Rumoer 58: Built Environment| BouT | TU Delft by RuMoer

periodical for the Building Technologist

PRAKTIJKVERENIGING

BOUT

student association for building technology

58. Built Environment & Technology

www.octatube.nl

Brouwer en Karthaus winnen W.H. Gispen Award

Architect Jan Brouwer heeft in combinatie met industrieel ontwerper Chris Karthaus de eerste W.H. Gispen Award gewonnen met het ontwerp van de stoel Chalu. De jury, onder leiding van ontwerper Richard Hutten, bekroonde het ontwerp unaniem als beste uit de 110 inzendingen. Het ontwerp van de kuipstoel Chalu zal worden opgenomen in de collectie Gispen Today. De W.H. Gispen Award is een initiatief van Dutch Originals. Dit label brengt de klassiek geworden ontwerpen van W.H. Gispen uit onder de naam Gispen Classics en voert een collectie met de naam Gispen Today, waarbij hedendaagse toonaangevende ontwerpers - geïnspireerd op de rijke ontwerptraditie van W.H. Gispen - nieuwe producten ontwerpen.

•

Jan Brouwer +31 6 51 31 62 50 Chris Karthaus +31 6 46 32 70 21 info@brouhaus.nl www.brouhaus.nl www.brouwerarchitect.nl

Cabinet 02.West.090 Faculty of Architecture Julianalaan 134 2628BL Delft The Netherlands PRAKTIJKVERENIGING

BOUT

student association for building technology

+31 (0)15 278 1292 www.praktijkverenigingbout.nl rumoer@praktijkverenigingbout.nl

Colofon

RUMOER 58 September 2014 20th year of publication Praktijkvereniging BouT Room 02.West.090 Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft Julianalaan 134 2628 BL Delft The Netherlands

RUMOER is a periodical from Praktijkvereniging BouT, student and practice association for Building Technology (AE+T), Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft (Delft University of Technology). This magazine is spread among members and relations. Circulation The RUMOER appears 3 times a year, 150 printed copies circulation. Digital versions are available online at: www.PraktijkverenigingBouT.nl

tel: +31 (0)15 278 1292 fax: +31 (0)15 278 4178 www.PraktijkverenigingBouT.nl rumoer@PraktijkverenigingBouT.nl

Membership Amounts per academic year (subject to change): € 10,- Students € 20,- PhD Students and alumni € 30,- Academic Staff € 80,- Companies

Printing Sieca Repro, Delft

Single copies Available at Praktijkvereniging BouT for € 7,50.

ISSN number 1567-7699 Credits Edited by: Text editing: Cover design:

Koen Fischer Reinier Scholten Jelmer Niesten Marc Nicolaï Koen Fischer Reinier Scholten Jelmer Niesten Marc Nicolaï Koen Fischer

Sponsors Praktijkvereniging BouT is still looking for (main) sponsors. Sponsors make activities possible such as study trips, symposia, lectures and much more. There is also a possibility of advertising in the RUMOER: Black & White, full page € 100,Black & White, full page, 3x (once in every edition througout one year) € 250,Full color, full page € 200,-

Cover image:

Former Church Bolsward by Jelle de Jong Architecten (Image courtesy by Arthur Blonk)

Copy Files for publication can be delivered to BouT in .doc or .indd, pictures are preferred in .png or .jpg format. Disclaimer The redaction does not take any responsibility of the photos and texts that are displayed in the magazine. Images may not be used in other media without permission of the maker. The redaction keeps the right to shorten or refuse publication without prior notification.

Contents

Editorial

From the board

Challenges in Architectural Conservation by Wido Quist

An Interview with Robert Winkel

All but table and bed separated by Kees van der Hoeven Photo Essay by Jelle de Jong Architekten

To hide the effort, that’s the trick by Muriel Huisman

The Feasibility of Successful Repurposing by Hans van Heesweek

An Interview with Janneke Bierman

Visitting Building Holland by Marc Nicolaï

Editorial

This first Rumoer in our lustrum year is dedicated to the old and the new. The technical combination between the old and the new to be precise. In this edition we have gathered a fine selection of articles, interviews and even a photo essay. The opening article is written by Wido Quist, assistant professor at the Delft University of Technology. The article describes the relationship between RMIT, the architectural track at the TUDelft which focusses on the reuse of exciting buildings, and ‘our’ department of Building Technology. This issue of Rumoer brings you some interesting project descriptions as well. Kees van der Hoeven tells how he made a house from an old military canteen for himself and his wife. Recently a few museums in the Netherlands were renovated, extended and improved. Two architects write about “their” museum. Muriel Huisman, architect at Cruz y Ortiz Arquitectos, describes how much effort it takes not to show the effort that is put in the renovated Rijksmuseum. In his article, Hans van Heeswijk explains how he brought a 17th-century monument back to its former glory to house the much appreciated Hermitage. For this Rumoer we interviewed two architects to give you an idea about how these architects work and think. Robert Winkel from Mei Architects and Planners explains why a mistake can make a building beautiful and how they sometimes intend on making mistakes. Janneke Bierman from Bierman Henket architecten will show us how she designed the bloblike extension for “De Fundatie” museum. As a visual treat, Kees de Haan of Jelle de Jong Architekten, gathered some beautiful photographs of their projects which show the combination between the old and new exactly visualizing the topic of this Rumoer. Koen Fischer 5

From the Board Written by: Pasquale Maya, Daniël, Maaike & Koen

The beginning of the new academic year 2014-2015. A special year for BouT that is for it is our 20th anniversary. Twenty years ago, september 1994, BouT was founded by then BT teacher Jan Brouwer (who still is a big supporter of BouT) to promote the role of the building technologist because he (and more often she) is often seen as an insignificant player in the whole process of building. Twenty years later this image has been improved but many people are still unaware of the qualities of the building technologist. For this our role is not redundant yet. We keep on going strong for the initial goals. As we’re used to we’ll also continuing our efforts to support your study by arranging exciting excursions and interesting lecturers and enrich your student life with sparkling drinks and sizzling barbecues. At this moment we’re planning two special events for you. You can look forward to our study trip to Berlin and a real symposium organized by and for building technologists. As an extra event this year one of our committees is planning a study trip to Berlin this fall. This summer we had a little change in the setup of the board. Tyrza Lichthart has left BouT as Chairman, Pasquale van Dijk will be the new Chairman and at the same time she will still be responsible for Educational Affairs. As there’s a lot to do in and around BouT, we are always on the look for new enthusiastic people who want to join BouT. We have various committees which you can join or help the whole year through, ones a year a new board is formed to replace all of the former board members. So if your are interested don’t hesitate to contact us. We are looking forward to the next twenty years of BouT! What aBouT you?

GE ?

Solar Sedum® is een jong Nederlands bedrijf op gebied van intergratie PV en groen. Zij biedt stagiaires de volgende mogelijkheden: • Onderzoek verkoeling panelen • Ontwerpen configuraties • Productontwikkeling • Marketing & Verkoop technieken • Werkervaring op daken Kom leren in de praktijk, daar schiet je mee op!

Ben je geïnteresseerd? Mail je CV en motivatie naar matthijs@solarsedum.nl Binnen de komende weken worden de eerste testopstellingen geplaatst. Solar Sedum® werkt samen met Zinco, Optigroen, SemperGreen, VU Amsterdam, TU Delft, HS Rotterdam, Wageningen UR, New Energie Docks en De Dakdokters

Challenges in Architectural Conservation

Written by: Wido Quist

The professional and academic field of Cultural Heritage is a broad and international field including amongst others social studies, historical studies, architecture, archaeology, building materials and design. This contribution focusses on built (architectural) heritage in the Netherlands. Due to the relatively high building density and the abundance of empty space in the Netherlands, it was already stated in the nineteen eighties that it is not the task of the future to build the new, but to adapt the existing. Of course, the existing Dutch building stock does not only consists of so called Architectural Heritage but also of a large number of buildings of a lower importance. Since the beginning of the new millennium it could be observed that the term ‘heritage’ became interpreted wider and the debate on and the preservation of historical values was not limited anymore to buildings with an official listed monumental status. Governmental policies, commercial investments in real estate and the perception of existing buildings by the general audience started to change slowly, but it was not until the financial crisis of 2007-2008 that most people realized that the future of real estate development – in the broad sense - lies in ‘the existing’. This contribution focusses on the recent and future challenges in conservation of the existing building stock, 8

Figure 1: New methods of exploring the tolerance for change in historical buildings need to be developed. What is the (maximum) load a building can take? For example: looking from a cultural historical and architectural point of view, is this former ‘werkplaatsengebouw’ in Rotterdam by Van de Broek en Bakema capable of carrying the intervention on top of the building?

Dr.ir. W.J. (Wido) Quist was educated in architecture and building technology and now works as assistant professor at the Delft University of Technology. As a student he was chairman of the fifth BouT-board (1998-1999). Wido defended his PhD-thesis - on the replacement of white Belgian sandy limestone - early 2011. His research interests contain among others history of conservation, 20th century building materials and natural stone. He is involved in education of master students in architecture with a focus on building conservation, research methodology and renovation of postwar apartment buildings. Among others he was vice chairman of the 10th International Docomomo Conference in 2008 in Rotterdam, is board member of Docomomo Netherlands and WTA NL-VL as well as member of the advisory committee of bi-annual Flemish-Dutch symposium on Natural Stone. More information: http//www.widoquist.nl.

whether it is listed or not. Considering the terminology used it is clear that this field is very broad. Without defining them the following terms are frequently used: restoration, renovation, modification, intervention, transformation, rehabilitation, retrofitting, conservation, preservation, alteration and conversion. In Dutch we are most familiar with the words ‘restauratie’ and ‘interventie’, in which ‘restauratie’ is mainly used in the context of old, historical, valuable and therefor to be preserved buildings and ‘interventie’ in the context of the more common buildings of lower cultural and architectural importance. In this contribution I would like to speak about ‘conservation’ as it is defined in “The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013”, regardless whether the monumental value of the building concerned is considered high or low: “Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance. In which cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects.”

Context at TU Delft The section RMIT of the department of Architectural Engineering + Technology is a teaching and research unit of the Faculty of Architecture of Delft University of Technology (TU Delft). The focus of the section is on the integrated Restoration, Modification, Intervention and Transformation of sites with (sometimes hidden) culturalhistorical value from the urban to the detail level. As part of the RMIT-methodology in research and design, it is stated that many answers for the future lie in the past, so talking about future developments in conservation is talking about history. See also the inaugural speeches of the different professors at RMIT and their predecessors. Since the late nineteen sixties a working group, focussing on ‘restauratie’, exists at the Faculty of Architecture of TU Delft. A group of people saw the importance of setting ‘restauratie’ as an academic discipline. In 1973 prof. C.L. (Coen) Temminck Groll was appointed chair of ‘Restauratie’. From 1987 onwards the chair was taken by prof. F.W. (Frits) van Voorden. In its early years staff of the chair were involved in many on-site investigations into the building archaeology of specific buildings and sites and later a focus on mutual overseas Dutch Heritage and 9

on a larger urban context could be observed. Although the chair was part of the department of Architecture, education was broad and ranged from international excursions through construction history to building materials and design. Within the Technology department of the Faculty of Architecture a chair on Renovation and Maintenance Techniques was created in 1988. This chair was taken by prof. J. (Joop) van Stigt. After the retirement of prof. Van Stigt in 1999, the sudden death of prof. Van Voorden in 2000 and an interim period under the guidance of prof. H.J. (Hubert-Jan) Henket, the department of RMIT was established by prof. J. (Jo) Coenen in 2004. In his inaugural speech in 2006 he explained ‘the art of blending’, not only referring to the integration of ‘old’ and ‘new’, but also referring to the integration of the disciplines of Urbanism, Architecture and Technology in the new department. Current chairs at RMIT are taken

by prof. P. (Paul) Meurs, prof.dr. M.C. (Marieke) Kuipers and prof. R.P.J. (Rob) van Hees; the position of Coenen is vacant. This short history illustrates the historical connection of architecture and technology when acting in architectural conservation and the future of the conservation-discipline lies in an even stronger connection between architecture and technology, backed up by historical and cultural knowledge. In my opinion, the most important (technology related) challenges in architectural conservation lie in: ·

Developing methodologies and parameters supporting heritage valuation;

Making the existing building stock more sustainable;

Finding integrated strategies for temporary use;

Developing knowledge on compatible and re-treatable conservation techniques;

Developing knowledge on twentieth century (building) materials.

Heritage valuation

Figure 2: Although smaller in scale, compared to recent decennia, traditional conservation campaigns like here at St. Johns’ cathedral in ‘s-Hertogenbosch will always be necessary to preserve the most valuable (parts of our) Architectural Heritage. The biggest challenge will be to keep on educating craftsmen and to continue working with the concepts of ‘compatibility’ and ‘re-treatability’ in mind.

The shift from traditional preservation to future oriented adaptation has consequences for our approach of historic buildings, whether they are listed or not. On the one hand it is the question what this shift means for conservation theory but on the other hand it has a strong architectural and technological component because it calls upon the possibilities for change of a building or complex. New parameters such as ‘cultural carrying capacity’ and ‘compatibility’ (see Kuipers & Quist, 2013) as well as new approaches, such as preliminary studies of possible

interventions instead of repressive permit strategies seem to offer a lot. The fields of BuildingTechnology, Architecture and Cultural Heritage should go hand in hand to determine the possibilities taking into account its historical and current performance in many aspects and its tolerance for change to accommodate future performance.

Sustainability Western Europe in general and the Netherlands in particular has a huge amount of twentieth century buildings of which many do not comply with the current and future needs for comfort and environmental sustainability. Demolition and replacement would have a very high embedded energy load and would destroy valuable historically grown urban contexts. Therefore it is necessary to develop strategies that not only aim at reduction of fossil energy use and making appealing architecture but also at respecting and probably enhancing the cultural historical values of the buildings concerned. Although in many ways comparable, the twentieth century building stock is not homogeneous when it comes to its architectural, technological and cultural historical values. This implies the translation and adaptation of generic concepts on sustainability to the need of individual buildings and complexes, based on valuations. Tailor made (technological) designs, based on general products is where the future lies.

Temporary use Large scale restoration and redevelopment of existing buildings and complexes seems to have become history as the financial means for investments are not available anymore. This not only raises the question to rethink real estate development strategies, but also many questions regarding daily maintenance and conservation of the

Figure 3: BK-city is an example of ‘temporary use’ turned into ‘permanent’ use. To stay in the building permanently, a project to enlarge the comfort and reduce the energy load is being executed. During the initial conversion and the second refurbishment a lot of choices regarding materials, colours, repairs, replacements, breakthroughs, etc. have been made that interact or conflict with the monumentality of the original building. It would be of great value to study the interventions in retrospect to learn more about the advantages and pitfalls of converting for ‘temporary use’.

physical matter. Development for temporary use is an instrument that is promoted by the government. In its essence there is no difference between adapting buildings for temporary future use or for permanent future use. In the end one never knows beforehand how long ‘temporary’ will be or how long ‘permanent’ will last. The biggest risk for the architectural heritage concerned, when developed for temporary use, is the possible use of non-durable and/ or non-compatible materials and techniques that allow or initiates degradation of the existing; obstructing future preservation. Temporary use without proper investments in (daily) maintenance can also harm the existing in such a way that degradation beyond repair is the consequence. Predicting and monitoring future decay and predicting the possible decrease of traditional heritage values compared to the creation of new values by adding a new historical layer to the building by giving it a temporary use will become an interesting research theme in the near future.

Compatibility and re-treatability The terms compatibility and re-treatability were developed in reaction to the ‘classical’ and in many cases impossible to achieve reversibility of interventions in architectural heritage. Compatibility can be defined as: every intervention should not harm the existing and be as durable as possible. The term re-treatability refers to the possibility to reexecute the same intervention to prolong the service-life of the construction concerned. Both concepts need to be elaborated especially when not only looking at material properties, but also taking architectural and historical aspects into account.

Modern materials Up until now only fragmentary research has been done in the Netherlands into twentieth century building materials like thin plated natural stone, aluminium, plastics, fibreboards and concrete. Opposite to the lack of comprehensive research there is a lot of hands-on experience in the professional field of (conservation) architecture, engineering and execution. To know about modern building materials is to bring knowledge of different stakeholders together.

Concluding remarks This contribution on architectural conservation was not meant to make a clear statement or to point at specific architectural or technological developments, but it tried to explore the mutual topics between the RMIT-discipline and the BuildingTechnology-discipline. It is mainly described from an academic point of view, but when looking at specific cases in the professional field of conservation -also described in this Rumoer issue-, it becomes clear that both disciplines share a lot. I hope that the topics described can set a professional and academic research agenda for the near future that includes both Building Technologists and RMIT-architects.

References C.L. Temminck Groll, Een introductie voor de restauratie. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 1973. F.W. van Voorden, Het einde van de restauratie-koorts. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 1988. J. van Stigt, Een nieuwe bouwopgave. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 1988. R.P.J. van Hees, De restauratie voorbij. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 2004.

J. Coenen, De kunst van de versmelting. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 2006 P. Meurs, Bouwen aan een weerbarstige stad. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 2007. M.C. Kuipers, Het architectonisch geheugen. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 2009.xxx M.C. Kuipers & W.J. Quist (red.), Culturele Draagkracht. Op zoek naar de tolerantie voor verandering bij gebouwd erfgoed, Delft 2013.

An Interview with Robert Winkel Architect at Mei architects and planners

“De Fabriek” Written by Koen Fischer & Jelmer Niesten

Do you have a strategy when approaching a new project? It is of the utmost importance that you start loving the building you work on. And to love something, you have to know it. An important aspect is the history of the building; in which circumstances it was built or previously transformed. Often historical buildings have not been built at once and are made up of different parts. You’ll find many existing elements that make the building unique and may need to be replaced. It’s important you understand the technology and materials behind these elements.

The building method can tell you right away in which period each part was built. Like the way modernists after the 20’s use concrete that isn’t plastered to keep it ‘honest’ as a material. That way you can unravel the techniques used and also divide the building into different time layers. You can find what makes the building special to you and use this to start telling its story to others.

And if you don’t fall in love with the building? Most of the time I know quite soon if a project is right for us or not. We tend to look for projects with something special. Either because of the building itself, or because of the ambitions of the client. If both the building and the client don’t inspire us then we see that as a reason not to take on the project.

How was this strategy used at “De Fabriek”?

Figure 1. The office of Mei architects, Schiecentrale 4B

In “De Fabriek” located in Delfshaven I immediately saw the different layers of time. First small houses appeared on the side of the dike over several years, built out of masonry and timber. Later on, in the 30’s, a factory hall was built on the space between the houses and the water, with a main load bearing structure of steel.

Robert Winkel founded Mei architects and planners in 2003 and is the office’s energetic leader. He is ambitious and enterprising both inside and outside the office. Robert has a love of the craftsmanship involved in treating and finishing materials, as reflected in his solid understanding of (industrial) production processes. This is illustrated by details such as the screen of woven stainless steel applied to the Schiecentrale 4B building and the panels of the Kabouter garage. He also designs and makes his own leather shoes, and loves to make his own traditional sausage, which he then places to dry in a storage unit, made of composite materials developed by Mei, located opposite his home on the gallery on the top floor of the Schiecentrale 4B building.

people; especially so when we found that those windows could be opened in a specific way to get rid of steam. This reflected on the historical use as an industrial steaming and painting facility. The location of “De Fabriek” at the “Mathenesserdijk” was also just right. This dike has had a turbulent history as the main road between Schiedam en Rotterdam until 1900. The traditional ribbon development alongside is easily noticeable. The turbulent history as well as the time layers intrigue me. The building is named “De Fabriek” but when we found it, it looked more like a maze due to all the different buildings connected to each other.

What’s the next step in the design process? Figure 2. “De Fabriek“ building

When you make adjustments to a building you have to be aware of the load bearing structure and its stability, but you must also realize what kind of emotions the materials can induce in people. In this building we found timber window frames on one side and steel window frames on the other side, facing the water. These steel window frames were something special and really impressed

From this point on it’s all about strategy. Everybody wants to have a design for free. They want us to make a quick sketch to give to the contractor and continue without us. This time the project developer tried to sell the project including us as the architect to the contractor. Only after convincing the contractor we wouldn’t be just another price tag but could actually help save money the contractor agreed.

During the reconstruction that followed we made design decisions in accordance with our sketch design and the wishes of the contractor. Every day we had to walk through the building and see what we could find and what to do with it. This makes for an interesting job and left little time to think about the situations that arose; we had to make quick decisions.

How did you deal with parts of the building that were too dilapidated for re-use? The funny thing about the whole idea behind the vide is that we came up with it because a part of the building was rotten and partly collapsed. This part used to be where several small courtyards provided the houses with light and air. So we kept the hole we found in the old building to bring some quality to the new.

How did you connect the new parts to the old? It really was a day to day effort. Every day we used to see what we found in the old building and had to find a solution right away. For example we couldn’t stir the soil. Therefore it was impossible to dig a hole for the elevator shaft. However the floor height in the basement was quite high so we could think about raising the floor and thereby creating a base for the elevator. Another example is the structure. The little houses gained their stability from the front and rear facades. When we had to take away the rear facade we had to think about how to support the houses. To solve this we came up with a construction that functions similarly to a walker for the elderly. These kind of practical things, the decisions we had to make on site, are characteristic for the design of „De Fabriek”.

In technical terms, what were the hardest problems to solve? We didn’t want to add any vents to the building, but the building codes stipulate a minimal ventilation requirement. However by studying the regulations closely we found that natural ventilation is permitted when applied above 1.8 meters. We were very lucky to find that the typical industrial windows in the building could meet this regulation. This left a need for heating during cold seasons. Regrettably we weren’t able to apply a closed system with heat recovery due to the low budget.

Figure 3. “De Fabriek“ before the re-development

Due to the vide we ended up with a fire compartment that was twice the size of what the regulations would allow. But again by reading the regulations very closely we found a clause that spoke about dealing with fire regulations from a different perspective. With this we were able to convince

the fire department that our building was easily escapable during a fire by using the old routes through the building. For all these cases we needed to be smart, fast and sly. As an architect knowing the rules and regulations is indispensable in the building process. Everybody can make a nice sketch but only a few have the knowledge and knowhow to make a sketch into reality.

What materials are used in ”De Fabriek”? We used a lot of prefabricated products. For example the glass roof is originally used in greenhouses. The handrails for staircases and the vide are a standard product we customized slightly. But generally we use a lot of glass, steel and plaster. Generally it isn’t our highest priority but as it happens these are all cradle to cradle materials.

How do the old and new meet in „De Fabriek”? This is exactly what „De Fabriek” is all about. The old structure is partly peeled so we could combine it with the new structure. The new structure connects everything together: the old steel construction, the old houses and the vide. The new structure is not a piece of art. That was never the purpose. It had to function. Clean details aren’t my priority. Sometimes it has to be beautiful and sometimes it just needs to do its job. These rough details form the character of the building. We even try to make little mistakes on purpose.

What detail are you most proud of? It’s a specific element that connects the old and new steel structures. (Figure 4) The old part is built by hand and therefore irregular and crooked. It’s an impossible task to get accurate measurements on it. Due to this the

Figure 4. Connecting the old and new doesn’t always fit exactly.

new steel structure doesn’t fit exactly. To connect the two parts we had to weld on some crooked beams. Some people see this as a mistake but we see it as a symbol of the fact you can’t control everything when working on exciting buildings. Besides, no one really notices this “fault”. Only those who know of it, see it.

To what extent is The Factory a typical project for your office?

How important is restoration now and in the future?

Most important in our designs is creating communities and bringing people together. We try to do so with all of our projects, making places where people can see and meet each other. Also our style of collaboration with different experts and advisers is typical for our office. We try to learn from them instead of simply using their knowledge. And of course we try to be smart, fast and sly with every design.

I don’t know if this is our task for the future but I think it is very important for every architect and engineer to experience at least one restoration. So much can be learned from old buildings and technologies. Not only is it interesting to figure out how people used to build in the past but even more interesting is why they built that way. With this knowledge you gain more understanding of the contemporary building techniques. I can’t predict the future nor say what the task for architects will be in five or ten years. Most important is to stay flexible.

Figure 5. Connection between old and new in “De Fabriek“

Figure 6. Interior of “De Fabriek“

All but table and bed separated

Written by: Kees van der Hoeven

“As I park the car at the Institute in the forest, a man comes up to me who calls me by my name. The world is full of readers, they make themselves known at unusual moments and places. He wants me to see his house. I walk along up the hill, past the woodwards house, through the gate, that is where he is building his house. He’s an architect and did the design. It’s an extraordinary house, he says, his wife and he both get their identical half. He met her twenty one years ago, a god’s send, but they didn’t want to live together. When he recently asked her to marry him she said “Yes”, under the condition that he’d design her a house in which they would only share table and bed. He designed a house that mirrors itself. They both have an office, living room, library, toilet, bathroom and front door in exact mirror symmetry. A house for passing each others life elegantly, which reflects my own matrimonial ambition. Only the view and the daylight that falls through the canopy is different. When we went downhill again, a truck happens to enter the street. The driver is from Emmen. He’s bringing twenty eight doors for the mirror house.” Twenty eight doors - Short story by Tommy Wieringa

For twenty years architect Kees van der Hoeven (62) and psychologist Josette Keegstra (63) had a LAT (Living Apart Together) relationship. She lived in an apartment in Amsterdam and he rented an old canteen in a forest near Wassenaar for thirty years. Recently they bought the little canteen and got the leasehold for the land. With that canteen as a take-off they built their ideal live and work house.

Design and organization Our new house came to be by renovating and expanding the existing property. This former canteen is a little rectangular shaped building with double wythe masonry walls and a tarred flat roof. It was too small to house two, so after purchasing we decided to design a plan for expansion. The current zoning allowed an increase of fifteen percent of the built area and a extra floor as attic. Because both of us lived on our own for so long, we chose for a concept in which we would both have an equal amount of usable space. All rooms and utilities would be doubly built and we'd only share the live-in kitchen and the bedroom. Our design therefore defines three zones: in the middle the live-in kitchen adjacent to a patio, the stairs and the bedroom; then on opposing sides both of our own habitats; and on the upper floor a terrace with an adjoining library for each. Despite the patio being an outside space, for the rules it still counted as built surface and therefore we had to renounce the patio. The approved design contains a living space on the East side with its own entrance, hall, storage and toilet. The other living space with the same contents lies on the West side of the building. The planned half round libraries were included under a slated roof on the upper

floor, all according to the rules. Eventually these became two separate roofs, each with two slanted sides. The side walls of the roofs are slightly crooked to allow light and sight through two narrow windows. The entrance halls, the bathrooms and the bedroom were all included in a building permit free zone.

Foundation and floors Due to financial means we became our own contractor during the construction, which partly because of limited budget was realized with traditional building techniques such as timber framing. I'm a fairly capable handyman and had been working before on the realisation of a temporary home for the duration of the construction period. During the construction we lived in a rebuilt shipping container that was expanded with a bathroom and toilet and with a bedstead and terrace were built onto. The lodging also served as on site office. A demolition firm known from earlier renovations did the deconstruction of the existing building for us, maintaining three masonry outer walls and the existing concrete floor. Next I assembled all the PVC drains for the plumbing and connected them to the main sewage. Both sons of the demolition boss helped me with the foundations for 21

Figure 1. The patched remaining walls after demolition.

Figure 2.

the expansions at the front and back. After laying the limestone bricks we placed the concrete reversed T beams and the polystyrene filling for the new floors, after which the pressure layer was poured through a concrete pump that was fed by a mobile concrete mixer. On the existing concrete floor we first placed 12 centimeter high pressure polyurethane insulation before we poured a new concrete floor on top and flattened it out with a vibrating board.

waterproof and pre-grounded multiplex plate.

Walls, roofs and upper floor The three masonry walls were patched up and expanded where necessary by two befriended masons. After hardening the basis of the wooden frames where wedge bolted to the concrete floors, after which the sides on each end of the heightened floors were insulated with side planks. The first inner window frames were assembled and fitted so they could be included in the to be assembled walls. These were divided into two kinds, the non bearing interior walls with posts of 75 mm and the load bearing interior and exterior walls with posts of 120 mm. In consultation with the engineer the exact place and the number of single or double beams was already determined. In the carcass phase the beams were clad with 12 mm 22

Together with my son I placed timber beams (220 x 70mm) on the double upper beams of the wooden frame walls and the masonry walls. Most of them 60 centimetres centre to centre for the flat roofs and in some places such as the library floors, because of the larger weight of the books, every 35 centimetres. We also laid four crookedly placed laminated beams of 30 cm in height as supports for the crooked side walls of the roofs. The beams supporting the roof terrace are placed exactly one beam hight lower than the other beams for accessibility. For the roofs and floors we used 18 mm underlayment

Roof and outer facade. After adjusting the load bearing window frames around the roof terrace we could start on the two roofs. In this case only the outer wall of the staircase was rectangular, all other walls stood slightly crooked or where build at an angle, making the positioning a challenge. The roofs were both clad in a smooth triangular roof, that connected to the roof of the staircase. Hereafter all the roofs were insulated with polyurethane foam that was delivered in

Figure 3. Laying the reversed T beams and plystyrene filling for the floors.

Figure 4. Installing the new wooden frame walls.

Figure 5. Crooked beams to support crooked walls.

Figure 6. Wooden frame walls on the uper floor

Figure 7. View on the load bearing window frames.

Figure 8. Cladding of the building.

pre-cut slopes. Followed by the roofers placing a double bitumen roofing finish. We thought long about the choice of material for the outer facade. Almost all materials turn green because of the forrest surroundings, which is why we chose corrugated aluminum sheet that could be easily cleaned. The facade sheets were, together with the eaves and z-shaped cornerporfiles, pressed from one silver gray muffled roll of 1 millimeter thick. The two existing masonry cavity walls on both sides of the house were clad in 80mm thick plates of glass wool. Then all outer walls were clad in vapor permeable foil as waterproof layer. The new timber frame walls are internally insulated with 120 mm environmentally friendly glass wool and are aligned with the masonry in such a way the facade appears flat.

Installations and finishing

In resolution The described period which took over two years was even for an older architect still quite educative. Therefore I recommend everyone - even if only once in your life - to build a design for yourself. Dimensioning, materialization, work order, space for ducts, implementation technique; they all become issues - partly because of that personal experience - that you start dealing with more precisely in your future designs. In the meantime my wife and I have been living in our ‘mirror house’ in the woods for about two years with great pleasure. The separate living spaces turn out to be a big success and the house has been getting a lot of attention. Mostly women find the concept interesting: “Never having the toilet seat raised on your own toilet, boss of your own TV-remote.” It’s wonderful as an architect to be able to literally give shape to the space of your life.

After the previously mentioned sewage we also assembled most of the other installations, like the flexible plastic heating pipes, the copper gas and water pipes and the round metal ducts for the mechanical ventilation. The electrical installation and telephone, data, security and fire alarm we had installed. Finally we finished the house on the inside: all ceilings where clad with plaster boards on wooden battens, all walls where first clad with 10mm OSB boards and also finished with plaster boards. All walls and ceilings were leveled with a layer of plaster and painted white except for one wall in each room which was painted red. The red colour was chosen to repress the green reflection from the surrounding forest. The floors are covered with a light oak parquet flooring; obviously only after the concrete floor was leveled with a flat cement screed. 24

Figure 9. Assembly of the facade.

Figure 10. The completed building.

Image courtesy by: Sonia Mangiapane

Figure 11. West side of the building.

Image courtesy by: Sonia Mangiapane

Jelle de Jong Architekten Photo Essay

Written/Illstrations chosen by: Kees de Haan

Farmhouse Renovation of an old farmhouse into a residential bulding.