenery. A ‘communal’ way of life was once again promoted and although residents were not selected, like they had been in the 1920s, like­minded individuals were attracted to the complex. The rise and fall of the Justus Van Effenblok raises questions as to whether architectural characteristics alone can contribute to a thriving socio­spatial living environment and whether different tenures have an adverse effect on socio­spatial qualities. The freedom of an individual is rather displayed in the advantage of a collective identity, where the semi­public space provides access to communally shared assets, unlike in privately occupied neighborhoods. The individual’s impact on physically taking part in the

15

Tajfel, H. (1982). ​ Social Psychology Of Intergroup Relations​ , Annual Review of Psychology, pp19 Bakema, J. (1962). Bouwen voor de Anonieme Opdrachtgever, Forum 16, no. 2 pp78

16

design process is restricted to the furnishing of the apartment and the possible plantation alongside the galleries. The tenant subordinates himself according to the inner­outer space and social network relationship by choosing a dwellings position within the building block. This limits the tenant of identifying himself within the built environment on the long run and might that might paralyze the visible variation of individuals within the community. This restriction as critique will be further discussed in the next chapter as a tension to be understood between public ownership and private ownership, pushed in the Netherlands from the 1960s onwards, and the rise of housing associations that manage the bulk of Netherland’s ‘public’ housing stock.

CHAPTER 03: Social housing in post war period Unlike the First World War, the era after the Second World War was left in an economic crisis where expenditure usually reserved for the agricultural and industrial sector were being funneled towards military funding. The depletion of resources, loss of labour to the warfronts and urgency to replace destroyed housing stock, particularly in Rotterdam, lead to the construction of substandard housing complexes. Uncultivated soil, poor maintenance of machines and the usage of substandard fuels exacerbated the dire living conditions. The lack of money, assets and workforce, (Bloemen, 1988) required a new method of construction that reduces the time, money and labour force to improve the dire post­war cities. Such circumstances led to the approach of scientific management in the building industry that was influenced by Taylorism; “a factory management system developed in the late 19th century to increase efficiency by evaluating every step in a manufacturing process and breaking down production into specialized repetitive tasks”17 As (Herbst,1920) illustrates, its initial idea had been driven by delivering a maximum quantity within a specific time period, which is why piecework had been introduced, effectively changing the relationship between the workforce and the product. Named after its orchestrator, Frederick Winslow Taylor, Taylorism consisted of breaking down the manufacturing process into specific tasks, designating a specific skilled workforce that is expert in a narrow field. This process of standardisation and mass production increased productivity and generated profits for the war­torn economy, however, at the cost of the subordination of human beings under the mechanical process. (Gilbreth, 1912) states that the adaptation of the human itself towards a mechanically conceptualized working process basically corresponds to the work at the assembly line which has been established by Henry Ford at his Highland Park factory in Detroit. As (Bender,1973) states, the essential reason why Henry Ford developed Taylorism any further was based on his concept of mass production and mass consumption. “Mass production is the focussing upon a manufacturing project of the principles of power, accuracy, economy, system, continuity and speed. (...) And the normal result is a productive organisation that delivers in quantities a useful commodity of standardized material, workmanship and design at a minimum cost.”18 Taylor's idea of minimising effort within the manufacturing steps to save time and energy can be translated to an architectural level through the repetitive use of standardised building elements and fixture. Standardisation was driven by the idea of defining a type or an element that will compliment the needs of the average user. The influence of Taylorism upon the housing culture did not only take place in the Netherlands, however, no other country in Europe had such a high percentage of land owned by the government. With the goal of providing a sufficient amount of housing units at an affordable price, government organisations looked towards the perimeter block as a residential typology in the dwelling sector, and rowhouses in the single household sector. The dominance of these two building typologies can be explained by the strive to increase density, authorised by the master plan of the municipal government.

Scientific management within architecture was aimed at reducing construction time, thus repetition before rife, not only in the manufacturing of individual parts, but spaces as a whole. Architects designed for the masses ­ within the context of the post­ war economic situation ­ by developing floor plans that fulfilled the average client’s defined spatial basic need, down to the detail of ergonomics fit towards the proportions of the average human being. During the second world war, German architect, Ernst Neufert, created a database of measurements that may influence the design and composition of space within architecture, a reference, known as the DIN (Deutsche Industrie Norm), that is still used to the current day. The notion of “norms” as planning tools led to little variation in dwelling types and building layout. It had been simply functional ­ the

17

Taylorism. (n.d.). Retrieved June 5, 2015, from http://www.merriam­webster.com/dictionary/Taylorism ​ Hamilton, N. (2002). ​ Lifetimes: The Great War to the stock market crash : American history through biography and primary documents​ . Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press.​ p p 109 18

building style Functionalism was dominating in its presence. Having built whole districts out of standardised elements adding up to the same shapes of building volumes created a very homogenous, anonymous built environment. Though the buildings built during the immediate postwar period are a reflection of the post­war conditions, certain traits and tendencies from this period have pervaded into the following decades.

3.1 Kleiburg flat renovations The case study of Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam is a district consisting of an array of housing complex within a masterplan, developed entirely through housing associations, which illustrates the lack of variety as an identity through the prevalence of this post­war thinking. Masterplans for this district, developed in the 1960s, was aimed at catering for 100,000 new inhabitants before the turn of the century. (Figure 09 + 10) Like the Spangen region in Rotterdam, Bijlmermeer was also envisaged as an area for urban experiment, this time based on Le Corbusier’s idea of the ‘radiant city’ ­ an approach to functional zoning in dense cities which separated areas for working, living, playing and transport. Accordingly, initial designs for the Bijlmermeer complex saw garages contained within a single complex, separation of paths for pedestrians and cyclists and large housing blocks, where the interstitial spaces were the shared ‘green’ space amongst the residents.19 Envisaged by the developers, the entire complex was financed and enacted as a single vision that ranged from each individual apartment to its urban context. Following the shift in ownership, many of these would be independently financed, with the urban realm remaining in the jurisdiction of the municipality. Bijlmermeer started as the most ambitious large scale dwelling project in the Netherlands, however its homogenous design ensured its fast track into demise, soon becoming Europe’s largest urban renewal schemes. The flat continually attracted low income families, where crime was rife and the complex was insecure. Demands for change were triggered by the desire to increase diversity in tenants, in particular, to draw in more middle class tenants. The renewal process was highly political. Financed by private developers, the Bijlmermeer remained in the hands of housing associations. To the demise of some residents who valued the flats, some of the complexes were torn down. Those flats reserved for renovation were subsequently sold by the housing association under the belief that an increase in tenant diversity will soon follow.

For the purpose of this analysis, renovations in the Kleiburg flat in particular will be examined. The flat was stripped down to its structural core, allowing the owners to purchase available space, as opposed to predefined apartments, thus allowing the users to adapt the space to their needs. The spatial arrangement thus no longer adhered to the cookie cutter approach of the immediate post­war thinking ­ it was now based on flexibility towards a client rather than a set solution to an anonymous user. By allowing alterations to the floor plans, the complex now became a more viable option for families and higher income households that were able to finance their own renovations. The existing storage space of the entire ground floor were replaced by more dwellings, as were the internal corridors of the first floor. Like the Justus Van Effenblok, a wide external gallery connected the units from the 2nd floor upwards. (Figure 11 + 12) The removal of partition walls allowed owners to purchase building ‘units’, set about by the core walls which were spaced 3900 or 2900mm apart, and the ability to combine units to make a bigger dwelling. This transformation had been theoretically pushed by (Bakema, 1962) in the Forum edition “bouwen voor de anonieme opdrachtgever” as he proposes the creation of a central nucleus, containing the kitchen, bathroom and washing facilities.

Living spaces and bedrooms can be established around this nucleus, and its layout could continually change.

"The moment in which one of the expansion variants is chosen and executed by the occupant is defined as a private building initiative".20 He calls the building organizations being "an impediment rather than a stimulus in the creative process" Not only the architect should take on the initiative to improve the relationship between the tenant and its living space, but also these organizations should acquire new technical abilities to guarantee the tenants the freedom. The role of the architect to envisage a number of set spatial configurations that tenant could adhere to, he argues, could be a solution to tackling the monotony of post­war housing complexes designed for an ‘average’ client. This has, in turn, as the housing association of the Bijlmermeer rightfully believed, attracted a more affluent range of tenants for the Bijlmermeer, increasing its diversity.

(Figure 13) This diverse community contributes to increasing the social interactions between the neighbours, 19

Sterk B., Zahirovic S., (2007) ​ T he Bijlmer: a Dutch Approach to Multiculturalism​ , humanity action Retrieved, 2015 from http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/153­the­bijlmer­a­dutch­approach­to­multiculturalism 20 Bakema J., (1962) ​ Bouwen voor de Anonieme Opdrachtgever​ , Forum 16, no. 2, pp76

and decreasing the crime rate in the neighbourhood. He believed there was an adverse relationship between the ability of tenants to express their individual identities on their built environment, and their satisfaction with their socio­spatial surroundings. In the immediate post­war era, housing had minimal variation. The period was characterized by normalization which disregarded the individual's existence within society. "This human need is probably one of the specific characteristics of being human".

3.2 Expression of individual identity The renovation of Kleiburg was underpinned by the changing of ownership of the complex ­ by enabling private ownership, the owners had not only the spatial rights to enacting their own modifications but the legal rights. Essentially, the partial transition into private ownership has had positive benefits in the case of the Kleiburg flats, however, this is not to say that social housing has the contrary effect. For Bijlmermeer as a whole, the housing association sought a diversity in tenants, being middle class households together with lower class, as opposed to driving out the lower class households entirely. Whilst public ownership does limit the modification capabilities of the tenants, it does ensure that the low income families can afford to stay within an area, ensuring this diversity. Additionally, whilst the bulk of the housing blocks remained in the hands of the housing association, the wealth and resources they contained allowed them to enact urban renewal on a grander scale. In this case, the demolition of several Bijlmer blocks to pave way for family homes, once again increasing the diversity of tenants. Social cohesion is ensured and there is a reinforcement of the collective identity of Bijlmer. This collective identity generates a common denominator by wrapping up a big variety of individuals that lived behind such built ‘envelopes’. (Bakema, 1962) describes them as the greatest common divisor houses that at the time had been suspected of causing neurosis ­ the public health service claimed that the way of living and working shaped a direct connection with “ a direct relation between human behaviour and forms of living as in the thesis of (Wong Lun Hing, 1962), general practitioner in Rotterdam. He pleads for more intimacy of the family by the application of more variation in mass house production as remedy against prostitution.”

3.3 Influence of a shift from public to private ownership From the 1960s onwards, the Dutch government started to boost the rate of homeownership as the political climate had changed in favour of private ownership. Nationwide, the quality of homes in the rental sector were inferior than the quality of private homes. (Figures 06­08)The process is the major cause of the decline of the private rental sector from 60 percent of the stock in 1947 to 16 percent in 1985; during this period, some 750,000 dwellings were converted from the rental to the ownership sectors (Potgieser, 1985). (Boelhouwer, 1988) describes that the sale of public housing units was based on the assumption that “this difference is the result of activities and investments by homeowners, who supposedly take better care of their dwellings than landlords and renters.”21 The government’s sale was expected to result in quality improvements as the occupants will be given more responsibility for their own property and its residential environment. “On these grounds it has also been suggested that the sale of public housing units would foster community building by stabilizing or improving neighborhoods that are sliding into decline.”22 His paper analyzed the effects of the sales on the neighborhood based on statistics of the buyer’s profile. It shows that the difference in quality of the available properties, defined by the time of occupancy and the year of construction, did not address a big variety of clients based on the intersection of income and age groups. This is particularly interesting because the improvement in quality of the addressed housing stock and its physical environment is measured in relation to the amount and number of investments undertaken to do so. This on the long run caused to slowly divide the neighborhoods according to its variety in tenant's income and age group as the properties value tend to increase with every investment being undertaken before its resell. The inequity was a resulting problem out of the advantages of the accrue individuals that happen to be in the right place in the long run is much more pronounced. “This is the opposite of what was intended with the massive building in the public sector, and also refutes the arguments used to defend the sales.” What happened to have undermined the 21

Boelhouwer, P., & Van Weesep, J. (1988). ​ T he sale of public housing and the social structure of neighbourhoods​ . Built Environment, 14 (3/4), pp151.

22 Boelhouwer, P., & Van Weesep, J. (1988). ​ T he sale of public housing and the social structure of neighbourhoods​ . Built Environment, 14 (3/4), pp146

goal of increasing social cohesion and stability due to a shift from public into private housing ownership, is the missing opportunity for low­ income groups on home acquisition. “ these observations point in the direction of the polarization among the two tenure categories” The urban renewal tactics undertaken by developers and architects aimed at increasing the variation of dwelling units, focus on the relationship between the tenant and the designer and increase the amount of private ownership. However, is there a correlation between how much spatial freedom an individual is allowed and the socio­spatial characteristics of a district as a whole? So far, a shift towards private ownership had allowed owners to more freely adhere to their needs and express their individual identities, increasing resident satisfaction and ensuring that the property is taken care of. It can be argued, however, that as the flats of the Bijlmermeer still operate within the structural framework of the existing buildings, and that sale of the flats were overseen by the housing association itself. Whilst legally, they can call themselves owners and enact modifications as they please, but in reality, they are physically bound to the construct that is the existing building. Like in all high density models, the owner is seldom entirely ‘free’, their actions have an adverse impact on their neighbours and there is still a need to complement the neighbourhood character. A model like the Kleiburg flat successfully draws from the benefits of public and private ownership. The historical preservation of the polder boards’ societal visions as described in chapter one are undoubtedly related to the advantage of the communal spaces found in public housing. Public ownership allows the housing organizations to control social cohesion by integrating the low class income tenants into society.

Furthermore the next chapter will evaluate on the turning point of the freedom being given to a collection of individuals not to impact the division of the neighborhood.

CHAPTER 04: Demand for a collective of private­ public landownership Using the phenomena of the Dutch houseboat, this chapter aims to discuss the difference in legislation between the houseboat to a flat or rowhouse. The volkshuisvesting, as outlined in the first chapter, was geared towards permanent houses on land and dictated no policy towards the houseboats in particular.

(Haan, 2014) When considering the lack of private land ownership, we are focusing on the cities with more than 10’000 inhabitants, as the land use policies set up at the start of the twentieth century only affect towns of such size. Free standing houses, as we might commonly see them in other countries, do not exist to appear within such zones. This chapter focuses on private ownership in the single family house sector ­ that is the opportunity of owning a parcel within such a zone. The houseboat in this context is assumed to be seen as a freestanding or rather floating house, that might have been a loophole to escape the legislation imposed upon publicly owned housing typologies.

Prior to 1945, the houseboats were perceived by the government as a hindrance in the city, causing the city of Amsterdam to reduce the number of houseboats within the city by 90 percent through the policy of “zijdelingse pressie”. (Haan, 2014) Between 1945 and 1960, the number increased from 1711 to 7049 due to construction improvements and provision of electricity and sewage system to mooring areas by the government. The right to housing had, however, been conceived by the legal authorities as more important than any legislation regarding the preservation of a collective neighbourhood character. (Vandenhirtz, 2010) To the current day, the houseboats are rarely included in the bestemmingsplannen​ , leaving an area of uncertainty that surrounding the legal status of houseboats and their governing legislation. In terms of expressing oneself through an individual taste of architecture, the houseboat does not exhibit any specific limitations. Additionally, they did not fulfill any transportation purpose, nor fit through the bridges. The houseboat was ultimately a replacement of the free standing single family house that evades municipal legislation. The following stated possible reasons will further help to evaluate the characteristics that distinguish them from the privately owned single family houses; Firstly, the current variation and array of houseboat designs are indicative of the lack of legislation governing this current typology, allowing the owner greater opportunities to express their individual identity through their dwelling. It is important to note that there is a direct relationship between the customer and the architect, unless the owners designed and constructed it by themselves. Each houseboat in this sense is unique. When comparing this to the housing sector, the tenant is facing the following relation: “one of the main characteristics of Dutch land­use planning, namely “planning by projects” (…) how central this concept

is to Dutch planning practice, and with what experience and sophistication it is carried out. (….) They include the high financial risks carried by public authorities, (...) the corporatism leading to the exclusion of the citizen in any involvement.”23 Whilst there has been sufficient discussion on the relationship between the occupant and their ability to modify the internal spatial layout of their dwellings, as outlined by (Bakema, 1962) and indicated in the earlier example of the Kleiburg flat renovations, what has been insufficiently analysed is the relationship between an individual and the outer space ­ the external view of their dwellings.

(Dittmar, 1992) describes the essence of identifying oneself within an environment to be dependent on the possibility of choosing an individual relationship to materiality. “At the core of symbolic interactionism is the notion that developing a sense of identity stems from the human ability for self­reflexivity or, in Mead's terms, viewing oneself from the perspective of the other. Self­awareness means that the self becomes the object of reflection.”24 The houseboats are so rich in contrast to the standardized framework of mass housing schemes that dominate the Netherlands. Therefore the desire to own a houseboat stems from the ability for the citizen to be in control of their living environment and to be a visible exception within the neighbourhood.

Secondly, the mobility of the houseboat can be seen as a combat against the government’s right of execution land dispossessions on privately owned property, in accordance to the bestemmingsplannen. The possession of a houseboat provides the owner with a guarantee of their property, as threats of dispossession can be responded to by moving to a different location.

The popularity of houseboats highlights the rigidity of Dutch planning policies. The success of any master plan implemented in the Netherlands seems to be measured according to the achievement of social cohesion as an ideal result of community building, as outlined earlier​ . In the previous chapter, the example of the Kleiburg flat highlights that whilst the transition into private ownership has helped alleviate negative associations with Bijlmermeer, this was only successful as private sales were limited to a certain percentage of the overall stock, ensuring a diversity of high/low income households, a mixture of tenants of different civil status and number in people living together. The government's difficulty of ensuring a stable mix in neighborhoods constellation suggests the implementation of an ideal percentage of private owned land. As (Needham, 2007) observes the mobility of the residents within the neighborhoods, whether disappearing or appearing; “many residents who are able to improve their social position will search for another – “better” – residential environment that fits their newly attained social position. Indeed, an “iron law” in the housing market is that social difference will be expressed in spatial difference. (…) there is a need for differentiated neighborhoods through which individual household may find their way.”25 The common model amongst publicly owned housing complex does not allow for this ‘upgrade’ of dwelling, thus low­income areas may typically remain as low income area as higher class families move out when the dwellings are no longer suitable to their needs. The risk is that residential areas may be characterised by the socio­economic status of the residents. Likewise, the critique on scale of public ownership as a result of the housing policies that had been set at the start of the twentieth century, called for an increase in private ownership as a solution.

4.1 Borneo­ Sporenburg design As the previous chapters showed, the application of design guidelines and the attempt towards a customized approach within the building layout is relevant to ensure a diverse constellation of the community.

Furthermore the lack of ownership had been accounted as a factor that ought to be taken under consideration in order to ensure the neighborhoods composition in diversity. Thus going along with the consistence of high/low income disparities, a mixture of tenants of different civil status and the difference in number of people living together. The case study of Borneo­Sporenburg​ , masterplanned in 2000 by West 8 in Amsterdam analyses to what extent that such social trends, enabled by private ownership, can be controlled through the implementation of strict design codes of this masterplan. Whilst the process undertaken at Borneo­Sporenburg is not dissimilar to design regulations around the world ­ owners are free to enact their own exterior changes contingent upon adherence to local design regulations, the difference in this case study

23

Needham, B. (2007). ​ Dutch land use planning: Planning and managing land use in the Netherlands, the principles and the practice​ . Den Haag: Sdu Uitgevers. pp220 24 ​ Dittmar, H. (1992). ​ T he social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be​ . Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp75 25 Duyvendadk, J.W., Hendriks F., (2009). ​ City in Sight: Dutch Dealings with Urban Change, ​ Amsterdam University Press ­ Nicis, pp 59

is the concept of mass customisation from the very onset. Commonly, design restrictions arise from the need to adhere to a historical context, however Borneo Sporenburg had been the first experiment of its kind in the Netherlands as a completely newly built development. As traditionally large tracts of land had been sold to developers who build housing and then offer it to individuals for resale, this master plan focused on community development by providing 60 parcels of undeveloped land to individual owners. (Figure 14) “This allowed the individual owners to exert a greater influence over the design of their houses and the development of the community. (…) During the intensive and participatory planning process, which included workshops, more than 100 architects contributed to both the urban plan and development of the housing prototype.”26 The project was characterized by a program that aimed to build some 2500 dwelling units with mixed investment typologies like social housing, low­income based housing and free market housing. The owners were given the freedom to design their own facade, as long as they adhered to design codes regulating dimensions, number of floors, eaves heights, a material palette and provisions of private outdoor terraces. The co­design process, enabling a dialogue between the owners, architects and urban planners from the very onset of the project, allow each household to express their own individual identity whilst working within a guideline.

Hence the use of a similar strategy represents a guarantee of quality in the realization of new dwelling complexes. The coding after which a framework had been set up to let flourish a certain variation within the building stock, visible to the public, can be seen as an effort of a strategic command that programmed the impact on the societal values deriving out of it in advance. This ‘spontaneous’ differentiation yet had been allowed through pre­coding certain parametres. This matches up with the socio cultural aspect that derives out of an individual's design opportunity as (Dittmar, 1992) emphasizes in theory “From an ‘observer’ perspective, the symbolic meaning of possessions is of fundamental importance to locate an identity’s social affiliation within a group, category and strata.”27 To prevent a property from standing out, it is situated in ­ supposed this context surrounds the same type of initial property values according to its construction year and quality, limitations have to be set. What strikes to have bound these houses together, is the initial position of the house builder’s given volume.

4.2 Co­design and ‘social owner occupier’ as hybrid approaches Whilst a balance of individual and collective identity can be achieved through a co­design process in new developments, a new tenure type, formed from a hybrid of home ownership and renting, is also able to contribute to social diversity by making private ownership more available. “The dwellings are built by both housing associations and private investors, for whom they are sometimes part of a 'package deal' with market housing. Prices can be low because local authorities offer the land at below­market prices.”28 The notion of a ‘social owner­occupier’ stipulates that a household, typically a first time buyer, may purchase property from a housing association at a discounted price. In return, any price increase of falls will be shared by the housing association, and the property can only be sold back to the housing association. (Scanlon, 2007) This hybrid approach, once again, ensures that residential areas for sale does not solely attract a high­income residency.

The task of building a new house cannot be compared with the critique of (Boelhouwer, 1988)’s case study, where segregation based on the income class took place. However, what if people would buy one of such a house just to fulfil the purpose of an investment property ­ which would be missing out the direct ownership relation. His analysis showed a slow upturn of the neighborhood based on the investment that had been undertaken to improve the properties condition. If we compare this to the case of the Borneo Sporenburg development, a collective identity can be detected right from the start after these 60 houses had been built.

The variation in itself does not offer much increase in striking out the others value. When comparing this to the ‘post war districts’ that even after its transformations through its sale did not sufficiently take up the human need in variation and relation in space to its fullest as previously advised by (Bakema, 1962)s’ critique upon the dominance of functionalist architecture. Why? because the anonymous employer stayed anonymous at the time he takes over responsibility of the fully developed property by housing associations, which again, 26

Chandler, R. (2004). ​ Building type basics for housing​ . New York [etc.: John Wiley & Sons, pp76 ­81 ​ Dittmar, H. (1992). ​ T he social psychology of material possessions: To have is to be​ . Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf, pp90 28 ​ Scanlon, K., & Whitehead, C. (2007). ​ Social housing in Europe​ . LSE London, ​ p p145 27

means that the limits set on the long run through the mass customized “collective identity” absorb the potential of an individual to fully develop. The weak difference of an individual's identity will sum up to appear very monotonous and impersonal to its observer as the relation between the tenant and its living surroundings is not visible. Due to the fact that within the post­ war economic condition there was mainly state financed housing, it is to be specifically mentioned that up until the 1980s the public housing sector included a big variety of tenants since it formed pretty much the only housing space available as mentioned by(Needham, 2014) and therefore the focus was set on the interior variation in spatial identity that only later on had been of great importance to be defined within the built environment visible to the outside world. The new type of co­design at Borneo­ Sporenburg did provide the ideal precondition to combine a collection of individuals to a community. The ownership does not allow to have the property as an investment and therefore limits the physical value of the property down to its materialization ­ Which as stated above is another important factor of aiming towards social cohesion. Point two mentioned to be advantageous of possessing a houseboat is also taken into consideration as this encourages people secure investment on the long run, assuring them to stay in the neighborhood. Therefore the straightedge of judging a tenant’s “maximisation” of its relationship towards space measured in ownership is being evaluated in comparison with the ownership status of the tenant’s property as an influence on its surroundings.

What the success of this project consists of is the respect of implementing a minority ­ likewise was the guided limitation in sale of the privately owned dwellings at the renovation process of Kleiburg Flat ­ and letting them have their socio­ economic status visible to the majority. (Figure 15) All types of tenants share an individual inner­ relationship with a collective outer relationship. Conceptually equal situations had already been described earlier; the sharing of recreation and play areas in form of courtyard and green spaces. The joint venture of developing the private owned properties under the vision of the socio­ spatial ideal of the housing associations ­ as described under the heading of ‘defining an ideal socio­spatial environment’ ­ led to the success of expanding the real owners’ design limitations. The private­/ public owned land ratio sustainably secures the variety of the tenants that result in the necessary diversity as expected to equally be distributed in the land use and social housing policies ­ explained in the first chapter.

CONCLUSION The impact of functionalism and post war conditions led to a standardised notion of housing that lack identity, sparking criticism by Jaap Bakema, likening the monotony of functionalist architecture to symptoms of neurosis, as identity expression in architecture is related to the variation in space. Although the post­war mass housing projects fulfilled an urgent need for housing, the standardised building elements and floor plans did not provide the tenants with the opportunity to enact their own changes. Alongside the prevalence of social housing schemes, these complexes were designed and managed for an anonymous client. The case of Justus Van Effenblok, however, shows that the positive impact that developers can have in mass housing schemes can ensure unity in residential architecture and its urban context to provide shared amenities for the residents.

The demand for individually customisable interior layouts was successfully applied in the renovation of the Kleiburg Flat of the Bijlmermeer project. The ability to buy and customise your own flats lured a new type of tenant ­ the middle class ­ that were able to support the low­income tenants that had lived in the Bijlmermeer flats from its very conception. What turned out to be fundamental for social cohesion was this stable mixture of tenants differing in income, civil status and size of family, enabled by the Kleiburg renovation and a transition in property ownership that allowed the tenants more freedom over their residential dwelling. To a certain extent, the mobility of tenants, where households constantly move based on their income and socio­ economic status, results segmented neighbourhoods, causing clusters of ‘low­income’ areas, as well as pockets of ‘high­income’ areas. The variables that exist in publicly owned housing, such as communal space layout, facade and program of a building are being influenced by the municipality and the bestemmingsplan​ nen​ . However, the curve of transformal improvement in the private ownership is not as steady and will result in an unstable mixture of tenants. The examples have shown that adaptation opportunities/ preferences in public housing are limited and therefore hinders social cohesion. Masshousing fails to enable a solidary mix within the neighborhoods, as the individual lacks in opportunity to visibly identify oneself within the collective identity as such.

The increase of houseboats shows a reaction against the dominance of functionalism in residential design and strict design codes enacted by the bestemmingsplan​ nen and the municipalities. The qualities embodied in houseboats could be seen as the missing opportunities in the building sector at the time ­ a demand for private properties among the city districts of mainly public owned land. The Masterplan of Borneo­Sporenburg is a compromise between an expression of individual identity, enabled by private land ownership of specified lots, and collective identity, through the enactment of a masterplan created by urban designers West 8. This revolutionary co­design process enabled both bodies to implement a set of design decisions that jointly contributed to an image of a unified neighbourhood. Through this, a collective identity is being generated, despite the freedom of an individual to fully express himself with an individual design, regardless of being entirely privately owned. This reflects the government’s historically rooted task in forming a built environment that should result in the best possible socio­spatial relationship between the neighborhood and the expectation of the individual. Their proposal solves the balance between architectonic terms shaping social cohesion and the stable mobility of the tenants. The segregation of the whole neighborhood is prevented by giving the 60 families the opportunity to fully express themselves to visually identify themselves within a small minority of the 2440 other families controlled by public ownership. Both of each profiting from the fusion of its built environment that shape the characteristics for social cohesion.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aedes, (2013) ​ Dutch social housing in a Nutshell, ​ Dutch association of housing organisations, Retrieved, december 2015, from http://www.aedes.nl/binaries/downloads/vereniging/about­aedes/20130807­dutch­social­housing­in­a­nutsh ell.pdf

Bakema, J. (1962) ​ Bouwen Voor De Anonieme Opdrachtgever​ . Forum 1, no 30

Bakema, J. (1962) Bouwen voor de Anonieme Opdrachtgever,” Forum 16, no. 2

Bakema, J. (1960­61) ​ Een huis in Spangen voor 270 families​ . Forum 5: 161­171.

Bender, R. (1973). ​ A crack in the rear view mirror; a view of industrialized building​ : Van Nostrand Reinhold

Bentham,J., (1700) ​ Plan du Panopticon,​ The Works of Jeremy Bentham, ed. Bowring, t.IV, p.172­173 Cf. p.

234

Bickford, S. (2000). ​ Constructing inequality: city spaces and the architecture of citizenship.​ Political Theory, 28(3), 355­376.

Blake, P. R., & Harris, P. L. (2011). ​ Early representations of ownership,​ New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(132), 39­51. doi: 10.1002/cd.295

Bloemen, E. (1988). ​ Scientific management in Nederlan​ d , 1900­1930, Amsterdam: Nederlandsch Economisch­ Historisch Archief

Boelhouwer, P., & Van Weesep, J. (1988). ​ T he sale of public housing and the social structure of neighbourhoods.​ Built Environment, 14 (3/4)

Boelhouwer, P., & Van Weesep, J. (1988) ​ On shanky grounds: The case for the privatization of the public housing in the Netherlands, ​ T he Netherlands journal of housing and environment research, vol 3, no 4, pp319­333

Brinkman, M. 1920. ​ Volkswoningbouw te Rotterdam in den polder "Spangen".​ Bouwkundig Weekblad 41: 45­50.

Brosnan, S. F. (2011). ​ Property in nonhuman primates​ . New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(132), 9­22. doi: 10.1002/cd.293

Chandler, R. (2004). ​ Building type basics for housing​ . New York [etc.: John Wiley & Sons

Dittmar, H. (1992).​ The social psychology of material possessions:​ To have is to be. Great Britain Harvester Wheatsheaf Hemel Hempstead.

De Maar, B, (1999),​ Een zee van huizen. De woningen van New Deal op Borneo/Sporenburg. A sea of houses.

The Residences from New Deal on Borneo/Sporenburg​ , Bussum, Uitgeverij THOTH

Duyvendadk, J.W., Hendriks F., (2009). ​ City in Sight: Dutch Dealings with Urban Change, ​ Amsterdam University Press ­ Nicis

Emstede, C. (2011) ​ Expired Experiment ­ Modern Monument​ , Icomos Paris, Retrieved, december 2015 from http://openarchive.icomos.org/1136/1/I­2­Article10_Emstede.pdf

Friedman, O., Neary, K. R., Defeyter, M. A., & Malcolm, S. L. (2011). ​ Ownership and object history.​ New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(132), 79­89. doi: 10.1002/cd.298

Gautier,C. & Jollies, A. (2003), ​ Eastern Harbour District Amsterdam: Urbanism and Architecture​ , NAi Publishers, Rotterdam,

Gilbreth, F. B. (1912). ​ Primer of Scientific Management​ , D. van Nostrand Company

Hertzberger, H. (1960­61). ​ 3x het andere wonen.​ Forum 5: 159­160.

Haan, J. d. (2014). ​ Landrotten op het water, ​ Jasper de Haan Architekten, Retrieved, May 2015, http://www.jasperdehaanarchitecten.nl/data/files/alg/id10/landrotten%20op%20het%20water%20DEFINITIEF small.pdf

Hamilton, N. (2002). ​ Lifetimes: The Great War to the stock market crash : American history through biography and primary documents​ . Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press

Hartig, F. (2013). ​ Die Geschichte Der Wohnungsbaugesellschaften.​ Westfälische Wilhelms­Universität Münster, Retrieved May 2015, https://www.uni­muenster.de/NiederlandeNet/nl­wissen/soziales/vertiefung/wohnungsmarkt/Wohnungsbaug esellschaften.html

Herbst, E. (1920). ​ Der Taylorismus Als Hilfe in Unserer Wirtschaftsnot,​ Wien: Berlagsbuchhandlung Carl Fromme, vol 6 Kleinhans, R. (2004) Social Implications of Housing Diversification in Urban Renewal: A Review of Recent Literature. ​ Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19: 367–390

Jacobs, J. (1965) ​ T he Death and Life of Great American Cities, ​ Random House

Jentzer, W. R. (1965). ​ Das Wohnungswesen in Den Niederlanden.​ Wohnen, 40, 4.

Kalish, C. W., & Anderson, C. D. (2011). ​ Ownership as a social status.​ New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(132), 65­77. doi: 10.1002/cd.297

Lambala, K. (1998). Abstraction and Theosophy: Social Housing in Rotterdam, the Netherlands, Architronic, Retrieved, January 2015, ​ http://corbu2.caed.kent.edu/architronic/v8n1/v8n102.pdf

Maas, T. (2012).​ 35 Iconen Van Ruimtelijke Ordening in Nederland.​ Den Haag: Ministerie Van Infrastructuur En Milieu Retrieved from http://www.rijksoverheid.nl/bestanden/documenten­en­ publicaties/rapporten/2013/10/28/35­iconen­van­ruimtelijke­ordening­in­nederland/ro­35­icons.pdf.

Müller, D. B. (2006). ​ Stock dynamics for forecasting material flows—Case study for housing in The Netherlands,​ Ecological Economics, 59(1), 14.

Needham, B. (2014). ​ Dutch Land­use Planning: The Principles and the Practice,​ England: Ashgate.NICK.

Noles, N. S., & Keil, F. C. (2011). ​ Exploring ownership in a developmental context,​ New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(132), 91­103. doi: 10.1002/cd.299 Potgieser, (1985) ​ Dijkhuis​ , Built Environment, Vol 14 Nos ¾

Ross, H., Conant, C., & Vickar, M. (2011). ​ Property rights and the resolution of social conflict.​ New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2011(132), 53­64. doi: 10.1002/cd.296

Scanlon, K., & Whitehead, C. (2007). ​ Social housing in Europe​ . LSE London

Smid, H. J., & Janssens, M. B. (1997). [​ Peer review in requests for subsidies. Zorg­onderzoek Nederland​ ]. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd, 141(42), 2037.

Smidt, W. J. (1994). [Impotentia coeundi and penile extension in steers]. Tijdschr Diergeneeskd, 119(2), 33­35.

Sterk B., Zahirovic S.,(2007) ​ T he Bijlmer: a Dutch Approach to Multiculturalism​ , humanity action Retrieved, November 2015 from http://www.humanityinaction.org/knowledgebase/153­the­bijlmer­a­dutch­approach­to­multiculturalism

Tajfel, H. (1982).​ Social Psychology Of Intergroup Relations. ​ Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 39.

Vandenhirtz, P. (2010). ​ Bootbewoners: Hun leefwereld, sociaal­economische situatie en persoonlijkheid​ , CVO Leerdorp Stad Gent, Retrieved, August 2015 from http://www.schepencarrousel.nl/nieuws/CVO_woonbootonderzoek_Leerdorp.pdf

Vandevyvere, W., and Andreas Zenthöfer. (2012). ​ T he Housing Market in the Netherlands, ​ Brussels: European Commission, Retrieved, March 2015 from http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/publications/economic_paper/2012/pdf/ecp_457_en.pdf.

Whitehead, C., & Scanlon, K. J. (2007). ​ Social housing in Europe​ , London School of Economics and Political Science.

Zanden, M. P. a. J. L. v. (2014). ​ T he Netherlands and the Poldermodel: A Response.​ BMGN ­ Low Countries Historical Review, 129­1, 8.

ILLUSTRATIONS

Fig. 01: Veth, Edvin. Justus van Effenblok, 1921 ­ Axonometry​ . Digital image.Pinterest. User, n.d. Web. Fig. 02: Giulia, Scotto.​ Justus van Effenblok, 1921 ­ Floorplan.​ Digital image.Pinterest. User, n.d. Web.

Fig. 04: Garcia, Jose. ​ Justus van Effenblok ­ 1960 before renovation.​ Digital image. ​ MIMOMA​ . N.p., n.d. Web. Fig. 05: Wensing, ​ T homas. Justus van Effenblok ­ 2014 after renovation.​ Digital image. Architectural record.

N.p., n.d. Web

Fig. 06: Scanlon (2007) ​ Housing construction, ​ s creenshot from​ ​ s ocial housing in europe, pp 132 Fig 07: aedes (2012) ​ European housing market context, ​ s creenshot from social housing in a nutshell, pp5 Fig 08: Scanlon (2007) ​ Housing tenure/ size of social secto​ r , screenshot from social housing in europe, pp9

Fig. 09: Chousein, B.C. (1970)​ T he Bijlmer years 60/70. ​ Digital image. Department urban Amsterdam Fig.10: Chousein, B.C. (2008) ​ In red the galleries­ shaped honeycomb blocks which dominated the original layout. Masterplan.​ Projectbureau Verniewuing Bijlmermeer

Fig. 11: own illustration (2014) ​ T he large inside corridor on the first floor of the flat. Removed during the renovation.

Fig. 12: own illustration (2014) ​ Residents are using a part of the semi​ p ublic corridor as a balcony

Fig. 13: own illustration (2014) Increase the diversity of tenants by selling units to combine in private tenure

Fig. 14: Ahem J. (2004) ​ Masterplan of Borneo Sporenburg: in the foreground the 60 parcels, archnewsnow

Fig. 15: own illustration (2014) ​ A sample of the 60, individually designed parcels at Borneo Sporenburg