Ontwerp Van der Pekbuurt

Building bridges

Van der Pekbuurt | Amsterdam Noord February 2014, Eindhoven Graduation Studio ‘Habitat Reloaded’ Supervision by ir. M.W. Musch, prof. dr. ir. P.J.V. v. Wesemael, dipl.-ing H. Yegenoglu.

Author R.J. Sipkema (Rinze) id. nr. 0751939

2

Preface This report continues on the preliminary research conducted under the graduation studio Habitat Reloaded. The study explores primarily the developments of social housing in the neighbourhood the Van der Pekbuurt in the North of Amsterdam. This report in particular explains the problem analysis and proposes a solution to this problem. Doing the research and writing the report has been a quite an adventure taking me from city planning, to community life, isolation, city transformations, generics and specifics, overpasses and many more. I want to thank the entire graduation studio for being very helpful, comforting and above all a great joy. Enjoy reading.

3

4

Stadsarchief Amsterdam, showing Mosveld in relation to its surrounding Garden Villages.

Late sixties 5

table of contents

6

Introduction 12

Design scales 50

Historical description 14

Johan van Hasselt strip 52 Social concept 56 Spatial concept 58

Generic history 18 Social theory 18 Spatial concept 22

Founding Van der Pekbuurt 26 Spatial developments 26 Social developments

30

Transformation Van der Pekbuurt

Fragment Mosveld 66 Spatial concept 70

Hybrid building 82 Spatial concept 86

32

Epilogue

106

Ciy forming 38 City renewal 40 Urban renewal 42

Reflection

108

References

110

Concluding

44

More Gesellschaft 48

7

8

Squat!net, showing the protests of inhabitants in the Van der Pekbuurt December 2012 9

il Pecorino, Amsterdam, people on a terrace at the Van der Pekstraat May 2012 10

11

Introduction 1

12

The Van der Pekbuurt has been appointed in 2007 as a so-called ‘Krachtwijk’ (Power Area) by minister Vogelaar of Wonen, Wijken en Integratie (department of Living, Districts and Integration).

It has been appointed because a multitude of simultaneous problems arise and the chance for a problem to occur is higher than in other neighbourhoods. Curtain statistics are considered as problems, such as: unemployment, violence, criminality, addiction and medical issues. In other words a Power Area is just a euphemism for a problem area. The high concentration of these problems is related to the low variance of housing, often mainly social housing, within the neighbourhood. Such a concentration of social housing is accompanied by groups of people with lower education, low-income and other socially excluded groups, which causes problem areas.

Being appointed as a Power Area, the Van der Pekbuurt seems to correspond to these problems or statistics, which is why the housing corporation Ymere the owner of almost the entire social housing stock has been put to the task of improving the neighbourhood. Especially refurbishing the physical mass is their main

concern, an approach encouraged by the committee from the department of economic affairs. The report De Baat op Straat mentions the findings of this committee, which concludes that physical investments have measurable positive effects, whereas social investments have not.

Maintenance of public space and refurbishment of the housing stock attracts new people into the neighbourhood, so that a diverse population will cure out the problems in the neighbourhood. This strategy has demonstrated to have a positive effect on reducing crime and nuisance in other Power Areas. 1 In the Van der Pekbuurt, the inhabitants were encouraged to move out their house to a different neighbourhood with social housing in or outside Amsterdam. The unoccupied houses in the Van der Pekbuurt would then be refurbished and prepared for their new private owner. The housing cooperation Ymere would sell a part of their social housings stock to the private sector with people from the middle classes. However in the case of the van der Pekbuurt this is quite an ironic thing to do. The Van der Pekbuurt was founded for the purpose of elevating the working-

class, by providing a better and healthier living environment for the less wealthy people in society and educate them to meet middle class living standards, not casting them out and replaced by middle class.

The cause for these problems was laid rather explicitly at the composition of the population.

Many critics have pointed out that by successfully departing the unwanted inhabitants will merely thin out their social problems, and not solve them. The inhabitants of the Van der Pekbuurt feel threatened by the policymakers and express little confidence in them. As can be seen from the sticker, figure 1, which shows the character Pacman eating his enemy called Ymere, alive. Some people have united in a community association, defending their home.

Ymere responded to the protests with quite an improvement in the policy, the inhabitants are not forced to leave anymore and a coach will be attending to any problems people might encounter. Not only the physical but also the social aspects are now being dealt with.

The founding fathers of the neighbourhood used the physical conditions as an instrument to influence and improve social life. There is no reason to assume that this idea have not worked out well in the beginning, the neighbourhood was much appreciated by the inhabitants for its nice architecture and public space. But to what extend can these ideas mean something for the current inhabitants. In fact the goal still remains, housing people that otherwise would have to live in less nice living environments. This brings us to current challenge. How to deal with a heterogeneous population that is faced with the heritage of a community life that no longer exists?

1. Ministerie van Economische Zaken (2009). De Baat op Straat, p 12,13

13

HISTORICAL DESCRIPTION

14

15

16

Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Cycling race starting near the Van der Pekbuurt March 1926 17

Generic history Social theory

18

The thoughts about community in the design of the Van der Pekbuurt are based on a classical one, also referred to as Gemeinschaft.

Ferdinand Tönnies was first to distinguish Gemeinschaft from Gesellschaft. The German term Gemeinschaft is usually translated to mean community while Gesellschaft is translated as society. In the Gemeinschaft a small scale closed society, such as a village, is understood, where people live together in close (family) relationships determined by love, compassion and harmony.

The Gesellschaft, on the other hand, is a largescale harsh society where these relationships break down into a network of rational ties with precise rules and sanctions. 2

Georg Simmel eleborated further on this notion, where he argues that the natural patterns of the Gemeinschaft are replaced by the social patterns of the Gesellschaft. The socialization of the closed community became characterized by the social connections of the Gesellschaft. This went along with individual behaviour and less solid relationships, i.e. individualization. So more and more people are strangers to each other, but also made privacy, anonymity and personal freedom possible, values unknown to the traditional community. This society was, according to Simmel, no longer harmonious, because conflicts in the urban life of the city created an ‘arena’ in which opposing forces collide, but also join.

A city consists of both types of communities, which should be seen as a social cohesion of part and whole. Both are constantly overlapping, causing a tension field in which the modern human had to adjust his way of living. As a consequence the natural connected life of the Gemeinschaft became intertwined with the artificial connections of the Gesellschaft. 3

The city according to Simmel is one large society where people’s lives are spread out over multiple social domains. Due to the separation of social domains the life of an individual fell apart and was forced to play roles depending on different moments of the day. In order to make sense of the segregated environment the individual is confronted with, it makes use of objective forms.

These objective forms are the different kind of roles of interaction between people. The individual had to utilize these objective forms in each of the domains. The subjective forms as counterpart are experiences of the living environment by the human individual. This individual had to cope with this tension between objectivity and subjectivity. According to Simmel the modern city was such a bombardment of impressions and impulses that the individual was not able to handle it and had to protect himself, causing a split between his subjectivity or inner psychic core, and the objective world of his role behaviour. A person could only survive in daily life by focusing on these roles and objective forms by shutting of his subjective personality. Simmel also indicated, that such behaviour would result in segmental friendships, relationships that covered only some social aspects. These are network-like communities. 4

2. Doevendans, K. (2008). Stedelijk Domein, OPenbaarheid, gemeenschap en individualteit in de stad van de 21ste eeuw. p36 3. Doevendans, K. (2008). Stedelijk Domein, OPenbaarheid, gemeenschap en individualteit in de stad van de 21ste eeuw. p38 4. Doevendans, K. (2008). Stedelijk Domein, OPenbaarheid, gemeenschap en individualteit in de stad van de 21ste eeuw. p39

19

20

Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Ranonkelkade bordered by water May 1938

21

Generic history Spatial concept 2

22

In response to the poor social and hygienic conditions in the industrialized cities Ebenezer Howard introduced the concept of the Garden City in 1898. The idea of the Garden City concept was to create new independent cities in the countryside, thus combining the advantages of the rural town with that of the countryside, see figure 2. The town was Howards ideal for a living environment with a strong traditional community and where contact with nature still enriches the personal life of villagers. Whereas the city tries to loosen the natural ties which Howard values so highly. Each Garden City was intended to be self-sufficient. So if country towns would provide in proportionate areas of housing and industry surrounded by ‘greenbelts’ in the form of agricultural land or parks, the Garden City would not exceed its boundaries and remain a town. Another Garden City would be developed nearby when the first Garden City reached its full population. Howard imagined the Garden Cities as a cluster of satellite cities around a central city of 50.000 people, linked by road and railroads.

The Garden Cities as intended by Howard were never realized as such. Instead, it was Raymond Unwin and his companion Barry

Parker who made an attempt to materialize the Garden City concept with the design and construction of Letchworth and Hampstead Garden Suburb. Under the influence of Raymond Unwin the Garden City Movement evolved and the Garden suburbs became a leading concept.

The difference with Howard’s Garden City is that Garden Suburbs are built on the periphery of an existing city with no necessary sections of industry. The habitants of a Garden Suburb are dependent on proper public transport from and to the city centre. In that sense the Garden Suburb is seen as the counterpart of the Garden City, since Howard was trying to solve the suburbanisation of London with the Garden City concept.

Unwin’s deep appreciation of the medieval city reflects in his philosophy on town planning. He stated that there has to be a clear transition between town and country. Where medieval towns needed a wall or a ditch to protect them, modern towns needed to find a different way to create a ‘clean break’ and ‘visual potential for boundary features’. This would also result in a form of containment, which was needed to avoid

the ‘unbroken monotony of garden houses’. 5 This way it was clear to what community inhabitants belonged to, people were able to categorize a place in order to make sense of it, instead of being lost in an unrestrained city. In other words a Garden Village should diminish the tension field between Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, which is inherent for a city.

Another key aspect in Unwin’s philosophy is the creation of unique identities of individual neighbourhoods, which can be achieved by the homogenization of the architecture, street layouts, and public spaces in the neighbourhood.

6

5. http://discoveringurbanism.blogspot. nl/2009/07/raymond-unwins-townplanning-in_06.html 6. Miller, M. (1992). Raymond Unwin: Garden cities and Town Planning. p122

23

24

Stadsarchief Amsterdam, showing the river IJ and the industry at Amsterdam Noord Septermber 1970 25

Founding Van der Pekbuurt Spatial development In the end of the nineteenth century the workingclass became more empowered. Associations for the working-class were founded, defending the interests of the working-class. These associations were concerned about the working hours, working conditions and salaries. Government supervision for social housing was found necessary. As a result, the state adopted the Woningwet on the first of August 1902.7 Since the introduction of the Woningwet, the service ‘Bouw- en Woningtoezicht’ declared several houses in the city centre as uninhabitable.

The municipality had to deliver several plans to solve the housing problem for the workingclass. The reclaimed land in Amsterdam Noord became a suitable location for the social housing problem in the city centre of Amsterdam. Besides the housing problems, the municipality had to take the rising industries into account as well.

The industries were growing quickly during that time and wanted to expand their facilities.

Since the implementation of the Woningwet, the municipality was required to propose new plans for the industries to settle somewhere outside but near the city. Because the industries were 26

very much depending on water infrastructure, it became obvious to look to the north of the IJ as a potential expansion area. 8 This combination of housing and industry at Amsterdam Noord turned out to be a decision that will determine the area in many ways over the years.

The Van der Pekbuurt is one of the Garden Villages in Amsterdam Noord intended for the working-class. It was built up in the period between 1917 and 1923. One of the tools the architect Van der Pek used in his design was segmentation. The neighbourhood is composed of several smaller fragments in a certain organic pattern forming a coherence. Two roads divide the area into four compartments and he provided each compartment with its own square, see figure 5. The roads were designed to open up at the end, instead of in the middle. Van der Pek designed that to articulate the boundaries and entrances of the area emphasizing the transition between countryside and town. Van der Pek made use of angled blocks at the entrance of the neighbourhood, later known as the Van der Pekplein, as a starting point for a fan shaped area in the southern part of the plan creating a

clear boundary. Around the entire neighbourhood shops were planned, twenty-eight to be exact.

Most of them were located on the main road Van der Pekstraat and should form some sort of centre. 9 As mentioned before, the contrast between the Garden City and the Garden Suburb is the accessibility to the city centre and the fact that a Garden suburb is more depending on facilities in the city. Since the planned Garden Villages in Amsterdam Noord are close to the city centre and based on the Garden suburb concept, only few (necessary) facilities were planned in the Van der Pek neighbourhood. This, together with the open spaces and the homogenization of the architecture should lead to a neighbourhood with all the characteristics of a village. However, a proper connection was not yet established which threatened an entire district to become isolated.

Simply building a bridge across the river IJ was not seen as a good solution, the shipping industry would encounter too much hindrance by the bridge due to sedimentation against the bridge piers. This conclusion put an end to fifty years of dedicated labour of the engineer

3

Galman, who had designed a total of 36 bridges, one of the earlier designs is shown in figure 3.

At the beginning of the twentieth century only a few industries had settled at the other side of the IJ due to the inconvenience in terms of infrastructure and soil conditions. By incorporating industries as well as working-class houses in Noord, assumed was that crossing the IJ would not be a problem and also the ferry connection would then suffice. Although by the time the bridge was not a necessity anymore, the idea was not yet disregarded. The Hoofdkanaal, later called the Johan van Hasseltkanaal, was included in the plan for the future purpose of making a bridge to the north, allowing ships to pass through this canal. As a consequence of this plan the industries were limited to settle along the riverside and canals, since the remaining space was reserved for working-class housing.

However financing the canal was more troublesome than anticipated. The canal was only completed partly (figure 4), which meant a provisional no-go for bridging the IJ. Although by reserving parks and open fields in the domain of the canal, the possibility for completion was protected over several years.

4

5 7. Swart, W. (1990). Amsterdam-Noord 1850-1930, De geschiedenis achter de feiten. p17 8. Krop, A. (1992) Wonen en werken in de Buiksloterham: de geschiedenis van een voormalige polder. p15 9. Schade, C. (2010). Jan Ernst van der Pek, 1865-1919: pionier van de volkshuisvesting. p90-93

27

28

Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Two women Ine and Josephine fetching water

29

Founding Van der Pekbuurt Social development Gemeinschaft Distinction between social classes was strongly embedded in society during the early twentieth century. The socialist Arie Keppler considered the housing concept of the Garden Villages as most fitting to accommodate the working-class with.10 Workers from the slums in Amsterdam

and other working-class families settled in one of the Garden Villages in Amsterdam Noord. From what they were used to, the new neighbourhood was experienced as very beautiful. When a working-class family assigned for a house they had to be qualified first and approved in order to move in the neighbourhood. For those who were not qualified a residential school was built, like Asterdorp in the industrial area for instance.

The intention of this village was that after a year people were able enough to take care of a decent household, they could then move to a house in the Garden Villages.

30

Because of this strong regulation a homogeneous community came into existence, at least the vast majority was from the same working-class and had jobs at the adjacent shipping industries.

The social domain of labour overlapped with the domain of the hamlet, which naturally evolved in a strong social cohesion. People came across the same social relations at the work floor as well as in their street. Hence, there was no need for role segmentation as was part of the Gesellschaft.

Public-institutional-private familiarity A great public familiarity existed; with neighbours from an entire street that knew each other’s names 11 The lack of anonymity, characteristic for the Gesellschaft, also confirms the idea that an actual Gemeinsschaft existed during the early years of the Van der Pekbuuurt.

Public familiarity endeavoured due to many small street shops that were situated throughout the

neighbourhood where people met each other occasionally. Such meetings are either intimate bonds or social relations with less affection.

Anyway it still contributed to getting to know more of others. Because of this knowledge people could position others and themselves into curtain social categories. When social ties within such a category grew stronger a basis existed to feel part of a community, one can also refer it to as social collective. All kinds of happenings contributed to public familiarity: street vendors during a vendor market or the stroll route along the Van der Pekstraat towards the cinema.

One of the moments a more private familiarity could emerge was within rational transactions (social interaction based on benefit instead of affection) with mutual dependence. The welfare state was way less developed before the Second World War than after. People who felt affinity to one another helped each other out, in good

6

7

1920 scale 1:20.000

times and the bad. By donating food or help with looking for a job. Still such social connections are not the tight family bonds associated with in the Gemeinschaft, but it should be possible to evolve in bond by affection instead a rational instrumental one.

At the completion of the Van der Pekbuurt there were no churches, and schools without a religious preference. The communistic political party wanted to separate religion from the working-class. However religion was not that alien to the working class, till the point ‘verzuiling’(pillarization) was just as much part of the neighbourhood as it was in society. Just outside the neighbourhood a small Roman Catholic church settled against the intentions of the design plan. The public schools later on merged together with Roman Catholic church, turning into one large scale cluster of buildings also containing a monastery and the church. To counterbalance all this Roman Catholic religion

also a reformed church was built not that long after.

Eventually multiple religious institutions crossed the district of Amsterdam Noord. Almost every village had their own reformed church only some did not and the Roman Catholic monastery/ church was probably used by people from multiple villages.

So on top of the domain of labour there also was a political religious domain separating social groups. These kinds of groups take form by public familiarity that has both a bonding as a separating quality to it. An individual could feel more related to one of the institutional groups by dissociate from other institutions.

As must have been expected the ideal of a singular community bound to one neighbourhood was to idealistic. The community was more divided in social groups, based on labour as well as politics and religion, than the homogenous working-class neighbourhood would assume.

1932 scale 1:20.000

10. Feddes, F. (2012) 1000 jaar Amsterdam. Ruimtelijke geschiedenis van

built area

een wonderbaarlijke stad.

shops

11. Boomkens, N. (2012) Overleven in Amsterdam Noord

green 31

TRANSFORMATION VAN DER PEKBUURT

32

33

34

35

October 1965

Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Construction of the Johan van Hasseltweg

36

Febuary 1969

Stadsarchief Amsterdam, Johan van Hasseltweg

37

City forming City forming After the Second World War large city extensions were constructed in short period of time, at the same time city centres were restructured in order to stimulate economical development of cities. Areas with deprived houses have been rehabilitated, forcing the inhabitants to move somewhere else. The new open space that emerged in the inner city was replaced by office buildings, shopping malls and new infrastructure.

12

These general developments also had their influence on the Van der Pekbuurt and Amsterdam Noord. The close relation between industry and community that existed since the beginning of Amsterdam Noord crumbled away from the moment the shipyards ADM, NSM and other companies moved to other locations, for instance to the west of the river IJ. The industries wanted to extend more which was not possible 38

at the current location. New small-scale industries settled, but their employees did not necessarily live in Amsterdam Noord. Hence a change in social structure arose, slowly causing a social segregation of mostly immigrants. For these new residents determining social collectives built on public familiarity was way more difficult than it was for the previous inhabitants. With many immigrants from all different origins an abundance of cultural diversity troubled the social identification. Labour was not a domain on which the immigrants could identify others and themselves with, for they all had jobs divided over the city.

Religion too lost its reference as an institutional collective in the neighbourhood, which became more privatized due to the rise of depillarization in society. All in all, the inhabitants became more and more strangers to each other. In other words, the Gesellschaft began taking over the Gemeinschaft.

8

9

1964 scale 1:20.000

The construction of the IJ-tunnel was the first physical connection to Amsterdam Noord. One of the road arteries that branches off to the west and the east became the Johan van Hasseltweg.

Demolition of the area was hardly necessary because the same area was preserved for a canal for quite a long, which consequently was less developed than it would have been otherwise.

The elevated road became the most prominent automobile connection for the industries and an entrance for the Garden Villages in Vollewijck.

Although attempts were made to increase the accessibility of the industries in Amsterdam Noord, it seems that the area besides the Johan van Hasseltweg in only gets more isolated.

One of the fields turned into a paved marketplace, known as the Mosmarkt, cut in half by the overpass. Underneath the overpass a catering function is planned but is not capable by itself to improve the public space. Therefor it needs more support of it surroundings, which is

2013 scale 1:20.000

too desolated. Except for one time a week during the Mosmarket, where even the segmentation of the overpass to a small extend seems to disappear, one might recognize on page 46 by the white covers of the market stalls.

During the city forming the Van der Pekbuurt was deprived from its functional diversity by the policy advocating separation of functions. The small shops in the neighbourhood were forced out by the emergence of large-scale shopping centres outside the neighbourhood. The change in social structure already brought a fall of familiarity but this led to an even greater decline. One of the foundations on which public familiarity growths or falls is the use of public space, for opportunities to interact or merely being able to see each other, which declined enormously without corner shops.

12. http://kennisbank.platform31.nl/ pages/28240/Sanering-en-cityvorming

built area shops green 39

City renewal Between roughly 1970 and 1990 the existing building stock needed to be renovated, especially pre-war neighbourhoods. Many of the homes in those areas are in poor condition and do not meet to the modern quality standards.

The thought of moving to a post war high-rise residential area did not attract many inhabitants.

The emphasis in the city renewal therefore came to lie on building for the neighbourhood.

Residents can stay after the renovation in their district. However, this approach has disadvantages for the financing of the renewal, because investment costs could not be compensated with raising the rents, for people with low income would have to move out. 13 With the privatization of housing cooperations profits became more important than before. While the rents had to stay the same, cheap materials were used for the renovations. Some of them 40

are still very apparent, such as plastic window frames and dormers disrupting the beautiful designed roofs of the Van der Pekbuurt. Internally the option was given to the renters for inserting a bathroom, which however did come with a rise in rents. Others decided to build one themselves or to change nothing internally. Consequently almost the entire housing stock stayed in the lower renting prices of social housing, while neighbouring garden villages did become more expensive. These developments eventually will attract people with low income, creating a social economic homogenous structure.

New construction plans no longer are based on the modernist vision, but are consistent with the existing city. Result is that the renewal of the old city areas during the 1970’s and early 1980’s is performed with preservation of urban structure, building height, and typology. The airey

10

11

buildings fit in that picture, built in the 1978. The city renewal also gave appreciation for playing grounds which is part of the renewal as well.

From all the public spaces in the neighbourhood two were reconstructed into playing grounds, which are currently still one of the driving forces for use of public space where children and parents meet each other.

13. http://kennisbank.platform31. nl/pages/28241/Groeikernen-enstadsvernieuwing

41

Urban renewal Urban renewal Around 1990, after the ‘Grote Steden Beleid’ (big city policy) the urban renewal kicked in which had to answer to the problems in deprived areas focusing on three layers; physical, economical and social.

The solution is especially sought in removing structural and administrative backlogs, and breaking with the monotony of housing typologies and residential composition. Many deprived neighbourhoods exist, according to the state, of a large amount of social housing, with a relatively high percentage of disadvantaged inhabitants, and common problems like neglected maintenance, deterioration and insecurity. It is believed that a combination of physical improvements and a better social mix will reduce these backlogs. In order to attract middle incomes to deprived areas with mainly low 42

incomes, initially physical and spatial operations were executed: upgrading public space and large-scale demolition and restructuring. A part of the social housing would have to be replaced by a mix of buy and rental properties.

For as homeowners are more involved in their neighbourhood and therefore cause less nuisance. 14 The odd thing for the Van der Pekbuurt is that the goals and ideas of the urban renewal only started the moment it was appointed a Vogelaarswijk. Before that is was the last safe haven for people in Amsterdam Noord to live in a relatively attractive social housing area. Around the neighbourhood the development of urban renewal did happen so that the administrative backlogs became very striking at some point.

When walking through the neighbourhood you will notice that the area is indeed inhabited by

12

13

people from different ethnicities by the frequent presence of facilities aimed for this specific market.

The latest developments in Amsterdam Noord try to redevelop the once so strong relation between industries and its social structure. The aim is to create a mixed urban habitat by introducing small enterprises in the living areas and increasing the number of public services. The new desired urbanity introduces some new cultural amenities and entertainment to Amsterdam Noord as well, like the EYE and the redesignation of the Shell tower into a hotel with nightlife activities. The upcoming Noord-Zuidlijn might also improve the accessibility of the Garden Villages with a station at the centre of the Johan van Hasseltwerg.

14. http://kennisbank.platform31.nl/ pages/28245/Stedelijke-vernieuwing

43

CONCLUDING

44

45

46

47

More Gesellschaft Before the city forming several communities existed based on social differences and commons related to religion and (working) classes. A high public familiarity contributed in this distinction, between them, and us by letting people position others on their social differences.

During the city renewal many immigrants moved to the neighbourhood with different behaviour and commons than the homogenous workingclass contained of. On top of the depillarization within society individualism and role segmentation increased consequently. Without a predetermined system, where to categorize people socially, forming and maintaining communities became a difficult matter. With many policies afterwards trying to force people into an ideal of a strong community bounded within the borders of a neighbourhood. Where people should have social bonds like the Gemeinschaft is known for.

48

Reality, like in the Van der Pekbuurt, tries to show us that people within one neighbourhood do not make one community. It never did and it probably never will be. However a multitude of communities are very likely to develop. Currently people’s ethnicity might be used as a new binding domain, which also implies a segregation of communities. Such communities do help in strong social relations but do not deliver much information, as Putnam states. These relations in areas like the Van der Pekbuurt, with all the statistics pointing out the disadvantages of the inhabitants, are people within the same disadvantaged situation. Communities reaching out the border of the neighbourhood weaker bondings exist but carry more information, which might add something to the improvement of a person’s life. Like, a possible job, or how to integrate, and other forms of aid. Bridging capital as Putnam “puts” it. It seems that Putnam is

actually advocating a process of socialization in deprived areas by replacing strong bonds with weaker relations.

When a neighbourhood or an entire district for that matter, is isolated and do not share any common space there is really a very limited basis to built new social interaction on. Bordering the neighbourhood(s) a tension field between Gemeinschaft and the Gesellschaft, which has always been missing in the Van der Pekbuurt, could provide for some city life adjacent to the villages.

As has been explained in this report, the undeveloped area on which the overpass Johan van Hasseltweg is built leaves us some more opportunities and obstacles to deal with by means of an entire reevaluation and restructuring of the urban strip. The strip carries the potential

of physically connecting Amsterdam city with Amsterdam Noord and Amsterdam Noord with the Garden Village, and last but not least to connect the inhabitant with all the previous domains working as a social catalyst.

49

DESIGN SCALES

50

51

Johan van Hasselt strip

52

53

54

55

Metro station

Social concept The Johan van Hasselt strip contains a potential that is currently underexposed. There are many isolated villages in Amsterdam Noord, which does not mean that all these areas are problem areas as well, some are really nice living environments with housing prices above average. In the single case of the Van der Pekbuurt belonging to a bigger scale as have been explained could help the neighbourhoods inhabitants and on top of that connect Amsterdam with the villages by means of a new underground station.

The individual Garden village can contain 56

communities, differing from strong to weak with a high level of amenities and shops or hardly any.

In the case of the Van der Pekbuurt there is as explained no such thing as a singular community within the frame of one village. By reconnecting the urban fabric along the Johan van Hasselt strip, the villages also share a common space where they can stroll or do cross use. The van der Pekbuurt has its own specific supply of amenities and shops fitting the needs for the inhabitants, which has become quite saturated.

Amenities beyond the scale of a village, the city,

n

a bigger and less specific market is needed. By placing facilities that fit in the area that serves all villages along the strip, people from their villages can breach out their isolation.

The urban strip has developed following many different principles. Some are related to the coming and going of the canal; addressing a need on a bigger scale than the villages; and some with economical benefit and others just without a real plan. For almost the entire strip buildings have been constructed on the south side of the Johan van Hasseltweg, with the

overall tendency to develop denser towards the northeast. Also quite remarkable is that both ends of the strip are terribly exploited. The huge hotel on the southwest side is surrounded by lots of green, which hides the beautiful view towards the river IJ.

border Garden Villages facilities green water 57

a

b

Spatial concept The way the Johan van Hasselt strip and its surroundings have developed has caused quite some fragmentation along the length as well as across the width. Most fragments belong to a curtain environment of one of the Garden villages bordered by the overpass. With one fragment, standing out in red colour, covering the Noord Hollandkanaal and the big infrastructural artery called the Leeuwarderweg. Due to the orientation of the Garden Villages and the overpass towards the strip, the area now consists of vast orthogonal lines surpassing the scale of an 58

individual village. Different this is for a person’s experience on one of those lines, the line does not seem to extend beyond the border of the village. Only the lines a till d, as shown on the corresponding pictures, do continue underneath the overpass. Connecting the fragments along all the lines is one of the most important qualities within the restructure plan.

c

d

a

b

c

d

59

Spatial concept As mentioned before, the buildings tend to accumulate on the south side of the Johan van Hasseltweg. There is a lot of differentiation within the morphology as well as the typology.

One of the buildings stands out, a mixed use building with four narrow high rise blocks. By repeating these blocks (coloured in red) with a narrow footprint all along the strip with the same building alignment a visual continuity becomes apparent, which exceeds the limits of one fragment. In this way a new fragment exist on the scale of the strip, bridging the red fragment, 60

instead of a village. The restructure plan also has to provide for a leap in the transverse direction, by overlapping the village fragments with the longitudinal fragment, creating a diffuse urban area that counteracts the current morphological layering. Again by repeating the morphology of the local context, the one of the village coloured in blue, an extension of the orthogonal lines are created. These lines could even be continued further underneath the overpass, by completely renovating the fragment at the Mosveld.

61

Spatial concept

62

63

The orthogonal lines of the strip and its surroundings are knit together with extending morphological elements like the garden village blocks and the bridges crossing the harbour basin. However for a person to walk from one end to the other, the shortest walk prevails.

By making soft long bends through the morphological grid the experience of a detour is ruled out. The route, drawn by the red line, takes you along all the sites and views on the strip.

64

65

Fragment Mosveld

66

67

68

69

Spatial concept The overpass is constructed as being a permeable architectural/urban structure. Heavy columns stand out carrying the weight and providing a passing on ground level. At the end of the overpass a lookout is placed with view over the harbour basin.

70

71

72

73

The floor of the overpass is designed as a plank bridge above the water, articulating the extension of the harbour into the fragment of the Mosveld, neglecting the borders created by the corners of the overpass. The bridges are positioned exactly on the overlap of the morphological lines in this fragment, so that the overpass becomes an intermediate. Underneath the overpass working spaces are planned and on the front end a restaurant/catering. The overall look of the overpass has become rather monumental and almost seems to refer to a Greek temple building.

This feature is taken as a leading principle on the design of the floor plan. The service areas are situated between stone walls were as the remaining floors are open towards glass panels providing a longitudinal symmetry and enough light behind a large overhang.

74

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

Hybrid building

82

83

84

85

Spatial concept The hybrid building originates from the context of the urban scale. It combines the scale of the strip with the overpass and the traditional garden village blocks. Choosing the high rise above the low rise would have broken the extension of the morphological lines. In the case of preferring the traditional block the continuity in the longitudinal axe would have been interrupted. Combing it serves both goals. So the building beholds the idea of the entire strip, merging the small specific with the large generic. Connecting the two typo-morphological buildings has been the main principle in the design of the hybrid building.

86

87

88

89

90

91

92

scale

1:200

93

94

scale

1:200

95

96

scale

1:200

97

98

scale

1:200

99

100

101

102

scale

1:200

103

Type 1

Type 2

104

Type 3

Type 4

scale

1:100

105

EPILOGUE

106

107

Reflection This report started out with stating the current challenge. How to deal with a heterogeneous population that is faced with the heritage of a community life that no longer exists? The concluding paragraph advocated a paradoxical statement, advocating socialization as a means to enhance the social life of the inhabitants of the Van der Pekbuurt instead of a community ideal for social elevation as imagined by Howard.

Now taking the design proposal in account I can ask myself to what extend it answers to the challenge? Most relevant here is to underline the relation between social and physical aspects.

Socialization is characterized by both a physical and a social liberation from the containment of the former community. An a priori casual relationship between the physical and social entities is most likely impossible to deduct.

As in any architectural assignment I believe, the architect is limited to try to make some difference to the life of the people involved with 108

the purely physical design based on knowledge of a posteriori experiences. In that context my design proposal is no more than providing the opportunity, a bridge for social life comparable to a city to develop.

The main design concept is based on physical and social connection of the strip in itself and with its surroundings. The physical transformation was purely limited to the urban strip. Question is would the physical transformation been really different if I would have ignored the social conditions and treated the strip strictly as a physical challenge. Probably not, the strip already has a lot to offer disregard the local social circumstances, whether a successfully gentrified or a deprived urban area. Even so I am still fully convinced of my approach by taking the Van der Pekbuurt as a starting point. In fact the Van der Pekbuurt made me look further than the neighbourhood itself, so without it there would

not have been a trigger to transform the Johan van Hasselt strip. Halfway through the design process I could have decided to change my initial starting point, induced by the discovery of the potential the strip contains, and loosen the focus on the isolated villages. Again, I have not done that either, I guess because at that point it did not cross my mind (also I would not have dared) to change the social foundation of this research.

On top of that I think it would have been inconsequent. My research covers the interaction between the social and physical conditions. The design proposal can be seen as a continuation of this particular story.

Last thing I would like to mention here is the project’s feasibility. It needs to be said, it is a large project during a time where financial resources are hard to come by. The strip consist of quite a number of medium and large scale buildings that not merely exists of housing but a divers

program of amenities as well. Therefor just as many entrepreneurs are needed to fill in these ground floor functions and a successful business.

And then I have not even mentioned the huge hindrance (and expenses) of restructuring the overpass that will isolate a whole living area for quite some time. In order to execute such a project many sequential steps would have to be taken and a substantial fund finding. Which would likely lead to savings along the way by one or more alterations to the design.

With this said, I look back in content with the result of quite a cumbersome process over the past year. Here I rest my case and wish Amsterdam Noord and in particular the Van der Pekbuurt the best for the future.

109

References books Doevendans, K. (2008). Stedelijk Domein, OPenbaarheid, gemeenschap en individualteit in de stad van de 21ste eeuw.

Miller, M. (1992). Raymond Unwin: Garden cities and Town Planning.

Swart, W. (1990). Amsterdam-Noord 18501930, De geschiedenis achter de feiten.

Krop, A. (1992) Wonen en werken in de Buiksloterham: de geschiedenis van een voormalige polder.

Schade, C. (2010). Jan Ernst van der Pek, 1865-1919: pionier van de volkshuisvesting.

110

Feddes, F. (2012) 1000 jaar Amsterdam.

Ruimtelijke geschiedenis van een wonderbaarlijke stad.

Blokland-Potters, T. (1998). Wat Stadtbewoners Bindt. Sociale relaties in een achterstandswijk. reports Ministerie van Economische Zaken (2009).

De Baat op Straat

websites http://discoveringurbanism.blogspot. nl/2009/07/raymond-unwins-townplanning-in_06.html http://kennisbank.platform31.nl/ pages/28240/Sanering-en-cityvorming documantary Boomkens, N. (2012) Overleven in Amsterdam Noord

figures 2. www.spatialagency.net 3/4 http://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl 5 Schade, C. (2010). Jan Ernst van der Pek, 1865-1919: pionier van de volkshuisvesting. Rotterdam, Nederland: Stichting BONAS. p. 91 12 http://amsterdam.sp.nl/kerngroepen/noord/berichten 13 http://www.angsaw.nl/rood/project-4-blauw/ 14-17 (a-d) Google streetview own photography: 1 10,11 own maps: 6-9

111