High-rises for housing: The integration of high-rise buildings into the housing landscapes of Amster by Tanja Potezica

High-rises for housing The integration of high-rise buildings into the housing landscapes of Amsterdam

Tanja Potezica Master Thesis September, 2019

European Urban Studies Bauhaus-University Weimar Faculty for Architecture and Urban Examiners Prof. Dr-Ing. Barbara Schönig Dr. Lisa Vollmer Author B.A. Tanja Potezica Amsterdam, 19 September 2019

Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisors, Prof. Dr-Ing. Barbara Schönig and Dr. Lisa Vollmer for the guidance and help in my research project. I would like to thank Anouk de Wit, Flora Nycolaas and Ton Schaap for the interviews which were essential to this work. But also all my colleagues at the Municipality of Amsterdam, which showed me Amsterdam from so many perspectives. I am very thankful for the time I had with friends from the masters Advanced Urbanism and European Urban Studies. It was a pleasure to discover urbanism with you. You have thought me so much. Finally, and most importantly I would like to thank my family and my close friends for the never ending patience and support throughout my studies and life. Thank you for that. Za baka Ljubu.

Abstract Amsterdam’s ‘Third Golden Age’ with a steady economic growth and an exponential influx of new inhabitants, has shaped a High-rise Vision within the Compact City concept to tackle the emerging housing crisis. Historically, the high rise building typology has shown downfalls that could potentially create urban enclaves, disconnecting it from the surroundings in a spatial, but also social way. Locally as well as globally, high-rises are assigned to symbolism of global cities, speculative real estate development and exclusive housing. This thesis reveals how high-rises integrate into the housing landscape of Amsterdam and how the integration has evolved. A GIS-analysis on the city level and a multiple case study based on six buildings (De Wolkenkrabber, Torenwijk, K-towers, Skydome, Symphony and Waterlandplein) show the integration of the high-rise spaces from a conceived and perceived perspective into the housing landscape on the city, but foremost on the neighbourhood level. The research revealed that the integration of high-rises into the housing landscape has increased since the first housing high-rise, but they still do not fully integrate. It becomes evident that the early hurdles of construction cost and hence affordability, as well as social acceptance can be overcome allowing high-rises to be an effective tool for meeting the demand for urban compactness together with affordable housing. However it has also become evident that a much larger proportion of the high-rise housing is privately held, which stands in a very strong contrast to the 40-40-20 policy, raising the question if this discrepancy will eventually lead to segregation in the vertical dimension and how the 40-40-20 policy can be applied to the high-rise development to counteract it?

Content Introduction Background

The third golden age

Structural, and the high-rise vision

‘Vancouversiation’ of Amsterdam

Deployable symbols or homes?

Urban islands

High-rise spaces

High-rise integration

Aim and justification

Research question and sub-questions

Scope and Limitations

Thesis structure

Definition of terms

Chapter one: Research approach

1.1. Theoretical framework

1.1.1. Production of space

1.1.2. Trialectics of space

1.1.3. Processual and relational order - (An)Ordnung

1.1.4. Integration of buildings

1.2. Research design

1.2.1. Overall structure

1.2.2. Quantitative research: the city scale

1.2.3. Multiple case study research: the neighbourhood scale

1.2.4. Data collection

Chapter two: Literature review

2.1. Global cities and high-rises

2.1.1. The rise of the high-rise

2.1.2. High-rise for housing

2.1.3. High-rise for people or profit?

2.1.4. Symbols of the global cities’ elites

2.1.5. From flat to vertical discourse

2.2. Production conditions: spatial history of Amsterdam

2.2.1. The beginning of a long planning tradition

2.2.2. The first urban plans

2.2.3. From garden villages to garden cities

2.2.4. The dreams of living up in the air

2.2.5. The fall of the big ideas and the return of the human scale

2.2.6. The compact city

2.3. Amsterdam today

2.3.1. The Third Golden Age

2.3.2. Housing landscape of the city

2.3.3. Urban governance

2.3.4. ‘Vertical governance’

2.3.5. Local high-rise discourse

Chapter three: High-rise in the context of Amsterdam

3.1. Categories, criteria and analysis structure

3.1.1. High-rises in a low-rise city

3.1.2. Criteria for evaluation of integration

3.1.3. Analysis on the city scale

3.1.4. Analysis on the neighbourhood scale

3.1.5. Data evaluation model

3.2. High-rises on the city scale

3.3 High-rises on the neighbourhood scale

3.3.1. Case study selection

3.3.2. Within- case data analysis

3.3.3. Cross-case analysis

Chapter four: Conclusions and further questions

References

Figure List

Appendix

Introduction

Background The Third Golden Age and the flip side of it In 2017, the former mayor of Amsterdam, Eberhard van der Laan, proclaimed that the city had reached its Third Golden Age (Couzy, 2017). The First and Second Golden Age were caused by global changes that had had an effect on the local economy. Today, the reasons are similar. Global economic shifts, such as the growing share of creative industries, or political changes, like Brexit, have local effects: the local economy is growing, with a 3,4% increase in growth in 2018 alone, parallel to an annual inhabitant growth of more than 10.000 inhabitants per year since 2009 (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek, 2018). For the upcoming years, the projection for the city is to grow from 800.000 to 1.5 million inhabitants. As every Golden Age had its architecture, we can trace the current changes in the emerging urban landscape. With urban growth, more high-rise buildings are shooting into the sky, creating a distinct city skyline. Clarke (2010: 2) states that „Urban places have many similarities of physical appearance, economic structure and social organisation and are beset by the same problems of employment, housing, health, transport and environmental quality. The elements in many urban skylines are the same, as commercial and residential areas are increasingly dominated by high-rise developments constructed in international styles.“ With this type of urban development, Amsterdam is not only economically taking part in the global network, but also aligning itself with other global cities with its appearance. However, there is a flip side to its successes, namely on the social (re)organisation. With

Introduction

the changing economy, job opportunities are homogenising, with highly skilled labour in the majority. At the same time, with new inhabitants coming for job opportunities, housing has become scarce. The social housing sector is extremely under pressure, with 18 years waiting time, while the free market has become unaffordable even for the middle class. What is happening is that the lower and middle class, especially families and the elderly, are being pushed out. Sassen (1991) describes this dynamic as one of the effects of global cities: the social polarisation. Housing opportunities are a crucial point in fighting this dynamic. Currently, Amsterdam is facing significant challenges to meet the demand for inclusive and affordable housing opportunities. The city is facing a housing crisis (Veer, 2019: 81). Structural vision, and the high-rise vision Since 1901, when the National Housing Act in the Netherlands was proclaimed, urban planning and housing development was integrated into public service. Since then, the city has developed an urban planning tradition with rooted mechanisms and instruments. At the same time, the Municipality owns more than 80% of the land with an Erfpacht system (landlease), and therefore has a strong influence on the urban development. One of the main strategic instruments is the Structural Vision, setting out the goals and guidelines for the upcoming 20 to 50 years. The latest one, named ‚Structuurvisie Amsterdam 2040 - Economisch Sterk en Duurzam‘ from 2011, aims for an economically strong and sustainable development (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2011a). In it, development areas for tackling the housing crisis are pointed out.

On the one hand, the goal is a sustainable development, where the surrounding natural areas should be preserved as far as possible. On the other hand, Schiphol airport, one of the main elements in the city’s economic system, limits the urban growth to the Southwest. The growth possibilities are limited to the existing borders. This led to the Compact City concept leading the current development strategy. The Compact City concept aims to use the limited available land to its full extent by increasing densities of various amenities and housing structures. The High-rise Vision and the Structural Vision define high-rises and super blocks as the key elements to provide higher density housing to counteract the emerging crisis (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2011b). Vancouversiation has, after all, also reached Amsterdam. With Amsterdam being a low rise city, the vision runs against high resistance. The local highrise or low-rise debate brings out two opposing sides. If the development can be considered as Vancouverism as stated by Brunt (2017) and O’sullivan (2018), with its homogeneous and exclusionary character (Graham, 2016: 193), it is to be discussed. But the fact is that the concerns lie primarily in the loss of identity (Staalenhoef, 2017; Brunt, 2017), as well as the lack of living quality and negative effects on the community life in high-rise neighbourhoods (Brunt, 2017). Segregations is also discussed, depicted with a doom scenario where the ‚Bijlmer fiasco‘ repeats itself: the high-rise neighbourhoods develop to segregated areas, leading to marginalisation and decline (Bergh, 2017). In November 2018, the pro high-rise side seemed to have won the debate since the City

Council agreed to the construction of the biggest housing high-rise developments so far: the Sluisbuurt on Zeeburg island. The construction of a high density housing neighbourhood, with a cluster of 25 towers - the highest rising up to 125 meters - will start by the end of 2019 (Couzy, 2018). But, in August 2019, the debate seemed to have fired up again, with several organisations and Amsterdammers protesting at the State Council in the Hague against the high-rise development (Damen, 2019). It seems that the debate has not found an end yet. Deployable symbols or homes? In global discourse, high-rises are symbols of the power of global cities. Furthermore, high-rises are assigned to capitalist urban development, being the empty enclaves of profit accumulation rising up in the skies. In times when housing is seen as an investment instead of a basic human right, high-rises are a popular tool for speculation. Built under the purpose of urban densification, Rasol (2015 cited in Graham, 2016: 193) points out that „densification processes that lack social measures for securing tenure for long-time residents lead to the displacement of poorer people, and to increased socio-spatial disparities.“ Urban islands In Koolhaas’ (1994: 89) book Delirious New York, he points out the disconnection of the high-rise with its surrounding. „(...) from now on each new building of the mutant kind strives to be ‚a City within a City’. This truculent ambition makes the Metropolis a collection of architectural city-states, all potentially at war with each other”. The high-rise is a form of an urban enclave, with the major characteristic of being separated from its surrounding.

Introduction

High-rise spaces With the change in perspective on space, from being a three dimensional container to being a multilayered, relational, and continuously changing sphere, the importance of physical space was reintroduced into the understanding of social space (Lefebvre, 1991; Soja, 1996; Löw, 2018). Pointing at high-rises, Graham (2016: 237) suggests that „invariably, these spaces are being built through the serial reproduction of private, access-controlled, vertical 'silo' structures. Accommodating stacked housing, hotel, retail, leisure sports and offices within ever more grandiose structures, such structures all too easily emerge as solipsistic and inward looking 'urban islands' which tend to 'residualise' the exterior city.“ High-rise integration With this in mind, looking at the Highrise Vision and the ambition to expand the city vertically, there is a need for a better understanding of the existing vertical structures and their integration into the housing landscape. If we want to expand cities vertically while keeping them socially inclusive and spatially undivided, we need to understand the integration of high-rise structures into the urban context. Graham (2016: 7) states in general terms that „only very rarely is it considered that uneven development and the remaking of geographical scales can happen across the vertical as well as horizontal dimension(…)”.

Aim Looking at the recent developments in Amsterdam, the question is how these global discourse points apply to the high-rises in Amsterdam. The focus hereby is on the 4

Introduction

housing landscape, as the High-rise Vision was developed to guide the housing production. The research question therefore is: How do high-rise buildings in Amsterdam integrate into the housing landscape and has the integration increased since 1900? Following the Trialectics of Being, it is spatiality, sociality and historicality that define being. Apart from their spatial constitution, which is analysed by looking at the location, height and design integration, high-rises are spaces participating within the housing landscape, shaping and forming it. Therefore the social aspect of the building, coming out of the high-rise discourse, will be discussed through housing accessibility, defined by ownership and the type of housing sector, together with the demographic landscape of the household types. Further on, the aim of this work is to look back in history to understand the evolution and the biggest obstacles in offering affordable highrise housing. The Trialectics of Space consisting of perceived, conceived and lived space, should provide a framework for the following work. The question is discussed on two scales, the city and the neighbourhood, whereas the focus is on the second. Through quantitative research, the questions are approached on the city scale. On the neighbourhood scale, the questions are approached through the case study of six buildings: De Wolkenkrabber, Torenwijk, K-towers, Skydome, Symphony and Waterlandplein, which are examined based on their integration into their surroundings. The six buildings provide an insight into the different ages and at the same time into several housing landscapes. The research is guided through the following subquestions:

•

How do high-rise buildings integrate into their surrounding housing landscape, from a spatial perspective by analyzing the conceived and perceived space?

•

How do high-rise buildings integrate into their surrounding housing landscape, from a social perspective, by analyzing the conceived and perceived space?

•

Has the integration level changed from a historical perspective, since the oldest housing high-rise building first up till the recent ones?

Scope and Limitations This thesis will focus on Amsterdam and high-rises, as already stated. The research question and methodology are focused on the relevant aspects emerging from the global and local high-rise debate. Aspects beyond the discourse are certainly important for the evaluation of the integration, but are not within the scope of this thesis. Although the trialectics of space provide the framework for the thesis, the lived space will not be part of this work as “such knowledge is not obtained in a permanent constructions confidently built around formalized and closed epistemologies, but through an endless series of theoretical and practical approximations, a critical and inquisitive nomadism in which the journeying to newer ground never ceases.”(Soja, 1996: 82) This thesis rather strives to create a starting point for such understanding. A clear limitation is the availability of historical data on the buildings. As the design process of older examples was not as welldocumented as it is in more recent projects,

information will be retrieved from a diversity of sources.

Thesis structure The thesis is structured into four chapters. After the introduction, with the background and the research question, the first chapter introduces the research framework. In the theoretical framework, the main concepts are introduced and terms are defined. These concepts and terms form the base for the understanding, structuring, and criteria building of the case study analysis in chapter 3. In the second part of the first chapter, the research methodology is introduced. The second chapter depicts the context of the city in terms of its spatial and planning history. Here, expansion periods and urban plans are identified to create a base for the case study selection. In the second part of chapter 2, a quantitative study of high-rises in Amsterdam is done, with the help of GISdata on construction year, height and usage of buildings. The aim is to identify high-rises in the context of Amsterdam and to gain insight into their location, construction year, andcurrent function and therefore answer sub-questions A and B on the city scale. Together with the first part of chapter 2, the selected buildings are categorised by expansion periods and urban plans. This forms the base for chapter 3. The third chapter is the main body of the research. First, the overall research structure, with the categories and criteria, is shown. Then the analysis on the city scale is provided, followed by the case study of six buildings from different ages and areas: De Wolkenkrabber, Torenwjk, K-towers, Skydome, Symphony and Waterlandplein.

Introduction

Chapter four provides the conclusions, as well as the answers to the research question. This is followed by a short discussion and further research proposals.

Definitions of terms In the following section, essential terms are defined. As some terms may in general have multiple definitions or different meanings, the definitions listed here are used throughout the thesis. A high-rise is a tower-shaped building that has the distinct proportion of a small ground space and a proportionally high vertical extrusion. This does not imply a minimal height, as it depends on the context. Structural vision is a policy tool that leads the overall urban development of Amsterdam. The High-rise vision is a policy tool, regulating the positioning and physical design of high-rise buildings in Amsterdam. Space can be understood as socially produced, containing physicality and historicality. These three aspects are in constant relation with each other. Social integration of a building is defined by the level of similarity compared to its surroundings in these three major factors: the ownership, the housing sector and the household type. Spatial integration of a building describes the embedding of a building into its surroundings defined by location, height difference, and design. The neighbourhood is understood as an urban locale created by residential proximity, where a social group interacts upon the basis of a common residential area. It is a top down view, from which according to Madanipour (2011: p. 192) “the city is seen as a collection of segregated neighbourhoods. “ Global city is a term, shaped by social scientists and urban researchers since the 1990s.

Introduction

Saskia Sassen (1993: 3) had a major influence on shaping the term, therefore her definition should be used here: „Beyond their long history as centres for international trade and banking, these cities now function as centres in four new ways : first, as highly concentrated command points in the organisation of the world economy; second, as key locations for finance and specialised service firms, which have replaced manufacturing as the leading economic sectors; third, as sites of production, including the production of innovations, in these leading industries; and fourth, as markets for the products and innovations produced.“

Introduction

CHAPTER 1:

Research approach This chapter provides the theoretical framework of the research. It gives insights into the understanding of space and ways of integration (A). Upon this, the research design and methodology is introduced (B).

1.1. Theoretical framework

For the sake of understanding space and the interrelation between space and society, a short theoretical literature review highlights the main aspects of it. The conceptual understanding of space is based on the perspective that was derived from the spatial turn. It is marking the point where the perspective on space shifted from space as a three dimensional container, to space as a multilayered, relational and continuously changing sphere. (Hilger, 2011: 25ff.) 1.1.1. Production of space One of the first confrontations with the complexity of space was by Henri Lefebvre in his work ‚Production of Space‘ in 1974 (here cited from the english translation from 1991). For Lefebvre (1991: 26), space social, as it is a social product. However, according to Lefebvre (1991), it is before all relational; as new things always derive from old ones, new spaces are dependant on former ones. This creates a circle of production and consequently space is always changing and transforming itself. For Lefebvre, there are three elements, which together and in relation to each other, produce space. The first one is the „spatial practice“ or the perceived space. It is the directly observable space, the one that consists of the daily movement of people, but also the physical arrangement of space. The second element is the „representations of space“ or the conceived space. This is the abstracted space, the one designed by professionals, like planners or scientists. The first and the second element come together as they cannot be separated and are merging. The third and last element is the „spaces of representation“ or the lived space. This is the space 10

Research approach

that is actually lived in by the users. As this space is the outcome of the production, it de facto includes the two other elements (Lefebvre 1991: 38f.). With his theory, Lefebvre reintroduced space into the focus of social science, as the physical aspects of space, together with social dynamics, produce (social) space. 1.1.2. Trialectics of space Based on this theory, Soja delivers a theory of the Thirdspace in his book from 1996. Similar to Lefebvre, he differentiates space into three categories, namely the first-, second- and thirdspace. He argues that Western understanding of science, philosophy, history, and social theory, is often based on a dialectical relationship, whereas the trialectical perception is what is needed. According to Soja, in the dialectic the focus lies within historicality and sociality while spatiality is being left out. The understanding that spatiality is solely a container, resulted in the neglecting of the importance of spatiality. (Soja, 1996: 71ff.) Spatiality

Sociality

Historicality

Fig.1 The Trialectics of Being

He argues that the shaping of being also lies in spatiality. Deriving from Lefebvre’s theory (1991), Soja argues that „Sociality, both routinely and problematically, produces spatiality, and vice versa, putting at the forefront of critical inquiry a dynamic socio-spatial dialectic that by definition is also intrinsically historical.“ (Soja, 1996: 72). The three aspects cannot be

understood separately, but in relation to each other and simultaneously. He argues for a shift from a double illusion towards the trialectics of being: consisting of sociality, historicality and spatiality (see figure 1). (ibid.: 71ff.) The trialectics of being create a thinking framework that can be applied to different fields. As of spatiality, Soja (1996, 74f) uses the term ‚trialectics of spatiality‘, reintroducing the concept of perceived, conceived, and lived space. Out of these three categories, three types of the epistemology of space are developed: the First-, Second- and Thirdspace. These three categories are in direct relation to the three elements of space by Lefebvre (1991) (see figure 2). Thirdspace Lived

Secondspace Conceived

Firstspace Perceived

Fig.2 The Trialectics of Space

The Firstspace epistemologies take an object related and materialised perspective. By analytically deciphering and empirically measuring space, a formal description of life and space is created. Historical and social contexts are used for the explanation of the descriptions. According to Soja, causality lines tend to take one direction, with space as the end result. By doing so, they fail to see the complexity and interdependency of space. According to Soja (1996: 74ff.), Firstspace epistemologies are „fundamentally incomplete and partial.“ In contrast, the Secondspace epistemologies are the subjective, idealistic perspectives on space, created first of alle by discourse and thoughts. „Secondspace is the interpretative locale of the creative artist and artful architect,

visually or literally re-presenting the world in the image of their subjective imaginaries“ (Soja, 1996: 79). For Lefebvre, Secondspace, or also conceived space, is „the space of scientists, planners, urbanists, technocratic subdividers and social engineers, as of a certain type of artist with a scientific bent“ (Lefebvre, 1991: 38). According to Soja (1996), Secondspace takes domination over Firstspace, as it manages to produce and explain social and material worlds in a more comprehensive way. As Third- and Secondspace seem to intervene occasionally, Thirdspace arises. Thirdspace is a theoretical approach toward the possibility of „thirding-as-Othering“, which aims for the opening of the dualism of the epistemologies of space towards ontological trialectics. In practice, it is an opening towards a fluidity between approaches of spatial knowledge and modes of thought. For Soja (1996: 81) Thirdspace is „a remembrance-rethinking-recovery of spaces lost… or never sighted at all.“ 1.1.3. Processual and relational order - (An) Ordnung „Ich begreife Räume als relationale (An-) Ordnungen von Lebewesen und sozialen Gütern an Orten.“ (Löw, 2018: 42). For Löw, space is the process of the relational position and positioning of people and social goods in a place. Here she uses the term (An-)Ordnung implying that space is shaped, but also a shaping process. The term also implies that the subject and object are not clearly distinguished (here the place and people and social goods), but dynamic. Therefore, spaces are generated by the activity of ordering and placing (Anordnung) and simultaneously, they create a framework for acting (Ordnung). This creates a dialogic relationship between spatiality and social processes. Research approach

The process of the production of space is based upon two processes: synthesis and spacing. Synthesis is the base of the production of space, where social goods, people, or being are interconnected and formed into spaces by imagination, perception, and the memory of human beings. The process of spacing is the active positioning, building, or erection of goods and people. Without the process of synthesis, spacing cannot solely create space; however, the order of the processes does not play a role in the production of spaces. (Löw, 2008; Löw, 2018) 1.1.4. Integration of buildings Integration is a process of joining two or more things. It is the opposite of exclusion. Segregation can be a result of exclusion. But exclusion per se does not mean segregation. According to Madanipour (2011: 191), “it is the absence of social integration which causes social exclusion, as individuals do not find the possibility and channels of participating in the mainstream society.” Access to housing is a crucial element in social integration of inhabitants into the urban society. Madanipour points out the dialectic character between society and space. In terms of integration, For Madanipour (2011: 191), “Space has, therefore, a major role in the integration or segregation of urban society.” It is a process where access plays a central role. For Madanipour (2011: 191), there are several levels of access provisions: “It is access to decision making, access to resources, and access to common narratives, which enable social integration.” In terms of spatial integration, access can be denied in three ways (Madanipour, 2011): •

Topographically height)

Research approach

(eg.

location

and

•

Mentally: codes and signs of openness or closeness

•

Through social control

Looking at housing, social control can be understood as access to housing opportunities. Access can be restricted by economic (esp. by affordability), political (esp. policy for housing market regulation and ownership), and cultural (esp. racial) aspects. In recent housing discourse, the strongest force shaping unequal housing access is the understanding of housing as real estate, instead of as a home. (Madden & Marcuse, 2016) The commodification of housing has led to inadequate and unaffordable housing landscapes for low-, but also middle-income residents in major cities. According to Madden and Marcuse (2016), it is the lack of policy that enables market forces to economically exclude parts of society. According to them (ibid,: 32), “Intuitively, alienation belongs within the field of housing, almost uniquely. Its roots can be found in property law. If something is “alienable”, it is exchangeable. It can be bought and sold. Alienation is thus the precondition of all private property.” According to Sassen (1991), it is the global spreading of liberal ideas that has affected urban policy regulation and contributed to the liberalization of the housing market. In the course of urban renewal and gentrification, high amounts of the social housing stock were sold, together with the development of privately owned units. This has resulted in a high degree of private property and no control by municipalities over the housing stock. From this perspective, it is mainly the political dimension that shapes social exclusion or segregation of certain groups from the housing landscape. (Sassen, 1991; Stöger & Weidenholzner, 2000)

This discussion helped further define criteria for integration in section 3.1. Further on they help with the reflection on the results.

Research approach

1.2. Research design

1.2.1. Overall structure

1.2.2. Quantitative research: the city scale

The Trialectics of Being are taken as the guiding frame for the research design, conduction, and conclusions. The research is conducted from different perspectives: historically, socially and spatially. It is carried out with a combination of quantitative and qualitative research methods. In order to achieve a multifaceted and reflected understanding, the research question is examined on different scales. (see figure 3)

The quantitative research should depict the perceived spaces of high-rises in the city as far as possible, depending on the available data. This analysis provides a framework for the case study.

The understanding is that the neighbourhood is a unit within the city and the high-rise is a unit within the neighbourhood. Hence, conclusions on high-rise integration are mainly made in relation to the neighbourhood. The biggest scale of the analysis is the city. First, the high-rise discourse is put into focus, showing the main points. In the second step, the spatial history and the current situation of Amsterdam are depicted. Insight into highrises and the local discourse is put in relation to each time segment. This chapter is conducted with the help of secondary literature research, interviews, statistics, and newspaper articles. It provides a framework and conditions for further steps. In the next step, a quantitative study with the help of GIS-data is conducted. This builds the base for the analysis on a smaller scale, but also creates a framework for the integration of highrises into the housing landscape. A multiple case study analysis on the scale of the neighbourhood and specific buildings is conducted. A withincase data analysis is conducted, followed by a cross-case analysis. The aim of combining qualitative and quantitative data is to attain an understanding of the subject from a Firstspace or perceived space, as well as Secondspace or conceived space perspective (see section 1.1.). 14

Research approach

Categories are made to structure the quantitative research. Based on the Trialectics of Being, three categories on spatiality, sociality, and historicality are built. Within each category, there are several criteria (eg. height, function, city expansion plan). First, GIS-data on building height, year of construction, and location are combined into one set. Together with a height analysis of the city and several criteria (to be elaborated in chapter 2c), a selection of buildings that can be categorised as high-rises, is made. Second, historical aspects are added. For this purpose, the information is collected from two main research sources: insights from prior research on the spatial history and context (chapter 2a, 2b) together with information from several internet sources (see Emporis, 2019; Municipality of Amsterdam 2019c; Skyscraperpage.com, 2019). Another layer provides insight on aspects of sociality, retrieved from GIS-data. The result is a data set, in the form of an Excel sheet. With this, quantitative calculations can be made; for example, calculating the functions of high-rises, like housing, offices etc. At the same time, the data set is geo referenced with the use of QGIS. In the last step the data is visualised and analysed. By using GIS, aspects can be connected to a specific spatiality, where conclusions, for example about the relation of the building to the context, can be made. Yet, constraints are expected by the data available and the processability of the amount

Theoretical framework (1)

On the city

Spatiality

Perceived space (today)

Quantitative analysis (3B) Analysis criteria + context

Case selection

Perceived space (today) Conceived space (historically)

Spatial context

Historical context

Social context

On the neighbourhood scale

Historicality

Analysis criteria + context

Sociality

Literature review (2)

Multiple case study research(3C)

Analysis evaluation (3D)

Conclusions (4)

Fig. 3: Research Design (Chapters indicated in brackets) Research approach

of data. Furthermore, Wilson (2014: 129) points out that „as an ocular technology, GIS specifically visions from an elevated perspective […] Above and disconnected, the neutralising gaze serves to organise the world into layers of objects and actions. The risk of this disembodied visioning is the kind of distancing that it enables - subjective experiences become bounded as objects.“ The quantitative study serves mainly as a first insight and overview, while creating the base for the case study selection. 1.2.3. Multiple case study research: the neighbourhood and building scale The second part of the research is conducted with a multiple case study research. It is multiple cases that are examined. On the one hand, the goal is to test the applicability of the global discourse to Amsterdam. On the other hand, by adding variation and amount of observations, the aim is to examine the generality. But first of all, multiple case studies are needed in order to understand the evolution of high-rises. The multiple case study research consists of two parts. First a within-case analysis, followed by a cross-case analysis. The aim is to find patterns and possible types of integration. Technical constraints are expected by historical data, as many things were not documented. Especially when it comes to societal perspectives on the high-rises, only a few sources were expected to be found. An analysis and evaluation model is built up from the first two chapters. Within this construct, each case is analysed systematically, as „Yin (1984) recommends the use of multiple case sites with replication logic, viewing each case site as similar to one experimental study, and following rules of scientific rigor similar to that used in positivist research.” (Yin, 1984 cited in Bhattacherjee, 2012: 94) 16

Research approach

Within-case data analysis For the within-case data analysis, qualitative and quantitative data is used: secondary literature, newspaper articles, internet sources, interviews, statistics and GIS-data is combined. Categories are made to structure and reduce the amount of concepts, in order to understand the bigger picture (see Bhattacherjee, 2012: 114). Deriving from the literature review on the high-rise discourse and the housing landscape in Amsterdam, criteria, like demographics or affordability, within the categories are built. Conclusions are made on the perceived and conceived integration of high-rise spaces within each case. Additionally, the evolution from perceived to conceived can be understood. Cross-case analysis Multi-site case research requires crosscase analysis in order to achieve objective conclusions (see Bhattacherjee, 2012: 95ff.). An evaluation model is used to enable a comparison of the qualitative findings. In order to draw conclusions on the high-rise integration evolution over time, the conceived spaces are analyzed. By doing so, changes over time are eliminated, as we analyze the space as it was initially conceived in the historical context. For the question of how high-rises integrate today, the perceived spaces are looked at. 1.2.4. Data collection Statistical data The statistical data is retrieved from the report Amsterdam in cijfers 2018 of the statistics department (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek) of the Municipality of Amsterdam. Aside from that, statistics on the neighbourhood scale are collected from the official statistics webpage, Gebiedsgericht Werken Dashboard

(see Municipality of Amsterdam, 2019a), as well as the official city data webpage of the Municipality (see Municipality of Amsterdam, 2019b). Spatial data Quantitative spatial data is mainly retrieved in the form of GIS-data, collected from the official city data webpage of the Municipality of Amsterdam (see Municipality of Amsterdam, 2019b). Qualitative information is retrieved from the Pocket Atlas of Amsterdam (see Municipality of Amsterdam, 2010). Historic data Historic maps and images are collected from the city archive website (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2019d). Historic newspaper articles are retrieved from Delpher.nl, a digital archive of historic book, newspapers etc., managed by the National Library of the Netherlands.

Flora Nycolaas Nycolaas is an urban planner at the Municipality of Amsterdam. She is currently working on the update of the high-rise policy (see Municipality of Amsterdam, 2011b). Questions targeted mainly at the current situation and the expected future development of high-rises. Ton Schaap Consultant and supervisor for urban design projects within the Municipality of Amsterdam. Schaap has written several books on the urban development of Amsterdam (see eg. Schaap, 2019). He is a former urban designer at the Municipality, with major contributions to the developments from 1980, specifically the Oostelijk Havengebied (see section 2.2.5.). Questions targeted at this development, but also on the planning context after 1970.

Interviews For the insight into the different planning ages of the city, people professionally involved with the specific time are interviewed. The interviewees are the following: Anouk de Wit De Witt is by background a historian and has written several books on the urban development of Amsterdam. Today, she is director of the van Eesteren museum in Amsterdam, which is an architecture museum for the post war areas of the Western Garden cities. Currently, she is working on a high-rise study, in cooperation with the Municipality of Amsterdam, and aiming for a high-rise commission. Questions targeted mainly at the Developments of the Western Garden cities (see section 2.2.3.) and the planning development from a historic perspective.

Research approach

CHAPTER 2:

Literature review In the following chapter, the historical and current context of high-rises globally is introduced. Main points of the discourse are pointed out (A). In the second part, the historical, spatial, and social context of Amsterdam is depicted. At first, the history of city development, planning, and urban society is summarised (B). This is followed by the status quo of the city in terms of economic situation, housing, and governance (C). This chapter creates the base of the analysis in terms of criteria building and evaluation.

2.1. Global cities and high-rises

„Triumph - In this branch of utopian real estate, architecture is no longer the art of designing buildings so much as the brutal skyward extrusion of whatever site the developer has managed to assemble. (…) More than the sum of its floors, the Equatable is promoted as a ‚City in itself, housing 16,000 souls.‘ (…) That is a prophetic claim that unleashes on of Manhattanism’s most insistent themes: from now on each new building of the mutant kind strives to be ‚a City within a City‘. This truculent ambition makes the Metropolis a collection of architectural city-states, all potentially at war with each other“. (Koolhaas, 1994: 88 f.)

together with the steel frame, was steered by profit oriented businesses (Koolhaas, 1994: 82.). On the other hand, urban development in the Soviet Union after the October Revolution in 1917 was based on a more communal ideal which steered the high-rise development (Yoos, James & Blauvelt, 2016: 24 ff.).

2.1.1. The rise of the high-rise For centuries human settlements and cities grew in a horizontal manner. With technological progress in construction and materials, possibilities to grow vertically opened up. For today’s cities, it was the first high-rise buildings in the 1920s in the US cities, like Chicago or New York, which were „the epicentre of this radical new form of urbanism that would have lasting consequences on the form of cities globally.“ (Yoos, James & Blauvelt, 2016: 24). But it was long before that that the first ideas to elevate the city came up. Already in 1790 in Paris, there were ideas to lift up the pedestrian and fuse civic space with architecture. These ideas were introduced by Charles Fourier with his Phalanstère, aiming for a social architecture by lifting up communitarians, instead of the aristocrats, as they were before within the bel étages. (Yoos, James & Blauvelt, 2016: 18ff.) This and other ideas transformed over time into different directions. Two main developments can be distinguished. On the one hand, the US capitalist city development, enabled by technological progress such as the elevator, which was the „emancipator of all horizontal surfaces above the ground floor“ 20

Literature review

Figure. 4: The Multilevel City by Corbett

The initial ideas of Corbett, Ferris and Hood were the multilevel Metropolis, in which New York was pictured as a vertically zoned city (see figure 4). The separation of traffic and pedestrians should have lead to lifting up social spaces and public institutions from the street. Yet the outcome, which can be best exemplified by the Rockefeller Building, is „the pinnacle of the formation of the urban enclave typology, a place immersed within the city but distinctly separate from it. It is a city within the city, the opposite of the cosmopolitan intent of the original multilevel Manhattan proposals“ (ibid.: 29).

Based on the ideas of Fourier, but taking it further to redefine the private as public, Soviet architects, mainly around the group ASNOVA (Association of New Architects), saw architecture as the driver for social change with the sky as the base for a new architectural and urban form. These ideas came into being in the Gosprom building in Kharkov in 1929 (see figure 5). Among others, this was the most distinctive project of the times, depicting the distinct new Soviet architecture. The idea was that the separation of traffic and life, as one of the main drivers should be achieved by elevating social space while still leaving it open to equitable access. Similar to the New York development „instead of focusing on the larger conditions of the city, they focused instead on the microcosm of the object“ (Yoos, James & Blauvelt, 2016: 35) - resulting in the urban enclave typology. (ibid.: 29ff.)

Fig.5: The Gosprom building complex in Kharkov

This was just the beginning of vertical space expansion. Over time, with social-democratic municipal governments on the rise in several European cities (like Vienna or Amsterdam), the ideas migrated and merged into other forms, mainly to be recognised under Constructivist ideas like the High-rise City by Hilberseimer or the Horizontal Skyscraper by Kiesler (see Yoos, James & Blauvelt, 2016: 39). These again found

new forms with the Modernist movement, like the Barbican Estate in London or utopian visions like Constant’s New Babylon. Together with technical innovations and the boom of the global real estate market, urbanisation resulted in constantly increasing heights and densities. High-rise buildings and skyscrapers were increasingly shaping the imageries of cities, where before churches and low-rise buildings stood. However, in this process most of the social ideas got lost and the approaches were appropriated into the forms of verticalities that we can see in today's global cities (Graham, 2016; Yoos, James & Blauvelt, 2016). 2.1.2. High-rise for housing For Graham (2016: 177), today „the urban growth skywards, thus often becomes merely a process of the marketisation of land and real estate organised more for the ‘housing‘ of elite capital than for the city’s people (let alone the city’s poorer population).“ In the 1920s, the first high-rises in New York were for corporations, public amenities, and offices. It was especially the modernist movement and the introduction of mass social housing after World War II, which slowly introduced housing into vertical structures. (Graham, 2016; Koolhaas, 1994; Yoos, James & Blauvelt, 2016) Building high meant leaving the polluted and congested ground space of the city and opening up living space to clean air. The idea went much further than just the remaking of the physical environment; together with the park like environments, life of the modern human should be lifted up to new lifestyles. The ‘new machines for living‘ should lead to the remaking of people and the making of modern society. (Graham, 2016; Yoos, James & Blauvelt, 2016) Literature review

Spreading over many western cities like London, Paris, or Amsterdam these ideas have become the image of modern 20th century cities. Yet, social vertical housing was about to fail and become a symbol of an urban doom scenario with problems of crime, poverty, segregation, violence and in some cases even ghettoisation (Graham, 2016). As pointed out by Habraken (cited in Graham, 2016: 183), it was the „soul destroying ‚automatism’ and uniformity in housing design“ which led to the decline and in some cases the destruction of the modernist neighbourhoods (see examples of Red Road Estate in Glasgow, Bijlmermeer in Amsterdam, Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis (see figure 6)). On the other hand, Fincher & Wiesel (2012) emphasise that „it is not necessarily the height of these buildings that should be held responsible. Other factors such as location, management, design, maintenance, and access to services are more often more significant“. Examples from Singapore or Hong Kong have proven the liveability of high-rise housing, where the regulation and investment of the state has played a crucial role (Graham, 2016: 190ff.; Fincher &Wiesel, 2012: 382; Davies, 2013). Still, according to Graham (2016: 191), it is the

and therefore comparable: „The need for comparability has been met by the production of virtually identical ‚cells‘. (…) This is the triumph of homogeneity (…). Space is thus produced and reproduced as reproducible. Verticality, and the independence of volumes with respect to the original land and its peculiarities, are, precisely, produced(…)“. In this context, high-rises are an extreme form of commodification. It is the reproduction of ground space up to 828 meters (the height of the tallest high-rise in the world, Burj Khalifa) (Skyscrapercenter.com, 2019), hence the perfect tool for reproducing plenty of (comparable) space, with comparably low initial investment in the ground (Glaeser, 2011). Together with its distinct and exceptional shape by the height itself, a framework for comparison is created. The global competition of high-rise buildings and the „irrational urge to build high, simply for the sake of being the world’s highest“ fire up the interminable profit of high-rise buildings (Sudjic, 2005: 358). Especially those in global cities, like New York, become primary "tradable commodities, perfect for the speculatively inclined" (Goldberger, 2014). 2.1.4. Symbols of the global cities’ elites

Fig.6: Demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing complex in St. Louis

failure of these developments which in the West „stand as indicators to never build vertical socially oriented housing in the West again.“ 2.1.3. High-rise for people or profit? In today’s urban production context, the high-rise has become one of the major tools for capital accumulation and real estate speculation (Graham, 2016: 176f.). According to Lefebvre (1991: 337) for commons to become commodity they have to be exchangeable 22

Literature review

The discourse on high-rises is closely linked to global cities, as they dominate their skylines and are one of their main symbolic elements (see figure 7) (Clark, 2010: 2). On the other hand, the motivation for high-rise development is often linked to cities positioning themselves on the stage of global cities by the construction of high-rises (Graham, 2016: 162f.), which are „intimately linked symbolisms of performance, prestige and power“ (Graham, 2016: 160). In the context of global cities „most new towers in these cities are residential and are built to attract the super wealthy“ (ibid,: 159). According to Graham (2016: 159), another logic is found in newer global cities, where „the new skyscrapers are instead aerial embodiments of contemporary dynamics for circulating the vast capitalist surpluses of oligarchs, oil sheikhs and global financial and super-rich elites“. It is notable that most argumentations for building high-rises are led by the improvement of densities and reducing sprawl and therefore

contributing to the sustainability of cities (Graham, 2016; Glaeser, 2011; Het Parool, 2017; Fincher & Wiesel, 2012). Yet looking at the operational and building costs, as well as the urban grid that comes along with highrise buildings, typologies like the Haussman enclosed urban blocks in Paris, show the potential of the same, if not even higher densities, at lower heights - and therefore costs (Graham, 2016: 159, 174ff.; Glaeser, 2019). For Huriot (2012) high-rises are solely symbols, where the invisible costs to people and society vanish: „But with what aims for society? To sell, to speculate, to generate profit at the expense of truly urgent social issues? These towers are nothing but deplorable symbols.“

only affordable to the global high income scale, excluding inhabitants from middle and low income groups. (Graham, 2016: 194ff.; Fincher & Wiesel, 2012). 2.1.5. From flat to vertical discourse The effects of such developments are far more outreaching; a study found that in Toronto the top floors of a building tend to be more active than the street level, but due to the highly secured access, are only reserved for a specific group of people (Graham, 2012: 194). It is therefore not only the housing market which is affected by these developments, but also the urban life around it.

Fig.7: The global cities high-rises and skyscrapers

Since the first housing high-rises there has been a distinct diversification of use from predominantly commercial use to a mix of leisure, consumption, and residential functions. In this context, there is the question of what role high-rises play in what Friedmann and Wolff (1982: 322) describe as social polarisation, where „Transnational elites are the dominant class in the world city, and the city is arranged to cater to their life styles and occupational necessities (...) The contrast with the third (or so) of the population who make up the permanent underclass in the world city could scarcely be more striking.“ As of recent developments of housing highrises, the phenomena of vertical sprawl and vertical gated communities is addressed. A central term in the discourse is Vancouverism, which describes Vancouver’s urban development as the central model for sustainable and smart urban growth - also including a homogenous and exclusionary character of it. Due to deregulation, speculation, and the high building costs, such housing developments are

With the vast increase of urban inhabitants and the trend to build higher and denser, there is a need for better understanding of vertical urban development in order to enable just urbanisation. Madanipour (2011: 191) argues “that social exclusion cannot be studied without also looking at spatial segregation and exclusion. Social cohesion or exclusion, therefore, are indeed socio-spatial phenomena.” Translating this to the increased high-rise development, Graham (2016: 7) argues that „only very rarely it is considered that uneven development and the remaking of geographical scales can happen across the vertical as well as horizontal dimension; that the spaces above and below the earth’s surface are also being urbanised; or that these broad volumes are interconnected through a myriad of social and material relations that shape the politics of cities and urban life just as powerfully as do processes and relations organised to sustain the flat and horizontal sound level of cities“.

Literature review

2.2. Production conditions: spatial history of Amsterdam 2.2.1. The beginning of a long planning tradition It started in 1901, when the National Housing Act was introduced in Amsterdam, which encouraged municipalities to regulate housing development and also gave financial support for municipal housing construction. The emphasis was on the construction of new dwellings, as well as the demolition of deteriorated ones, with the aim to improve living conditions for all urban inhabitants. From here on, the city was developed ‘according to the plan’ of the municipality (see figure 13, page 29). (Feddes, 2014: 223ff.) This was not only the birth of social housing, but also the embedding of urban development into public service. In the beginning years, two fronts within the Municipality emerged: the Department of Public Works and the Department for Municipal Housing. The first had the focus on economic issues, as well as the aesthetics of the plans. The second stood for the interests of „ the individual and social wellbeing of the worker, his health, hygiene and

Fig.8: Urban growth between 1900 and 1945 indicated in green.

Literature review

community spirit, and it saw housing as a means to achieve their goal“ (Feddes, 2014: 236). Today, most of the functions of these two departments can still be found within the municipal planning departments. Some were externalised, like the management and construction of public housing, by the creation of housing associations (Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994). 2.2.2. The first urban plans In the beginning of the 20th century. Amsterdam was strongly separated between rich merchants and the poor working class. The rich were living along the inner canal belts, that were dominated by picturesque enclosed blocks of four storeys with big inner courtyards and a few public squares and parks. Church towers, The King’s Palace and the office building of the Dutch Trading Company (40m tall) were forming vertical peaks in the rather low-rise (15m) city. In contrast, the workers encountered bad living conditions in densely built slums outside of the inner canal rings. The new plans were to extend the existing 19th century city, by spanning a belt around it, with expansions to the east, west and south (see figure 8). (Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994) The most distinct plan of that time is the Plan Zuid, which was passed in 1917. The guiding idea was that workers should be entitled to good and attractive housing. Despite being worker neighbourhoods, the plans did not compromise in their architectural or urban quality. The main financial support came from the national government within the Housing Act and the socialist municipal council. The carefully designed urban plan by H.P. Berlage and the architectural design and ornamental details by the Amsterdamse School architects merged perfectly into one of today’s pinnacles of the city’s urban design - it was to be the city

of the workers. It was also this plan, probably inspired by Berlage’s trip to cities in the US, that for the first time introduced a high-rise building (De Wolkenkrabber, 48m) dedicated for housing people. (Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994; Leeuwenberg & Poelman, 2009) 2.2.3. From garden villages to garden cities Often overseen, next to these developments which were mainly led by the Department of Public Works, there were also the tuindorps or ‘garden villages’, that were developed as alternative housing by the Department for Municipal Housing. These developments, more village than city, are considered the starting point of the second major urban development the actual garden cities after the Second World War. (Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994) With an expected growth in inhabitants, a coherent urban expansion plan to steer the housing development had become a central concern. Building on the experience from previous expansions, urban planning became professionalised and its own discipline, creating a new organ, the Department of Urban Development under the Department of Public Works. In 1929 Cornelis van Eesteren, one of very few urban planners in the country, was commissioned to design a General Expansion plan, the Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan (in the following referred to as the AUP). The plan sought to provide a framework for the (statistically) predicted inhabitant growth until the year 2000.

et al., 2013; Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994). After the war, housing shortage was urgent mainly due to destruction, demanding the development be quickly introduced. The production of affordable housing was the central concern of the plans and was carried out mainly by the Department of Housing. This is the point where the social housing sector increased from 18 to 58 per cent(Veer, 2019: 81). The plan was strongly embedded in the Garden City idea which over the years merged with the standardisation and mass production techniques of the building industry. This came in favour of the urgent housing scarcity and the cut in costs for housing development, caused by the economic struggles that followed the war. (Agricola et al., 2013; Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994; Wit, 1999) The most important development of the AUP was the Western Garden Cities to the west. Other expansions, although in a smaller scale, were to the south and north of the city centre. Fed up by the narrowness of Amsterdam, people

The idea was that the city would grow, not in radial, but in finger shapes into the countryside (see figure 9). The plan was approved by the municipal council in 1935 - but it came to stagnate due to the economic crisis and the following Second World War (Agricola, E. Fig.9: Urban growth between 1945 and 1970 indicated in purple. Literature review

were seeking more open space and greenery. In contrast to the former expressionist plans from the 20s and 30s, the new blocks were free standing and open space surrounded them. The floor plans were standardised. Due to technological progress, but also the will for progress and modernisation, buildings became higher. Still it was a „flat city in a flat landscape“ where monotony was to be broken through highrise buildings (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2011b: 11). In the later plans of the AUP, more high-rises were erected in favour of the urban composition. According to Wit (18.07.19), two high-rise commissions were formed, one before and one after the Second World War. The central concern was about the livability in high-rises for a diversity of households and especially for families with children. (Wit, 1999; Municipality of Amsterdam, 2011b) 2.2.4. The dreams of living up in the air This was the starting point of vertical living in Amsterdam. What followed were the times

Fig.10: Urban growth between 1970 and 1990 indicated in yellow

Literature review

of the big ideas which spread globally with the modernist movement and the CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne)(see Soomeren et. al, 2014: 28ff.). As Feddes (2014: 297) states: „Amsterdam had no Robert Moses [referring to New York’s most influential urban planner in the 50s and 60s], but it did have a powerful Department of Public Works and a tradition of City Council leaders who were devoted to larger-scale development. The gaze was focused outward, to what was happening in the world. They thought about how Amsterdam had to adapt to continue to participate in powerful economic dynamics.“ An extension to the south-east was once already set out in the AUP, but came into being from the 1970s with the Bijlmermeer development (see figure 10). The urban expansions until then were not sufficient to supply enough housing, so with the Department of Urban Planning in the lead, they decided to erect a new neighbourhood with the size of all the neighbourhoods west of the old centre, that would answer for the demand. The politics of the Social Democrats set out that 75% of this development was to be allocated for social housing; the rest was left in the hands of the experts. „In a society where authority was not questioned, the citizens entrusted the development of the city and country to the politicians, and the politicians in turn entrusted large, complicated, long-term projects to the experts.“ (Feddes, 2014: 303). The fascination with new mobility became the primary concern of urban planners. Main roads and the metro were to be lifted and pedestrians would have the ground. With the best intentions in mind, the planners of those times neglected the dense and low-rise old Amsterdam. In the new plans, they wanted to elevate and open up living spaces. What resulted

was a uniform large scale neighbourhood with endless mid-rise slab buildings, a few low rise buildings and a few high-rises - all in between vast green fields and without streets. (Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994; Soomeren et. al, 2014; Savo Advies, 2014) 2.2.5. The fall of the big ideas and the return of the human scale This development still today remains the biggest failure in the urban planning history of Amsterdam. The big scale and disconnection of the neighbourhood were one of the reasons people decided not to move to Bijlmermeer. But above all, it was the failure of social and public amenities, as they were not provided when needed due to budget costs. Additionally, the costs turned out to be greater than expected, resulting in the Bijlmermeer apartments being more expensive than in the city centre. In the 1970s and 1980s, many migrants from former colonies, like Surinam, moved to Amsterdam and especially to Bijlmermeer. At the same time many Amsterdammers were leaving the city to live in New Towns around Amsterdam, like Almere or Lelystad, that were constructed under national policy. It was a combination of different circumstances which led to Bijlmermeer becoming a highly stigmatised neighbourhood leading to dissatisfaction towards the municipal planning. (Bruijn & Oorthuys, 1977; Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994; Soomeren et. al, 2014) Next to the construction of new neighbourhoods, the municipality was working on the renewal of old parts of the city. With their radical approach to grand road constructions and many demolitions, people started to mistrust them. Social movements and especially squatter movements came into being. What followed was years of riots and disagreements

between inhabitants and the urban politics. After the pause in construction, cautious and small scale planning was introduced as the leading urban planning paradigm (Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994). After these years, the result was also that “there was great resistance on ideological grounds against high-rise housing as well. It was considered inhuman, against human nature” (Bruijn, 2004). 2.2.5. The compact city The change also meant that a lot of power was taken away from the Department of Public Works by its dissolving into departments of Physical Planning, Public Services, and the Development Company. In contrast to the policy of large scale developments, at the end of the eighties Amsterdam declared a new urban development policy through the concept of a compact city, aside urban renewal efforts. Two axes were to give frame to new small-scale developments: an axis along the IJ river and an axis along the south (see figure 11). Areas within these two were to be

Fig.11: Urban growth between 1990 and 2010 indicated in orange Literature review

densified and further developed, with the longterm vision to redivide the city (see figure 12) (Feddes, 2014; Koster, 1995; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994; Schaap, 29.08.2019). Meanwhile it was after the 1990s that the social housing stock started to decrease, while the owner occupied sector increased. According to Veer (2019: 81), “the decrease is a result of urban revitalisation, the construction of market dwellings and the sale of social housing.” It is the key moment where the housing landscape splits in two. Developments along the IJ river started with the IJ Plein that was intended for the purposes of social housing. In 1988 a series of former harbour islands in the east, the Oostelijk Havengebied, began transforming into a housing area. According to Ton Schaap (29.08.2019), this development was to become the first planned urban expansion without the aim of 100% social housing - but a share of 50% social and 50% for the free market. The aim was a higher social mix in the city which was difficult due to the dominance of social housing. “By

stimulating the construction of private housing and luxury rented accommodation, municipal policymakers also hoped to check the exodus of higher income people” (Koster, 1995: 20). Further developments along the IJ axis were in the east, where artificial islands were created for small scale housing neighbourhoods. On the other side, the western harbour area is currently under development, encountering one of the most expensive real estate developments of the city, the Pontsteiger building (see Damen, 2016). According to Schaap (29.08.2019), the balancing of social housing and private housing exploded and resulted in the opposite. After the Bijlmer experience, high-rises from the 1980s were still treated carefully. They would only return as rare composition elements of the urban plans. But slowly around the year 1995 high-rises were planned and constructed increasingly for housing again (Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994; Schaap, 2019). “Deregulation, market forces and public-private partnership have become the new catchphrases. Municipal governments have let go of the reins of urban planning, and the door has opened to new initiatives, mixed functions, new urbanism and, indivisibly connected with it: high-rises” (Bruijn, 2004). While the IJ axis is assigned for mainly housing and cultural activities, the south axis is developed as the economic engine of the city, providing office space for international companies. The proximity to the Schiphol airport in the South-west is a major strength of the location. The core of the axis is Zuidas, an office area mixed with housing. Here, for the first time in Amsterdam, a housing highrise above 100m was erected: the Symphony building. Together with Sloterdijk in the west and

Fig.12: Urban growth between 1990 and 2010

Literature review

the Amstel neighbourhood in the south, these are the points where numerous office highrises are built. The image of the high-rise is reappropriated for corporates and their presence

in the city. Today, the Rembrandt tower at the Amstel river, constructed in 1995, makes up the highest point in Amsterdam with its 150 meters. (Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994)

Fig.13: Map of Amsterdam indicating ages of buildings Literature review

2.3. Amsterdam today 40

94_H_2.indd 40

in the global economy (see figure 16). Slowly, the city is changing its economic profile, as Amsterdam is in a blooming stage. With the the creative industries are moving in. At the booming economy, more people are moving same time,former harbour, industrial or to the city and the building activities are productive activities are slowly being moved out increasing in almost all parts. According to the Bevolkingsaantal toegenomen maar minder sterk dan voorgaande jaren- making space for the new residential zones. former mayor, van der Laan, the city is in its De stad telde op 1 januari 2018 in totaal 854.316 inwoners. De AmsterdamseAs many of these new areas are not mixed in Golden Age (Couzy, bevolking Third nam in 2017 verder toe en groeide 2017). met ruim 9.300 inwoners. De their spatio-economic character, this leads to bevolkingsgroei is daarmee minder sterk dan in toen hetof inwonertal Today, Amsterdam depicts2016 an image a city steeg met 10.200 personen. Ook in de drie jaren daarvoor lag de groei boven de homogenization of economic opportunities with more than 850.000 inhabitants, increasing for the inhabitants. (Onderzoek, Informatie 10.000 personen. Het aantal Amsterdammers neemt toe doordat er meer Werkgelegenheid 147 yearly. is doordat relatively young, geboorte dan sterfteIt is én er meer mensenwith naar deinhabitants stad toe trekken dan en Statistiek, 2018: 147; Stokman, 2019; Vroege, between 18 and 29 forming biggestondernemers group. naar meest de stad verlaten. 5.1e the Startende voorkomende 2016: 91ff.) soort activiteit, 2013 en 2017 It is also a diverse city, as only 46% are of advisering and Advisory en onderzoek 22,3% Twee keer zoveel geboortes als sterfgevallen 22,1% research Dutch origin while 18% are of Western and 28,7% transport 28,2%ruim In 2017 bedroeg de natuurlijke bevolkingsgroei 5.600 personen. Er werden Transport and en logistiek 35% are of non-Western origin. The annual logistics twee keer zo veel baby’s geboren (10.761) als dat er inwoners stierven (5.156). cultuur, sport Culture, sports en recreatie increase is driven mainly by toe, Het aandeel baby’s metof eeninhabitants westerse migratieachtergrond neemt geleidelijk and recreation 5,1% 6,6% informatie en and Information terwijl hetforeign aandeel baby’s met een niet-westerse migratieachtergrond afneemt. migration while the in-land migration communicatie communication 4,9% Zowel het is aantal geboortes (-144) als het aantal sterfgevallen (-360) lag in 2017 7,4% negative, hence this trend is expected to 7,3% Retail 6,9% handel wat lager dan in 2016. 5 remain (see figure 15). (Onderzoek, Informatie gezondheids- en 11,6% Heathcare welzijnszorg 12,0% 9,6% 9,9% Statistiek, 2018: 40ff.)1950-2017 Veranderingen bevolkingsomvang naar oorzaak, 8,5% 8,9% 25

x 1.000

2013

2017

Construction bouwnijverheid industry

Other andere activities activiteiten

Fig.16: Specialisation of new companies

15 10

bron: OIS

On average, the unemployment rate is dropping and incomes are increasing. But the -5 sectie omschrijving SBI 2008 2013 2014 of the 2015 urban 2016 economy 2017 so called tertiarisation -10 A landbouw, bosbouw en visserij 1 6 7 – 6 (Stöger & Weidenholzner, 2007) also brought -15 B winning van delfstoffen 1 1 – 3 3 along economic is especially C industrie 153 inequalities. 203 235This 235 240 -20 D energiebedrijven 1 6 5 3 2 lower educated inhabitants -25 E waterwinning en afvalverwerking visible within the 1 6 4 8 7 F bouwnijverheid 554 568 791 -30 and, specifically, those with637 a low714 education G1 groothandel 445 394 444 416 383 G2 detailhandel 851 796 954 background, 781 775 as and non-western migration H transport en logistiek 524 529 498 1209 872 Natural Internal natuurlijkegrowth aanwas binnenlands migratiesaldo I migration horeca 366 426 579 424 they carry the highest unemployment 564rate J bevolking informatie en communicatie bron: OIS 913 959 1054 979 1067 Increase/decrease inhabitants buitenlands migratiesaldo toe-/afname Foreign migration K financiële instellingen 81 85 Informatie 114 56 en of all groups71 (Onderzoek, handel, verhuur onroerend goed 98 104 134 148 90 Fig.15: Changes in inhabitants by causeL Statistiek, 2018: In this3435context M advisering en onderzoek 3051 131).3287 3265 Stockman 3447 N overige zakelijke dienstverlening 594 592 669 706 753 (2019: 18) argues1 that „Amsterdam is2 booming O overheid 1 1 1 In the last ten years it was the many (global) P onderwijs 612 592 economically, 527 but in605 the next few years643 we Q gezondheids- en welzijnszorg 803 745 847 752 825 companies moving to R Amsterdam which cultuur, sport en recreatie 1249 1210 1286 1178 sure1188 will face the challenge of making that S overige dienstverlening 598 506 510 473 439 created new working opportunities, attracting T extraterritoriale organisaties en lichamen – – – not just some– Amsterdammers, but all– of totaal 10802 11025 11996 12002 12152 new citizens. These were primarily companies them will benefit from this economic success.“ bron: OIS working in research and consultancy, 18-10-18 06:18 (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek, 2018: 147) information and communication, culture, It is not only economic inequality which sports and recreation, and were mainly engaged 5

2015

2010

2005

Startende ondernemers naar secties, 2013-2017

2000

1995

1985

1980

1975

1970

1965

1955

1960

Literature review

1990

5.1.8

1950

Bevolking 2.3.1. The Third Golden Age

310

Stedelijke ontwikkeling en wonen

toe. In 2007 werd 6% van de woningen in de vrije sector verhuurd, in 2017 is dit 15%. Met name in Centrum en Zuid is er een relatief grote vrije sector huurmarkt ontstaan (respectievelijk 18% en 20%). De meeste vrije sector huur wordt verhuurd door particulieren, maar ook de vrije sector huur van corporaties is toegenomen.2

Woningvoorraad naar segment, 2007 en 2017 (procenten)

554394_H_10.indd 310

2.3.2. Housing landscape of the city Amsterdam is a diverse city, socially and spatially. Therefore the housing landscape has to be observed on the neighbourhood level. Spatially, as we could see in previous paragraphs, the city grew in phases, hence the spatial character differs from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. We could also see that Amsterdam has a long social housing tradition. It used to be called the

100

60 7

11 3 18

5 5 10 5 5

8 18 31 2

Owner occupied koopwoning

5 1 18

11 4 13

55 44

Free rental sector, vrije sector huur, private ownership

particulier

Free rental sector, vrije sector huur, corporation ownership

corporatie

Social huur, sociale rental sector, private ownership

particulier

50 39

Social rental sector, sociale huur, corporation ownership

2007 2017

corporatie

2007 2017

3 2 4 6 4 9

2007 2017

Centrum West

3 6 4

2007 2017

1 2 2

74 55

47 33 29

2007 2017

4 1 12 10 5 10

2007 2017

is increasing. With the municipality having produced more than 5 000 new apartments in 2018, which are mainly for owner-occupation and the free rental market, the social housing stock has decreased in the last ten years from 50% to 39% between 2007 and 2017, and social rent apartments have gone down from 18% to 13% (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek, 2018: 210). The free rental sector increased, but only to 15% of the whole stock (see figure 17). At the same time, apartment prices have gone up to being more than one third more expensive than the rest of the Netherlands (see Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek, 2018: 308 ff.). The main reason, Savini et al. (2016) argue, was that "The need to attract and retain skilled or ‘creative’ workers meant a need for a more accessible and less regulated housing market, an ambition clearly reflected in housing and planning policy strategies from the 2000s.” But today, it is the low income, but also the middle income group, which is struggling for an apartment” (Savini et al., 2016). This especially affects the elderly and families. Today, the elderly (65+ years) make up only 12% and families 23% of the population (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek, 2018: 57; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019a). Mainly it is the lack of appropriate and affordable housing which forces them to move to cities in regions like Almere or Lelystad (Savini et al., 2016).

NieuwWest

Zuid

Oost

Noord

Zuidoost

A’dam

bron: Wonen in Amsterdam/afd. Wonen/bewerking OIS

Fig.17: Housing stock by segment type (2007 and 2017)

“mecca of social housing” (Veer, 2019: 80). But Verenigingen van Eigenaren De helftthe van 1990s, de Amsterdamse valt onder een Vereniging van since as the woningen social sector decreased, Eigenaren (VvE).3 Dit betekent dat het gebouw waar de-woningen the city slowly started separating socially with onderdeel van zijn meerdere eigenaren kent, die gezamenlijk verantwoordelijk zijn voor the highway and the IJ river separating the ‘new’ het onderhoud van de gemeenschappelijke delen van een gebouw (fundering, from themuren, old neighbourhoods. AlongInthese lines, dragende dak, liftinstallatie, et cetera). totaal gaat het om ruim 21.000 verenigingen en bijna 230.000 woningen (53%within van de woningvoorraad). the city is in several points divided into Het aandeel ligt het hoogst in West enthe Oostpercentage (61% en 62%), daarna and outside. Nevertheless, of volgt Zuid met 59%. Er zijn in West, Oost en Zuid weinig buurten waar het aandeel lager is social housing and owner occupied is balanced dan 50% (zie kaart). In Centrum is het aandeel 54% en daar valt op dat vooral out throughout the whole city.weinig Butonderdeel withinzijn thevan een VvE. de woningen op de Burgwallen relatief In Nieuw-West Zuidoost ligt het aandeel woningen dat onderdeel is van ring, there isenless corporation owned housing een VvE wat lager (respectievelijk 40%have en 45%). Maar hier verschilt het sterk (the North and South-east the highest) per buurt: er zijn buurten waar veel woningen onderdeel zijn van een VvE, en and less middle segment rental apartments buurten waar dit veel minder voorkomt. Buurten waar veel corporatiebezit is en (the West and South-east have the highest). The housing prices within the ring have the highest rates, while outside the A10, they drop to half of that (see Figure 18). In the central neighbourhoods there are fewer families and more single households. Here, most of the new inhabitants settle down. It is also the elderly that tend to live in the area. On the outside of the A10 and the northern side of the IJ river, we can find more ethnic diversity (especially in the South-east and West) and more families (especially in the North and West)(see figure 19). According to recent surveys, the West and the South-east have the lowest satisfaction rate with their apartments. (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek, 2018; Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019a) Literature review

18-10-18 06:31

IJ river

A10

Housing corporation ownership Land value

Income level

High Lower high Upper middle Middle Lower middle Upper low Low

Below the city average On the city average Above the city average High above the city average

Fig.18: Land value, ownership & income level by district

Since the 1980s, the inner ring parts have undergone heavy gentrification. Here, gentrification was literally used as a tool for urban regeneration, which encompassed the sale of social housing, transformation of production space into commercial space, and heavy investment in public space. For the future housing development, it is especially the zones along the A10 and the IJ river that are in planning. The idea is that by developing these areas, a natural gentrification will also spread over to the surrounding neighbourhoods and in this way upgrade them. (Gemeente Amsterdam, 2019a; Savini et al., 2016)

Literature review

2.3.3. Urban governance All these developments are steered by the Municipality itself, as the city upholds a long urban planning tradition since the year 1900. There are several departments for different concerns around Housing, Construction, and Public Space; Spatial Development and Sustainability; Traffic and Transport, Water, and Air Quality, just to name a few of the eight in total. Every department is led by an Alderperson, a member of the City Council. To depict the efforts invested in urban planning: the department for Spatial Planning and Sustainability alone employs around 500 people, working from the smallest scale of brick

IJ river

A10

Percentage of Elderly (65+)

Percentage of Children per household (0-17)

Below the city average

On the city average

Above the city average

Fig.19: percentage of elderly (65+) & children per household by district

patterns up to regional planning. Yet, some concerns are not dealt with within the municipal organisation. The management of the social housing stock, for example, is under the housing associations. These used to be internal, but during the 90s they were externalised in order to give more entrepreneurial freedom and maximise profit in order to maintain the social housing stock. In terms of policy making, Amsterdam often strives for economic growth and lays out land use policies which aim for maximal profit. As the Municipality owns almost all the land (more than 80%), the revenues turn out high. At the

same time it holds most of the power over the urban development. This depicts the nature of the city’s political „tradition of social democracy and strong statehood, with entrepreneurial policy trends“ (Savini et al., 2016: 103). The city is currently steered by the green left party GroenLinks. The response to the current social change along with urban growth is made by several policies to ensure social equality within the neighbourhoods. One of the main bills, passed in 2018, is the 40-40-20 policy, which requires all new housing developments to contain 40% social housing, 40% middle sector, and 20% free market housing (Veer,2019: 82); thereby, spatial segregation should be prevented Literature review

and emerging balanced out.

neighbourhood

differences

Still, the implementation is difficult as the pressure from the market is high. As Nycolaas (05.08.19) notes, such policies have difficulties and result in “strange” dynamics. As soon as the profit from the development is lowered (by lower rent for example), the municipality is expected to pay for it. When it comes to high-rise developments, these issues magnify as building costs often don’t allow for low rental prices.

2.3.4. ‘Vertical governance’ A document which was developed to steer the high-rise development was the hoogbouw visie or high-rise vision. It was introduced together with the structural vision (structuur visie) in 2011. The main driver was the protection of the inner city UNESCO world heritage status and therefore primarily developed by the Archaeology and Monuments department. The vision assigned possible locations for highrise buildings, mainly along the main public transportation points and along the IJ river (see

Fig.20: The doughnut city: an impression of the possible future for the urban development, dominated by high-rises along the A10 highway ring

Literature review

figure 20). Further on, the HER report (highrises effect report) made a requirement for all high-rise developments to provide insights into their visual and climatic effects on the city (see Municipality of Amsterdam, 2018). It does not demand any social or economic insights (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2011a & 2011b). According to Nycolaas (05.08.2019), as the development of high-rises is accelerating, the municipality does not see the existing vision as a transparent way to deal with it. Therefore a new vision with more detailed specifications on the possibilities in each neighbourhood is underway. This update, similar to the first vision, is mainly focused on heritage protection and public transport accessibility. An extensive study is not possible as the urgency does not allow for a sufficient amount of time to include all the different aspects. The next step will be taken in the coming two years within the omgevings visie, which sets the physical development of the city. Part of it will be a broader vision on high-rises which goes beyond the aesthetic discourse, incorporating also social, economic, and environmental concerns (Nycolaas, 05.08.2019). In that context, Schaap (29.08.2019) points out the danger of an unregulated vertical development being ‘not Amsterdam’, in the sense that, before, one was never able to distinguish social from private housing just by looking at it. But if high-rises are to be for the wealthy and mid-and low-rises are to be for the rest, the difference will become very evident. 2.3.5. Local high-rise discourse The discourse on high-rises has already existed since the first major considerations around high-rise living in the 1920s. For that reason, a high-rise commission was established

in the 1950s (see section 2.2.3.). The central question was around the livability in high-rises especially for families or elderly people. Today, the discourse is still present, with two opposing sides within the high-rise or lowrise debate. The central questions are around identity, affordability and the effects on the public space. One of the central points is that the recent high-rise development has nothing to do with Amsterdam, but depicts the image of Northern American cities (Brunt, 2017; O’sullivan, 2018; Staalenhoef, 2017). Architect Sjoerd Soeters, who has designed several buildings and neighbourhoods in Amsterdam, is the main face of the anti high-rise development. He says that a high-rise development like in New York is connected to New York and cannot be reproduced in a city like Amsterdam. He names several reasons, like the reinforcement of wind and shadow by the high buildings, that will affect the dynamics of public life. But first and foremost, he does not see high-rise neighbourhoods as the identity of Amsterdam, hence he suspects their success. (Smit, 2016) The other concern is the cost of such projects and the linked exclusivity. The discourse is especially tied to the Pontsteiger building in the western harbour area. The building is a highly expensive development, providing a high amount of luxury flats, encountering one of the most expensive apartments in Amsterdam. Further developments along the IJ river will follow in the same manner (Stil, 2019; Bergh, 2017). The question arises if this is the right answer for the housing shortage and for whom this type of city is meant (Bergh, 2017; Camu, 2019; Koops, 2017; Staalenhoef, 2017).

Literature review

CHAPTER 3:

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam This chapter is the main body of the research. High-rises in the context of Amsterdam are analysed based on all the previous chapters. The first part introduces the categories, criteria, and the structure of the analysis (A). In the second part outcomes of the analysis on the city scale are presented and preliminary conclusions formed (B). This is followed by pointing out the selected cases and outcomes of the within-case analysis. Conclusions are made and put in relation within the cross case study analysis (C).

3.1. Categories, criteria, and structure

Fig.21: Building heights in Amsterdam

Fig.22: Buildings above 30m (indicated in black) 38

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Fig.23: Buildings above 50m (indicated in black)

3.1.1. High-rises in a low-rise city In comparison to other global cities, like London or New York, Amsterdam is a relatively small (in terms of inhabitants and space) and relatively low-rise city (see figure 21). Most buildings don’t exceed more than 30 meters, while buildings above 50m are already rare. Buildings above 70m and 90m are an exception (see figures 23 - 25). For this analysis in the context of Amsterdam, the following criteria should define a high-rise. In general, there is no absolute and precise definition of a high-rise, but the agreement that high-rises are tall, multi-storey, and modern buildings (Britannica Encyclopedia, 2019; Cambridge Dictionary, 2019; Collins Dictionary, 2019; Merriam Webster, 2019). The Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (CTBH) has set out international standards, that are used for this study (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, 2019): •

The building height is relative to the context

•

The proportion between height to footprint defines a high-rise. For example, a building with a large footprint and height does not classify as

high-rise. •

The building contains technologies that are assigned to ‘tall’ buildings, eg. an elevator.

If one or more of the three categories is subjectively eligible, a building can be considered tall. At the same time a height above 50m can be used as a threshold for identifying a tall building. Following the criteria in the high-rise vision of the Municipality, the height depends on the neighbourhood context, not the whole city. At the same time, reference is held to the first housing high-rise of 11 storeys, or 48m, setting the minimal height (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2011b). With the definition by the Municipality, the previous height analysis, and the guidelines by CTBUH, tower shaped buildings above 30m and 11 storeys are taken into account. For buildings below 50m a contextual selection is made. Hereby, the historical context of the building makes the starting point: was the building at the time of construction considered a high-rise? For example, in the 1920s neighbourhood of Plan Zuid, a 50m building was considered a highrise, whereas today it may not be considered

Fig.24: Buildings above 70m (indicated in black)

Fig.25: Buildings above 90m (indicated in black) High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

as such in a city wide context. Furthermore, the physical context is decisive. Here the shape of the buildings is crucial; a 50m slab is not considered a high-rise as it does not form a distinct vertical, but a horizontal typology (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2011b). This is especially important for the understanding of the postwar, modernist neighbourhoods of Nieuw-West and Bijlmermeer. As all buildings were higher than before, the definition cannot only be based on the height, but by the relation between its height and occupied ground space. (see appendix for the table of analysed buildings) 3.1.2. Criteria for evaluation of integration Integration is measured according to the similarity of the high-rises to their surroundings. The similarity is measured according to six criteria. The six criteria are derived from the local and global high-rise discourse. When it comes to integration of high-rises, the historic development of high-rises and the high-rise discourse points to them being an enclave typology which disconnects them from their surroundings, in spatial and social terms. In the following, two categories, the ‘spatial integration’ and the ‘social integration’ of the building, are built. Hereby, the criteria are structured together with similar concepts As we saw in chapter 1.1., spatial access can be denied in three ways: topographically, mentally, and by social controls. Topography has two dimensions: the two-dimensional location and the three dimensional height. These two build the first two aspects of spatial integration. Mental access should be analysed through the design criteria. The design criteria looks at physical and visual openness, together with the architectural language of the high-rise in relation to its surroundings. The last criteria, 40

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

social control, is depicted through the access to housing mentioned before. As we saw in chapter two, the main discussion points from the global and local discourse are around affordability and ownership. From a more general discourse on housing equality, these two points are also the main factors for access to housing. Affordability, which will be defined by housing sector type, and ownership form the first two analysis criteria. In the local discourse, especially in a historic perspective, the question is how adequate highrise housing is for households with children or elderly people. Hence, the criteria inhabitants is formed. It depicts the conceived targeted inhabitants. These three criteria should define the social integration of the building into their surroundings. 3.1.3. Analysis on the city scale For understanding high-rises on the city scale, three categories based on the trialectical understanding are created: spatiality, historicality, and sociality (see chapter 1.1.). As this part also serves as the base of the case study selection, it also looks at criteria that was not previously named. At the same time, not all named criteria will be analysed within the quantitative analysis due to the high amount of buildings. The following criteria will be analysed within the case studies. Spatiality •

Height

•

Location

Sociality •

Function

•

Housing ownership

•

Housing sector

Historicality •

Year of construction

•

City expansion phase

•

Urban plan

The evaluation levels of each criteria are described in the following scheme (see figure 27).

3.1.4. Analysis on the neighbourhood scale The case studies are the main part of the research. Here, all six criteria are analysed with the help of six buildings. This part gives the understanding of integration of high-rises on the neighbourhood scale. Further on, it shows the evolution of high-rises in Amsterdam. For the historical perspective, conceived spaces are depicted. For integration today, perceived spaces are illuminated. For both space concepts, perceived and conceived, the criteria remain the same; however,the data sources are different due to different types of spaces. The buildings are depicted in comprehensive ‘building biographies’, describing their background, their conceived, and lastly, their perceived spaces. Finally, conclusions within each case study are made and the findings are translated into the data evaluation model. 3.1.5. Data evaluation model The case study results are translated into an evaluation model, consisting of the six criteria for each case study. The criteria are evaluated on three levels: low, medium, and high integration into the neighbourhood. They are indicated from low in the centre, to high on the outside. A middle line separates the spatial and social aspects. Below the middle line, the level of integration on the sociality is indicated. Above the middle line, integration on the spatiality is indicated. (see figure 26)

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Fig.26: Example of data evaluation model

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Indicators for integration of high-rises into the housing landscape Low medium High integration integration integration Category Criteria level Measurement level level

Spatial integration

Social integration

Location

on tertirary network

on secondary network

on primarily network

Location (primary, secondary o tertiary road)

Height

+- 10% higher > double height < double height than the than surrounding than surrounding surrounding buildings buildings buildings

Similar (+-10%); Different (Belo double height); distinctively higher (>double height)

Design subcategories: physically accessible; visually open; similar None or one out architectural language of three applicable as the surrounding

Two out of three All criteria applicable applicable

Visual openness of the facade; accessibility and proximity between public space and build

Ownership: private ownership; housing corporation ownership

Dissimilar to majority of the surrounding

Similar to Similar to half of majority of the the surrounding surrounding

public or housing corporation ownership: building is like the majority/ balanced/ minority o the surrounding

Housing sector: social rental sector, free rental sector, owner occupied

Dissimilar to majority of the surrounding

Similar to Similar to half of majority of the the surrounding surrounding

Social housing/private rental/ owner occupied sector: buildin like the majority/ balanced/ minority of the surrounding

Inhabitants subcategories: Single households; multiple inhabitant household without Three criteria children; households Four or Three with children; elderly criteria dissimilar similar

all four criteria similar

Household types (single, multip households/households with children); age of inhabitants (elderly/children):

Fig.27: Criteria for integration of high-rises into the housing landscape

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

3.2. High-rises on the city scale

From a spatial perspective, there are three the same time, heights are increasing since the types of high-rise spatialities on the city scale. first buildings, which were 50 meters, while There is the high-rise as a single accent in a lowmore recent ones reach above 100 meters. rise environment, like in pre-war settlements Overall, high-rises are spread throughout the of Plan Zuid or Plan West. In post-war city. Only within the ring is the amount lower, FunctionsFunctions neighbourhoods, like Osdorp or Bijlmermeer, to -the age- when were all 80m 60m - 40m corporation all above 80mabovemainly 80m - due 60m80m 60m 40m60m high-rises corporation outside of the A10 road, high-rises can be found not constructed. concentration 6 0 1 4 is educationeducation 6 0 1The highest 4 in spatial with 4 or 186 buildings. hotel 18 10 one 9hand, to9 the hotel compositions, 2 10 along the 2 A10 ring. On the Bothhousing types are located along the 118 8 21 housing 118 primarily 8 21 92 west, these parts were densified during the92 last 69 20 22 38 office 69 clusters, 20 22 38 network. The office third type is the high-rise two decades, but also contained high-rises from medical Functions 4 0 0 5 medical 4 in Zuidas, 0 0 5 located at major transit points, like 1960s and on.4 On the other hand, high-rise all other above 80m 80m11- 60m 11 60mthe 1 corporation 4 9 other 1- 40m 9 in the south-west, or Sloterdijk, in the northclusters are 4located along major transit points 0 226 1 6 0 226 west.social 18social Functions 2 10 (see figures9 32, 33). Nevertheless, there is no

education 0 hotel all above 80m 80m - 60m 60m - 40m corporation 8 92 housing other all the118other types primary21 4specific housing landscape to be assigned to ation 6 As 0 are located along 1 corporation office 31 69 20 22 38 corporation l 18 2 10 9 networks, it can be said that high-rises are very high-rises. But it is observable that recent high- 31 Functions medical 87 4 0 0 5 private 87 private 118 8 this sense, the21 integration 92rise developments are happening next to or ing well 80m 80m - 60m 60m accessible. - 40m 11 In corporation Functions 1 4 9 other ce 69 20 22 38 high226on4 the city scale. Height-wise within areas with the highest m - 60m 0 60m - 40m 1is very corporation 0 land values. This cal 4 0 0 5 2 10they 1 4 are rather 9an exception, except in newer social 19 11 1 4 9stands in direct connection to the gentrification r 8 10 21neighbourhoods 92 like Zuidas or Sloterdijk. At 9 12 other strategy of the Municipality. 226 0 20 22 92 38 21 corporation 31 al 19 0 22 0 38 5 87 private 12 r 59 % 3% 3% 1 4 0 5 5% oration 31 6 %7 % 3 % 6 % 7% 0 8% 4 9 2% 2% 8% 3% 87 ate 19 0 12 19 26 % 26 % 31 12 31 % 31 31 % 87 all 5% above 80mabove 80m 3% 38 %80m - 60m80m 38 % 87 all 2%

all

Fig.28: Share of functions of all highrises

3% 6%

all

7% 26 %

26 %

above 80m 65 %education housing medical

above 80m

education 7% housing medical 52 % 65 %

52 %

education housing medical hotel office other

hotel 38 % office other

above 80m 26 %

education hotel hotel 2 %office housing office medical other80m other above 17 % 65 %

44 hotel other

38 % 3 %

education medical

36 % housing office

80m - 60m

education hotel medical other 24 %

hotel housing other

6 % 24 %

6% housing office

office education medical

housing high-rise

education medical

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

housing

office education

education hotel medical housingother hotel

housing office

office education

36 % 60m - 40m education hotel hotel housing medical other other

36 %

60m - 40m

hotel housing 59 % other 74 % 59 % Fig.31: Share of functions of high-rises education hotel housing office between 60m and 40m medical other office

24 %

60m - 40m

other

17 %

24 %

education 36 % hotel medical other medical

38 %

80m - 60m

38 %

80m - 60m

65 % 7% 26 %

Fig.29: Share of functions of high-rises 3above % 80m

6 % 17 %

Fig.30: Share of functions of high-rises education hotel housing between 80m and 60m

education medical

65 %

6 %52 %

52 %

17 %

31 %

hotel

housing

office

office74 %

ho hig

education medical

education hotel medical corporation other private

co ph

Fig.32: Analysed high-rises in Amsterdam indicated in pink (according to criteria named in section 3.1.1.)

Fig.33: Analysed high-rises in Amsterdam indicated in black with housing high-rises indicated in pink High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

From the housing perspective, slightly more than half of the high-rise buildings, 52%, are used for housing. The second major function is for office purposes, with 31%,, followed by hotels, with 8%. The smallest percentage is for educational, medical, or other purposes, like telecommunication, commercial use, or monumental. Yet, different heights show different percentages: buildings above 80 meters are mainly used for offices, with 65%. This drops the lower the buildings get. Between 80 and 60 meters, its an equal share, whereas in buildings between 40 and 60 meters, only 24% are offices. (see figures 28 - 31) Looking in more detail at the housing high-rises, only 26% of them are owned by corporations (see figure 34). Of these 26%, 61% are dedicated to the social rent sector (see figure 35). This means that of the total housing stock within high-rises, only 16% is for the social sector. The rest is for the free market rental sector. Since the first housing high-rise, there has been no increase in percentage of housingcorporation owned high-rises. Compared to the rest of the city, where 6% 6% 3% 3%

3% 6%

3% 3% 6% 6%

3% 6%

26 %

60m - 40m 59 %

60m -- 40m 40m 60m 74 % 59 %

housing high-rise 59 % 74 % 59 % corporation private

housing high-rise

housing housing high-rise high-rise

office office

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

39 %

39 % 39 %

corporation corporation high-rise high-rise

corporation corporation high-rise high-rise 61 %

61 % 61 %

corporation >50% social rent >50% social rent corporation >50% social rent >50%rental social sector rent private >50% ownership/free rental sector >50% ownership/free private >50% rental sector >50% ownership/free rentalownership/free sector

Fig.34: Ownership of housing high-rises

education hotel housing housing education office housing hotelmedical housing hotel other office medical other other

How this has evolved is analysed on the scale of the neighbourhood and building. Observations from the quantitative research show that spatially, the whole city has grown higher and so have the high-rises. Yet, the general development has stopped at 7 storeys, while the

61 %

74 % 74 %

corporation private

Offices inside of high-rises are mainly for companies in the tertiary sector. That these companies also serve only a certain type of inhabitant has to be kept in mind. At the same time, housing is mostly dedicated to the free market. Based on these two observations, it can be said, on the city scale, that high-rises, at the moment of research, serve only a part of the inhabitants, hence only partly integrate.

26 % 26 %

26 % 39 %

24 % 24 %

corporation ownership makes up 43% and the social rental sector makes up 52%, the percentages within high-rises are low. It can be said that high-rises don’t respond to the image of the general housing market. Nevertheless, as differences between neighbourhoods exist, a precise statement will be made on the scale of the neighbourhood. Based on these first findings on the city scale, high-rises only partly integrate into the housing landscape.

Fig.35: Share of social rent and ownership/ free rental sector within housing high-rises

high-rise buildings grew multiple times above 100 meters. High-rises are still an exception in most parts. Yet clusters of high-rises like the Zuidas, Amstelstation, or Sloterdijk have emerged, adding a new type of neighbourhood to Amsterdam. In the 60s and 70s, high-rises were mainly for housing, while in the 80s and 90s they were constructed mainly for office-spaces. From the year 2000, increasingly more housing high-rises were developed, and after 2010, the majority was dedicated to housing. What has changed as well since 2010, is that housing can be found in buildings above 100 meters. When it comes to functions, a trend can recently be observed where several functions are mixed within the building, with the aim of better functional integration into the urban landscape. Yet, the difficulties in organising the different functions within one building are creating a design challenge. Additionally, social questions are being discussed, such as the mixing of the social rental sector with the ownership sector within one building.

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

3.3. High-rises on the neighbourhood scale

Fig.36: Map of Amsterdam indicating ages of buildings and case study buildings indicated with black squares

3.3.1. Case study selection As we can see in chapter three, the city has grown in six major expansion phases since 1900 (figure 36). The phases are clustered according to the time, but also according to the type of the urban plan encompassed (see figure 37). With the help of interviews and the previous historical literature review, the most typical high-rise within one phase is selected for the case study. The selection is the following: De Wolkenkrabber • 48m tall, 12 storeys • constructed 1932, period before WWII • Plan Zuid, Victorieplein, south, within the A10 ring, south side of the IJ river Torenwijk • 41m tall, 13 storeys • constructed 1968, period between 1960-1969 • AUP, Osdorp, west, outside of the A10 ring, south side of the IJ river K-towers • 58m tall, 20 storeys • constructed 1975, period between 1970-1979 • Bijlmermeer, south-east, outside of the A10 ring, south side of the IJ river Skydome • 63m tall, 22 storeys • constructed 1995, period between 1990-1999 • IJ axis - Oostelijk Havengebied, east, within the A10 ring, south side of the IJ river Symphony • 105m tall, 29 storeys • 2009, period between 2000-2009 • Zuid axis - Zuidas, south, along A10 ring, south side of the IJ river Waterlandplein • 49m - 66m tall, 17 - 21 storeys • 2013, period between 2010 - 2019 • Urban renewal - Nieuwendam, north, within the A10 ring, north side of the IJ river The six case studies depict each growth period, but at the same time different areas in the city. From a spatial perspective, the cases differ in all aspects. The selection allows for the understanding of the evolution of the high-rises since 1900. At the same time, the selection of cases incorporates the major housing landscapes in the city, so that conclusion can be made on the social and spatial integration today. 49

National Housing act

Plan ZUID Plan WEST Spaandammerbuurt

1901

1930

AUP: Slotermeer (1952) Geuzenveld (1953) Slotervaart (1953) Oostdorp (1960) Overtoomse Veldert (1959) Buyitenveldert (1959) Plan van Gool (1968) etc.

1950 1932 Wolkenkrabber

1970 1968 Torenwijk

Fig.37: Timeline of the urban expansion together with case study buildings

AUP: Bijlmermeer Urban renewal

1980 1974/1975 Karspeldreef

3.3.2. Within-case data analysis IJ axis: Oostelijk Havengebied IJ Burg Houthavens Overhoeks NDSM etc.

1990

Zuid axis: Zuidas Sloterdijk Nieuwe Slotermeer etc.

2000 1995 Skydome

Urban renewal

2010 2009 Symphony A

2013 Waterlandplein

Plan Zuid - De Wolkenkrabber

De Wolkenkrabber, or originally the Twelve Storey House, is the first housing high-rise that was built in Amsterdam. It is located to the south of the centre, in the ring around the medieval city. It is part of the Plan Zuid, designed by H.P. Berlage, where construction began in the 1920s - the building itself was finished in 1932 (see figure 40). It was designed by J.F. Stahl, an early modernist architect from the movement of the Nieuwe Zakelijkheid. The urban plan consisted of a block typology, with maximum 5 storeys (see figure 39). The plan was the first in Amsterdam, where housing was developed by the municipality to primarily serve the working classes. It was the beginning of social housing.

Fig.38: View on De Wolkenkrabber, artist impression, ca. 1935

Conceived The initial urban plan envisioned a different type of building in that location - a more voluminous and classical building (see figure 42). The planning of the plot began relatively late, so that by the time of construction modernism was already on the way and high-rises were slowly coming to fashion. J.F. Stahl was commissioned for the design of the building and, together with a private developer, they decided for a high-rise building. An exception was made by the municipality (Rijksmonumenten, 2019a; Stichting Geheugen van Plan Zuid, 2019; Arcam, 2019a). The building is located on the most prominent point of the plan, where three main axes run together. With its distinct height of 48m, while the surroundings’ is maximum 25m, or 3-4 storeys, it adds to the importance of the location. At the same time it creates an orientation and a marking point of the neighbourhood. (see figure 43). The purpose of the building being high-rise was aesthetic and in favour of the urban composition (Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994; Feddes, 2014).

Fig.39: Plan Zuid

Fig.40: Historical context, De Wolkenkrabber

Although constructed with steel and concrete, the building was cladded with bricks, merging to the image of the Amsterdamse School brick buildings Additionally, it opened up to the outside: with balconies on all sides and the staircase located on the outside, in a light steelglass construction. The design created a visual connection between the building and its surroundings, as well between the inside and the outside. Additionally the plinth had only one blind facade, namely to the west side. The rest of the plinth should have visually, but also functionally, opened up to all inhabitants with amenities.

High-rises Case study analysis in the context of Amsterdam

Originally, it was planned that a building with a public or commercial function should stand in this place. But for unknown reasons, the function was changed to housing. This was fiercely discussed as the concerns were about the liveability in such a high building (Nederlandse Dagblad, 1993). But the building did not have to please the general society at those times as it was conceived for the middle and upper class (Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 1928; Stichting Geheugen van Plan Zuid, 2019).

Fig.41: De Wolkenkrabber today, with the statue of H.P. Berlage to the front

The apartments are very spacious, enabling bigger households like families to be able to live there - but the spacious apartments were originally meant for singles (Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, 1928; Stichting Geheugen van Plan Zuid, 2019). Additionally, exclusive and, for those times, very modern amenities, like central heating and a portier, increased the value (Stichting Geheugen van Plan Zuid, 2019; Rottenberg, 2018). A poetic article from 1940 describes the living in the high-rises as being for people who are in essence attracted to living in high-rises because they can afford it - although they would prefer living close to the ground (Het Nieuwsblad van het Zuiden - Tilburg, 1940). According to Nederlands Dagblad (1993), the popularity was not very high with most Amsterdammers as they did not approve of the typology. Nevertheless, the developer, speculating on the fascination with the height, modern style, and luxurious amenities of the building asked for high rents - and managed to rent out all the apartments in the first year (Stichting Geheugen van Plan Zuid, 2019). In the beginning years, newspapers reported that several popular people lived in the building (Vogel, 1983). One could say that De Wolkenkrabber stood not only physically in contrast but also socially to the rest of the plan which was built for the working classes.

Fig.42: Bird eye perspective on De Wolkenkrabber, ca. 1920

Fig.43: Spatial context, De Wolkenkrabber

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Perceived Today, the De Wolkenkrabber is a monument within the monumental neighbourhood of Plan Zuid. Spatially, the neighbourhood remains the same; the buildings are kept in good condition (see figure 41). De Wolkenkrabber was renovated in 2019. Socially the neighbourhood has undergone heavy gentrification, with low levels of social housing and one of the highest real estate prices in Amsterdam (see figure 44). Today, De Wolkenkrabber is privately owned, with more than half of the apartments privately rented out (59%) and the rest occupied by the owners (see figure 45). When it comes to the household types, more than half (57%) of the apartments are occupied by more than one inhabitant, while households with children are rare (10%). Compared to its direct surroundings, the Wolkenkrabber houses less households with children, but way above average households with multiple inhabitants. Around one third of the inhabitants of the building are elderly people (32%), while the percentage in the surroundings is only 12%.

Demographics in direct surrounding (radius of 1km) Single households........ 1+ households............ Households with children. 65+ years (elderly)......

46 34 18 13

% % % %

Housing market in direct surrounding (1km) Housing sector type......

Mixed

Ownership types..........

Mixed

Land value...............

High range

> 50% social rent > 75% social rent > 50% private rent > 75% private rent > 50% owner inhabited > 75% owner inhabited

Fig.44: Housing sector, context, De Wolkenkrabber

Private ownership Corporation ownership

Fig.45: Ownership, context, De Wolkenkrabber

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Conclusions In the early years, De Wolkenkrabber was a strong element in the Plan Zuid. The height of De Wolkenkrabber created a spatial exception. But at street level the building integrated well into the context of the surrounding buildings, visually and spatially. This has remained. As it was a special building, the designer and developers saw an opportunity in offering the apartments on the free housing market. Additionally, the high construction costs did not allow for social rents. With regard to the people, living in high buildings was not yet socially accepted. The social integration was very low. Comparing today with its early days, especially regarding the strong gentrification of the neighbourhood, De Wolkenkrabber has increased in social integration. It can be said that the perceived social integration is higher than the conceived one (see figure 46). The spatial integration has remained the same. De Wolkenkrabber is a good example of the early high-rise developments in Amsterdam. It shows how exceptional high-rise buildings were for the early 20th century.

Height

Design Location

Spatial Social

Perceived Inhabitants Ownership Conceived

Housing sector

Fig.46: Integration evaluation, De Wolkenkrabber High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

AUP - Torenwijk

The Torenwijk (or the tower neighbourhood) was built in Osdorp. The project consists of six towers, Torenwijk I to V and the Panorama Torenwijk (see figure 52), which were designed by W. Bruin, H.T. Vink and W. van de Kuilen. Osdorp is located in the western side of the city, outside of the A10 ring. It was developed within the Western Garden Cities under the AUP, which was passed in 1935 (see figure 48; 51). The actual construction started after the Second World War, while the Torenwijk was only finished in 1968 (see figure 49). The general urban plan consisted of mainly 5 storey, free standing slab buildings. At the same time, buildings up to 10 storeys became more usual, due to technological progress. The Western Garden Cities had to first provide a high amount of affordable housing. Therefore, the architects of the Nieuwe Zakelijkheid, Het Nieuwe Bouwen and De Stijl aimed to design simple and affordable housing. Fig.47: View on Torenwijk

Conceived

Fig.48: Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan

The Torenwijk came late in the development of the Western Garden Cities, as the housing crisis required focus on social housing production. It was a typical high-rise for the time, although only 41 meters high, as they were designed to accentuate important points in the urban plan- similar to the Plan Zuid where the high-rise buildings were meant to form aesthetic components in the urban plan. The location was architecturally not specified in the urban plan of the municipality, but identified as „buildings with special purpose“. The plan was based on the Garden City idea, but over time got adapted to emerging modernist ideas. Hence the interpretation of the ‘special purpose’ was a cluster of high-rise towers. They were meant to form peaks in the natural landscape, rather than orienting to the logic of the street network. Therefore the Torenwijk buildings were located at the prominent ending of the linear lake, creating the counterpart to the Burgemeester Hogguer buildings on the opposite lakeside (see figure 47) (Agricola, E. et al., 2013; Feddes, 2014; Pistor & Aluvihare, 1994; Wit, 1999; Algemeen Handelsblad, 1960). On the neighbourhood scale, the buildings form almost an island. The surrounding buildings are all mid-rise slab buildings with heights of maximum 30m. Not much higher but distinctly tower shaped, the 41m, or 12 storey high building group visually stands out. Additionally, surrounded by a four lane road, water, and parking spaces the physical disconnection is strong.

Fig.49: Historical context, Torenwijk

On the building scale, the plinth contains mainly entrances, service installations, or a blank facade. With the modernist ideas, functions were separated and so these buildings were mono-functional for housing. Additionally, big infrastructure separated the building from the rest of the neighbourhood (see figure 50). At the same time, there

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

is rarely any visual connections as the buildings are enclosed, without balconies, exterior loggias, or corridors. During the time of AUP planning, a high-rise commission was introduced,because living high in the sky was not considered healthy or even possible. According to Wit (18.07.19) the central question was: For whom is high-rise living? The simple question gave a simple answer: that it was not for everybody, but mostly for highly educated, young, and globally oriented people. The research was mainly focused on the architectural, typological possibilities that affected life-style.

Fig.50: Torenwijk

Yet, the major constraints in the end were high rents induced by the construction costs, which made the apartments only affordable for the high income inhabitants. (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2011b) After construction, they were promoted as being luxurious, with interior design specials like natural stone, venetian glass or ‘foreign allure” (Algemeen Handelsblad, 1965: 12). The apartments were privately rented out or sold. According to Heemschut (2019: 7) they were the first apartments that were meant for the free sector in Osdorp. At the same time, they were designed for a diversity of households, as the apartment sizes differed from 2-4 rooms. (Volkskrant, 1966; Algemeen Handelsblad, 1965; Algemeen Handelsblad, 1963; Algemeen Handelsblad, 1960)

Fig.51: Presentation of the AUP

Fig.52: Spatial context, Torenwijk

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Perceived

Demographics in direct surrounding (radius of

Spatially the towers do not form such an isolated island as the empty space around the buildings was densified during the 1990s. The densification also brought a more diversified housing sector, by introducing ownership and rental apartments (see figure 53). Still, most of the surroundings are owned by corporations offering mainly social housing (see figure 54). Only one of the towers, to the west side, is owned by a corporation - the rest is privately owned. Yet, none of the towers are offered for social housing. The two buildings to the east, directly to the water, are owner-occupied, whereas the rest is mainly on the free rental market. As the whole neighbourhood has lost value in the housing market, the housing value of the buildings has also decreased. In terms of inhabitants, it is a diverse image between the six towers. What they have in common is that they all have more single households and fewer households with children than the rest of the neighbourhood. The owner occupied two towers to the east have a distinct over average amount of elderly inhabitants, while the other ones are similar to the neighbourhood.

Single households........ 1+ households............ Households with children. 65+ years (elderly)......

44 25 15 28

% % % %

Housing market in direct surrounding (1km) Housing sector types..... Ownership types..........

Mixed Mainly housing corporations

Land value...............

Lower middle range

> 50% social rent > 75% social rent > 50% private rent > 75% private rent > 50% owner inhabited > 75% owner inhabited

Fig.53: Housing sector, context, Torenwijk

Private ownership Corporation ownership

Fig.54: Ownership, context, Torenwijk

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Conclusions In the times of the housing-crisis after the war, the flats stood in contrast to their surroundings, where most of the surrounding buildings were offering mass produced, cheap, social rental housing. And although the technological progress decreased the construction costs, living in high-rises was still reserved for the wealthy. At the same time, social acceptance of living in high buildings increased and so the planning adapted, so that the apartments were designed to house families and elderly as well. Over time, the densification of the area has led to a higher integration of the Torenwijk into the housing landscape (see figure 55). Still, in terms of spatial integration, shaped by the early functionalist ideas, the Torenwijk is still disintegrated and appears as an island. While spatially disintegrated, this project is still the first one to show the feasibility for a variety of households to live in high-rises instead of only young singles. In total, the integration levels have risen from conceived to perceived space.

Height

Design Location

Spatial Social

Perceived Inhabitants Ownership Conceived

Housing sector

Fig.55: Integration evaluation, Torenwijk High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Bijlmermeer - K-towers

ll down for English version

De vernieuwing van de Bijlmermeer

Achtergronden en ontwikkelingen

The K-towers are a composition of four high-rises, constructed in 1975, as part of the modernist Bijlmermeer expansion that started in 1966 (see figure 58; 61). The plan was driven by the idea of functional separation and housing inside high, free standing buildings. The apartments, which were produced in masses due to new technologies, and the designs that followed were intended primarily for the social housing sector. More than 13000 apartments were added to the housing stock. For the development, a housing corporation (Woningcorporatie Nieuw Amsterdam) was founded for the management of almost all the flats. (Sabo Advies, 2014)

1. De Bijlmermeer, een wijk in De Bijlmermeer bestaat uit buurten grotendeels hoogbouw (de G-, K-, stadsdeel Zuidoost met van oudsher alleen laagbouw en H-buurt). Deze publicatie gaat Stadsdeel Zuidoost is onderdeel (bv. Geerdinkhof, Kantershof, over de ontwikkeling van de buurvan de gemeente Amsterdam. Huntum), buurten met alleen midten met hoogbouw: de D-, E-, F-, Het stadsdeel bestaat uit de delhoogbouw (bv. Venserpolder, G-,H- en K-buurt. Bijlmermeer, Gaasperdam, Kortvoort, Haardstee), buurten Driemond en Amstel III. Er wonen waar oorspronkelijk alleen hoog2. De oorspronkelijke opzet van Fig.56: K-towers under bijna 85.000 mensen en er zijn bouwgalerijflats stonden construction, (de de Bijlmerhoogbouw 50.000 arbeidsplaatsen. D-,E-, en F-buurt) en buurten met De Bijlmerhoogbouw kwam tot ca. 1975

Conceived

Fig.57: Plan View of Bijlmermeer before 1995

Bijlmermeer tot 1992

Fig.58: Historical context, K-towers

In the 1960s, due to serial construction and a light construction for stairwell and galleries, the construction of high-rise buildings became cheaper and buildings of around 11 storeys, or 30 meters, became standard. Still, high-rise towers were exceptional, as the urban plan consisted of long slab buildings (see figure 57). They were design elements, accentuating points of density (see figure 56). The K-towers, with a height of 61 meters, were meant to stand along the main transportation axis to the south, as part of the K-neighbourhood. Along the big transportation lines were the parking spaces, where people would leave their car and enter the neighbourhood. The towers were located in these prominent locations, being strongly integrated into the context on the big scale. On the street level though, as separation of functions was the main objective, they did not have to integrate visually, physically, nor functionally into the public space. (Bruijn & Oorthuys, 1977; Soomeren et. al., 2014; Feddes, 2014) The towers were, just like the other buildings, owned by the housing corporation. From the available literature, it is not apparent for what kind of inhabitants the K-towers were conceived. But, according to a newspaper article, from the same year as the completion, inhabitants of one of the towers were complaining about too high rents, which were not according to a system that set the rents in the neighbourhood (Waarheid, 1975). Schaap (28.09.2019) for example, who is a former inhabitant of the building, says the towers were, in the 1980s, given out for a so called ‘premie rent’ - a corporation rent, but not in the social sector. This was enabled by a subside of the municipality, that

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

locations in the district. The Bijlmer Park Theatre was completed in 2010 and provides accommodation to the Theatre Workshop (Theaterwerkplaats), Krater Art & Community, the Zuidoost Youth Theatre School (Jeugdtheaterschool Zuidoost), Circus Elleboog, the Amsterdam Theatre School and a wide range of shows. The Centre for Visual Arts moved into new premises near the city district office. 22. Renewal of educational facilities The Shri Laksmischool was built in the F neighbourhood in 2002. A new building was constructed in the D neighbourhood for Het Klaverblad primary school from Venserpolder. A Brede School (a combination of educational and welfare facilities) was

completed in the E neighbourhood in 2007. This Brede School provides parents with stimulating cooperation to help them with their children’s development, including their education, leisure-time activities and upbringing. There are three primary schools in this building: De Polsstok, Bijlmerhorst and As-Soeffah. A number of other projects have been set up to contribute to the quality of primary education. Premises situated in the ArenA area are being used to accommodate the ROC and the Hogeschool voor Economische Studies (HES), a university of applied sciences for economic studies. 23. Energy saving and reduced CO2 emissions The renovations should contribute

to energy saving and to the reduction of CO2 emissions. Structural interventions and individual electricity meters will mean a 25% saving on energy in the flat blocks being renovated. The many additional environmental measures adopted in the Kruitberg flat block will result in a 40% saving on energy. All the new homes will be connected to district heating for their heating and hot water supply. This system utilises the residual heat from industrial processes, power stations and the heat generated by biomass and refuse incineration.

should have made bigger apartments possible. According to Schaap (ibid), in the towers were the only non-social housing apartments one could get in the Bijlmermeer. In terms of apartment size, there was a diverse offer, allowing for families, just as well as for singles or couples to live in the building.

24. Space for temporary functions and other target groups There has been a sharp reduction in the demand for newly constructed homes since the end of 2008. The

Fig.59: K-towers after reconstructions of the surrounding

Fig.60: Plan View after reconstruction, new buildings in red and renovated in brown, newly built in purple

Bijlmermeer 2013: new buildings (red) renovation (brown) to be constructed (purple)

Fig.61: Spatial context, K-towers

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Perceived The entire Bijlmermeer development had encountered severe problems, from degradation of the buildings to high crime rates, so that the municipality had to take action at some point. By 1995, it was decided to remove 7000 apartments by demolition (see figure 60). The K-towers were spared in the destruction, but the buildings directly next to them were not. Physically the area has changed as low-rise buildings were added where the high-rise slabs were removed. The K-towers hence stand in high contrast to the southern area, where this process was concluded. To the north, where the original K-neighbourhood was kept, the towers relate to the scale. Here a high-rise building was added. The towers themselves were renovated in 2006, with the aim to reconnect them better to the public space by making the plinth more transparent: “The bunker-like parking garages disappear from view, and the barriers between pedestrian/bicycle routes and motorized traffic are reduced. As an example of the latter, the Karspeldreef elevated road was brought down to ground level in 2005.” (Arcam, 2019b) (see figure 59) Additionally, the upgrading of the exterior design was important as, due to their size, they are a dominant visual element and should symbolically show the upgrading of the whole neighbourhood. (Sabo Advies, 2014; Arcam, 2019b) The renewal of Bijlmermeer also encompassed diversification of the housing sector by adding more owner occupied apartments (see figure 63). The 7000 demolished flats 62

Demographics in direct surrounding (radius of 1km) Single households........ 1+ households............ Households with children. 65+ years (elderly)......

22 37 33 11

% % % %

Housing market in direct surrounding (1km) Housing sector types.....

Mainly social housing

Ownership types..........

Mainly housing corporations

Land value...............

Low range

> 50% social rent > 75% social rent > 50% private rent > 75% private rent > 50% owner inhabited > 75% owner inhabited

Fig.62: Housing sector, context, K-towers

Private ownership Corporation ownership

Fig.63: Ownership, context, K-towers

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

were replaced by 8500 new ones, where 30% is social housing and 70% for the free market sector (see figure 62). The K-towers are still owned by a housing corporation, with 99% social housing in all towers. In terms of inhabitants, there is a high percentage of single households (more than 43%) in all towers, while the direct surroundings have only 22%. It is the households with multiple inhabitants but without children that are lesser than in the neighbourhood. The percentage of households with children is relatively high, and similar to the surroundings’, with around 30%. Elderly people are rare, just as in its surroundings, with only 6%. Conclusions The integration of the K-towers changed throughout the years due to structural renewal of the surroundings. In the beginning years, the towers were relatively well integrated. In terms of social integration they were conceived as integrated. In terms of the housing sector, due to higher costs of the high-rise, the buildings were offered on the free market. But as the surroundings changed, so has the integration. The social integration has increased as the surroundings were not only spatially, but also in terms of the housing sector, diversified. After the renovation of the building, the spatial integration has increased as well (see figure 64). It is an extreme example, as the Bijlmermeer has undergone so many changes. The Bijlmermeer was a very ambitious plan with strong ideological ideas. But it failed in its realisation for several reasons. The K-towers are a good example in this context. The towers failed already in the initial ideas, but after years and some structural changes, they fulfilled the initial expectations. Height

Design Location

Spatial Social

Perceived Inhabitants Ownership Conceived

Housing sector

Fig.64: Integration evaluation, K-towers High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

IJ axis - Skydome

The Skydome building was built within the Oostelijk Havengebied development in 1995, on the KNSM island, which is one of the three islands (see figure 67). The three islands are former harbour land, east of the old city centre, at the IJ river. The urban plan was following the compact city concept, with high density, but mid-rise buildings (see figure 66). The politics at that time required from the planners to step back from big gestures and expressive plans. The politics also envisioned changes in the housing sector, introducing a mix of social and private housing. (Evenhuis, 1994; Koster, 1995; Schaap, 29.08.2019)

Fig.65: Historical image of Skydome

Conceived

Fig.66: Plan View of Oostelijke Havengebied

The Skydome, with its 68 meters, was to be the highest housing highrise of that time (Palmkoek, 1994). The decision for a high-rise building was in first place in favour of the urban form. Together with two other high-rises, they were supposed to form a composition (see figure 69). Additionally, „At strategic locations, dominating volumes accentuate pivotal points in the landscape. They connect the islands to the existing city and to the scale of the estuary.“ (Schaap, 2019: 62) The building is positioned in a central point of the island, slightly shifted from the primary urban network (see figure 70). In terms of height, the building stands in contrast to the mid-rise surroundings. The design was made by Wiel Arets architects. The building was to sit on a podest, with a parking garage underneath (see figure 65; 68). The idea was to make a communal balcony on top and connect, in that way, to the surroundings. The rest of the building was also to open up to the outside by balconies. (Evenhuis, 1994; Koster, 1995; Schaap, 29.08.2019; Wiel Arets Architects, 2019) In terms of social integration, the new urban development was supposed to enhance social diversity. Therefore parts were developed under housing corporations, while others were sold to private developers. The whole Oostelijk Havengebied was to be 50% social and 50% private housing. The numbers were balanced out over the three islands, resulting in that KNSM contained 70% social housing. (Koster, 1995; Schaap, 29.08.2019)

Fig.67: Historical context, Skydome

As the municipality was working with the housing corporations first, they were able to choose the plots they wanted to develop. Because of that, the Northern part of the KNSM island, where the Skydome sits, was privately developed. The construction of the high-rise, with the

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

elevators especially, was expensive, but because of the private developer, financially feasible. This meant that the Skydome was for private rent or sale. The building was for the middle class, with the top floors designed for luxurious penthouses. As a side note, according to Schaap (29.08.2019), luxury living, back then, was not common and not an aim in the planning and architecture. The other apartments differed in sizes, so that different household types were possible. (Koster, 1995; Schaap, 29.08.2019)

Fig.68: Skydome today

Fig.69: Birds eye view of Oostelijk Havengebied today

Fig.70: Spatial context, Skydome

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Perceived

Demographics in direct surrounding (radius

Financing was the major constraint in the development. In the end there was not enough money to realise the planned ending of the building that the architects had envisioned. Also the communal balcony on the podest never became a reality. What was left is a parking garage, closing the building off from the surroundings. The integration by height and location has remained the same, with the height being very exceptional and the location very well accessible. (Palmkoek, 1994; Schaap, 29.08.2019)

Single households........ 1+ households............ Households with children. 65+ years (elderly)......

Housing market in direct surrounding (radius of 1km) Housing sector types..... Ownership types.......... Land value...............

The ownership and housing sector have remained the same. With the increase of land prices in the area, the prices of the building have also drastically increased. As the surroundings are mixed in terms of ownership and housing sector type, the building integrates in these terms relatively well into the housing landscape (see figure 71; 72). In terms of inhabitants, there are not many families living in the building, although the apartment sizes would allow for it. Compared to the surroundings, where 32% of the households are with children, in the Skydome it is only 6%. It is mainly single households (58%) that inhabit the building, where in the surrounding it is 34% of the households. At the same time elderly people make up 20%, which is high compared to the surroundings where only 8% are above 65 years. (Palmkoek, 1994; Schaap, 29.08.2019)

34 % 32 % 32 % 8 %

Mixed Mixed Upper middle range

> 50% social rent > 75% social rent > 50% private rent > 75% private rent > 50% owner inhabited > 75% owner inhabited

Fig.71: Housing sector, context, Skydome

Private ownership Corporation ownership

Fig.72: Ownership, context, Skydome

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Conclusions Spatially, the central location embeds the Skydome into the neighbourhood. But in terms of height difference and design, the building rather doesn’t integrate. Socially, the building is, in terms of ownership and housing sector, also rather an exception. The same counts for the inhabitants. The Skydome was conceived to be more integrated on social and spatial level. But today it can be perceived disintegrated (see figure 73. This is a key moment in the housing market, where the private sector was introduced in Amsterdam. Oostelijk Havengebied was one of the first developments, where private-public relationships came into being. The new policy encountered a deregulation for parts of the housing sector. The change allowed high-rises again. On the one hand because it was not for social housing - where, after Bijlmermeer, people were denying high-rises as an option. On the other hand, the higher rents could make up for the high construction costs. But, the deregulation disabled the Municipality from control of this housing sector. Skydome is a good example of this dynamic.

Height

Design Location

Spatial Social

Perceived Inhabitants Ownership Conceived

Housing sector

Fig.73: Integration evaluation, Skydome High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Offices/housing/public buildings

erdam Symphony, Zuidas, Amsterdam erdam Symphony, Zuidas, Amsterdam

South axis - Symphony

The Symphony building is located in the Zuidas, the central business district of Amsterdam (see figure 75). The Zuidas is located between the Apollo neighbourhood (1920s), the most expensive part of the city, to the north and to the south to Buitenveldert (1960s), with a high percentage of social housing (see figure 76; 79). Due to the compact city policy, the neighbourhood is not monofunctional for businesses, but also incorporates housing. The housing landscape used to be high value housing, but with the new 40-40-20 policy (see section 2.3.3.), social housing is slowly being reincorporated into the neighbourhood. (Bruijn, 2014)

Fig.74: Symphony at time of construction

Conceived

Fig.75: Artist impression of the Zuidas

Fig.76: Historical context, Symphony

The Symphony building, rising up to 105 meters (see figure 77), was constructed before the 40-40-20 policy, in 2009. The project was designed by Cie Architects and consists of two towers: one for housing, one for office space. According to Bruijn (2014: 610), the main architect of the project, “High-rise construction is being used here as the driver for a 21st-century centre environment.“ In that context, the Symphony building is not an exception, but it is the highest housing high-rise in that area, with rather lower buildings used for housing and the higher ones for offices. With the visually and physically open plinth it should connect to the street and where “the large glass surfaces of the lobbies emphasize the urbanity of the building.” (Cie Architects, 2019a: 4) The rest of the building envelope is fully enclosed (see figure 74). The aim of the architects was to build a part of Amsterdam that is a place for Amsterdammers. On the one hand, public functions in the top floor and the open plinth should invite Amsterdammers to spend time there. The aim was to connect Zuidas with the exciting city. The fassade, being out of bricks, was instrumentalized to depict this idea and create a connection to the neighbourhoods of the 20s, where the first housing high-rise stood. On the other hand, the connection to the Amsterdam housing landscape should be achieved by the diversity of apartments in terms of size and view,therefore offering different price ranges. As Zuidas is one of the most expensive neighbourhoods, the apartment prices are above average prices on the city level. Social housing was not to be part of the building. (Amsterdamse Nieuwbouwprijs, 2019; Cie Architects, 2019a)

Historical context

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Fig.77: Symphony, today

Fig.78: Model of the Zuidas area

Fig.79: Spatial context, Symphony

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Perceived

Demographics in direct surrounding (radius of

The ideas for making a building for Amsterdammers turned out to be different. The building is embedded in the public space on all sides, and the plinth opens up visually. Yet, with the extreme height and without openings in the volume, the upper parts of the building disconnects from the street level. On the social side, in the context of the whole city, the building is a very prestigious project as the value of the land has increased tremendously with the Zuidas development. Interestingly, the ground is owned by a housing corporation, which fits the context of the neighbourhood but in contrast to the surrounding, the apartments are not in the social housing sector (see figure 80; 81). This type of construct can be traced back to the times when housing corporations were more free in their entrepreneurial decisions, allowing them to position such high value projects on the free market. This project is closely tied to real estate fraud and should still today stay a symbol of that (Amsterdamse Nieuwbouwprijs, 2019).

Single households........ 1+ households............ Households with children. 65+ years (elderly)......

45 32 11 28

% % % %

Housing market in direct surrounding (radius of 1km) Housing sector types..... Ownership types.......... Land value...............

Mixed Mixed Lower high range

> 50% social rent > 75% social rent > 50% private rent > 75% private rent > 50% owner inhabited > 75% owner inhabited

Fig.80: Housing sector, context, Symphony

In terms of households, it depicts a similar demographic profile to the direct neighbourhood, with singles making up 45% and multiple inhabitant households without children making up 33%. Households with children more often make up 21% instead of 11%, while elderly people are rare, making up only 5% instead of 28%. Private ownership Corporation ownership

Fig.81: Ownership, context, Symphony

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Conclusions The spatial attributes, besides the open plinth, recreate the image of the high-rises in New York, which embodied the urban enclave typology. But from this point, the building integrates well in the neighbourhood as it is the same typology (see figure 78). Zuidas contains the highest density and the highest buildings in Amsterdam, a low-rise city. Conceived as highly integrated, perceived it is not, as in the direct surroundings the buildings are on average 20 meters tall - and not above 100 meters (see figure 82). In terms of households, it is relatively well embedded in the neighbourhood. The affordability and economic accessibility of the apartments create a social enclave of very wealthy inhabitants. But in the context of Zuidas the building integrates very well, as it is the neighbourhood with one of the highest income rates (see Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek, 2018: 30). Zooming out of the neighbourhood, Zuidas itself is an exceptional space in the city, with for example a 82,600 euros median income where the city average is 36,800 euros. At the same time, it is the location with one of the highest land values. Zuidas is highly attractive for the real estate market and high-income inhabitants. Nevertheless, the housing policy of 40-40-20 has to be realised here. Symphony is certainly not part of the 80% regulated housing, but rather serves the real estate market. According to Cie (2019), “It [the Symphony building] connects the suburb of Buitenveldert, built in the sixties, with Amsterdam-Zuid (south) by bridging the intervening infrastructure.” But just across the street to the south, there is a totally different situation, as incomes are half of those in Zuidas, 38,500 euros (ibid) and the physical environment is low-rise. Here, the building hardly integrates into the context - spatially nor socially. It is not clear how the building should bridge the two neighbourhoods, as it is only referring to the higher and wealthier part of the area. The symphony building is a good example of what happened with the deregulation of the housing market after a few years. It shows how high-rises are instrumentalized by market forces, and in this case even by a housing corporation. It is a symbol of the real estate frauds in the early 2000s in Amsterdam. Height

Design Location

Spatial Social

Perceived

Perceived Inhabitants Ownership

Conceived

Housing sector

Fig.82: Integration evaluation, Symphony High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Urban renewal - Waterlandplein

The Waterlandplein is part of the urban renewal plan of the Nieuwendam neighbourhood(see figure 84) from the 1960s in the north of the IJ river (see figure 85). The starting point was in 2001 with the aim of the municipality for a socio-economical upgrade and a physical renewal of the neighbourhood. The Waterlandplein is a former shopping mall in this neighbourhood, serving as a central point for the inhabitants. The project Waterlandplein, finished in 2013, was supposed to introduce housing into the existing structure - and therefore densify the neighbourhood and diversify the housing sector. The housing sector at the time of planning was 80% social housing and only 8% private ownership and 8% private rent. (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2001)

Fig.83: Waterlandplein, impression by architects Nieuwendam Noord �

Conceived

woningen woningen

parkeren garages of uitgegeven terrein winkels bedrijven winkels enen bedrijven

The design is a typology that has become very typical for the current developments in Amsterdam: an enclosed block, with active functions and, on top, high-rise structures (see figure 86). This should allow for an active connection between the building and the public space and at the same time densify the plot in terms of activities and inhabitants. (see Kooij, 2019)

voozieningen voorzieningen scholen scholen water water

groen (openbaar en prive) groen (openbaar en prive)

ster st

raat

straten, fietsenen voetpaden straten, fiets voetpaden

em Be

Mar

The project consists of 3 towers and 4 slab building (see figure 88), which together create an architectural composition around the public space, that is connected to the function of the plinth of the buildings. The tree towers, with heights from 48m to 66m, are an exception in terms of height in the neighbourhood, where the average height is below 15m. One of the towers, De Admiraal, was already built in 1970 and was renewed during the course of the project (see figure 85). The other two, the Noordertoren and De Zwarte Ruiter, are newly constructed.

ans Dijkm nstr. huize

rnla

ouw

IJdoo

keng

Wer engo

uw Vo

mer

weg

rnla

IJdoo

m lenda

eg rzeew

Zuide

Fig.84: Urban renewal plan of Nieuwendam neighbourhood

Plan van Aanpak Nieuwendam-Noord

The buildings were designed in cooperation with different offices. Cie architects were responsible for the urban plan and the 3 high-rises.

Fig.85: Historical context, Waterlandplein

Following the aim of the municipality, the architects wanted to visually enrich the neighbourhood by adding diversity in colour and shapes. It was to provide contrast and add new identity to the rationalistic environment (see Cie Architects, 2019b). Visually and physically the high buildings, standing in contrast to the mid-rise slabs of the surroundings, should be lightened up by the facade (see figure 83) design: “A dark tone of brick ties the buildings to the plinth, above which the colour scheme of the façade gradually gets lighter and eventually seems to dissolve into the air using a glazed light brick at the highest sections of the buildings.” (Cie Architects, 2019b: 4)

Historical context

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Woongebouwen Residential buildings

Waterlandplein, Amsterdam

In terms of housing, the buildings should provide owner-occupied houses as well as social housing. The variability of the apartments is followed by the building envelope, resulting in stacked volumes. The Woongebouwen programme and the physical aspects merge together in this point: “By Residential buildings interpreting the programmatic differences in optimally stacked volumes, a sculpturality is created and a scale is also introduced which could make a connection between the horizontal and the vertical buildings.” (Cie Architects, 2019b: 4) By doing so the aim is to spatially, as well as socially, integrate the building into the existing neighbourhood.

Waterlandplein, Amsterdam

Fig.86: Waterlandplein, during construction

Fig.87: View on De Zwarte Ruiter tower, today

toren A 7-14 en B laag 6-15

Fig.88: Spatial context, Symphony

Map XXX: Spatial context toren A 2-6 en B laag 2-5

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Perceived Today, 6 years after the completion, the whole complex has been realised spatially as the architects planned it. The building complex opens up to all sides with the public space, while the buildings with balconies and light colour visually integrate into the environment (see figure 87). Still, the height does not integrate into the mainly 15 meter tall surrounding, as the Waterlandplein towers are distinctly higher. In terms of social integration, two of the towers consist of 100% social housing, while the third one, the highest of the three, has 30% owner occupied apartments (see figure 89). Spatially, the three towers depict the same typology and quality. In comparison, one of the lower buildings is 73% owneroccupied and the rest are 100% social housing, or partly owner occupied. The percentage that is private rental sector is extremely low or not available in all buildings. The owner and developer of the project was a housing corporation. Still, two of the towers, the Noordertoren and De Zwarte Ruiter are today privately owned (see figure 90).

Demographics in direct surrounding (radius of 1km) Single households........ 1+ households............ Households with children. 65+ years (elderly)......

31 34 31 16

% % % %

Housing market in direct surrounding (radius of 1km) Housing sector types.....

Mainly social housing

Land value...............

Middle segment

Ownership types..........

Mainly housing corporations

> 50% social rent > 75% social rent > 50% private rent > 75% private rent > 50% owner inhabited > 75% owner inhabited

Fig.89: Housing sector, context, Symphony

In terms of inhabitants, the household types and the age of the inhabitants integrate highly into the existing inhabitant structure, being made up of: 41% single households, 34% multiple inhabitant households without children, 25% households with children, and 13% elderly inhabitants. Private ownership Corporation ownership

Fig.90: Ownership, context, Symphony

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Conclusions The Waterlandplein is a good example of the social housing dynamics after the changes in the housing market from 1990. The entrepreneurial approach of the housing corporation has helped overcome financial problems by mixing the social housing with owner occupied housing. Design-wise, this is not visible, nor are the sectors divided between lowand highrise. The project integrates well into the context (see figure 91), while it adds new quality - spatially and socially. The architecture company is the same as for the Symphony building, a very prestigious project. The buildings are similar in their architectural quality, although they encounter a totally different housing landscape. In this sense, the Waterlandplein project is a good example of how the decision making of multiple stakeholders has enabled a mixed housing development within a high-rise development. It shows that the financing of such projects has become feasible for different income groups in Amsterdam.

Height

Design Location

Spatial Social

Perceived Inhabitants Ownership Conceived

Housing sector

Fig.91: Integration evaluation, Symphony High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

3.3.3. Cross-case analysis The following cross case analysis looks at the cases from two angles. To answer how high-rises integrate into the housing landscape today, the perceived space is analyzed. By doing so, all changes over time are taken into consideration and the buildings are observed as they exist now (see figure 92). To answer the question of the increase of integration since 1900, the cases are analyzed in their historical context, without any changes over time, to see the evolution of the high rise in the course of time. Therefore, the comparison of the conceived space integration is the focus of the analysis (see figure 93). Integration of high-rises into the housing landscape (see figure 91). Spatially The city has grown in stages. Therefore the urban typologies of neighbourhoods differ, making the housing landscape in Amsterdam spatially diverse. Nevertheless, looking at the six case studies in six different neighbourhoods, high-rises are height wise almost never fully integrated. Only the Symphony building and the K-towers, standing in a high-rise neighbourhood, have higher integration. On the other side, we see that almost all high-rises are well integrated into the urban network. Only the Torenwijk and the Skydome are slightly shifted from the primary network in favour of the urban composition. On the design side, the integration in a block typology is the highest. (De Wolkenkrabber, Waterlandplein) Spatially, there are two recurring types. One, to be referred to as the “V”-type, has high design and location integration, but a low height integration (De Wolkenkrabber, Waterlandplein). The other type, referred to as the “Slope”-type, has the highest integration on the location criteria, but the height and design integration is one step lower (K-towers,

Skydome and Symphony). One could say that the integration functions in a two dimensional perspective on a map, but falls off when the third dimension, the actual perspective of people, is taken into consideration. The Slope-shape is more common than the V-shape. (four versus two case studies) This brings us to the conclusion that, although very diverse, the tendenc y is towards a higher two dimensional integration, where in the third dimension the integration fails. In general, both types have a medium level of spatial integration. In reflection on the city level, both types can be found in almost all neighbourhoods, outside, along, as well as on the A10 ring and the IJ river. There is no distinct pattern, showing that the spatial integration has a correlation with a certain type of neighbourhood, both in spatial and social terms. Socially Since the 1990s, the corporation ownership degree has drastically decreased in the whole city. The result is that most neighbourhoods are mixed in terms of housing stock. Most analysed high-rises therefore almost never fully integrate, as they mostly don’t offer apartments from different sectors, with the exception of

Fig.92: Integration evaluation of all buildings from perceived space perspective

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

the Waterplandplein complex which has mixed housing sectors within a single building. At the same time, the three high-rises differ in the type of housing sectors. Next to those, there are the K-towers, which contain social housing and hence fit into the surroundings, which are mostly dedicated to social housing. The same trend can be observed with the ownership integration. Two thirds of the cases are owned by a housing corporation and also offer social housing. In chapter 3.b. we saw that on the city scale, less than one third of housing high-rises are owned by housing corporations of which only slightly more than half offer social housing. The cases depict a greater share of social housing and corporation ownership than the study on the city scale. In total, in terms of ownership and housing sector, the minimal integration is at least on a medium level. When it comes to the inhabitants, cases show each level of integration in the same amount. Here we can see that cases within the A10 ring and the Ij river (De Wolkenkrabber, Skydome, Symphony) have a lower integration in terms of inhabitants. While on the outside, two cases (Waterlandplein, K-towers) have a high and one (Torenwijk) a middle integration level. There is a correlation between private ownership and lower inhabitant integration. Only the Waterlandplein complex, where there is a mix of social and private ownership housing, has a high integration of inhabitants. Looking at the demographic profiles, there is no household type or age group excluded from the buildings. It is mostly single households,

with 50%, and multiple inhabitant households without children, with 32% living in the highrises. Households with children are the smallest group, at 18%. Within these households, elderly inhabitants are represented with 19%. The percentages are similar to the city wide levels, as families make up 23% and elderly 12%. Socially, there are three recurring types. The first one, will be referred to as the ”HalfDiamond”-type that has low integration of inhabitants, while the housing sector and the ownership type integrates into the neighbourhood. This type has the lowest level of integration. The second one, will be referred to as the ”Small-Diamond”-type, has the same integration of all criteria, but on a medium level, hence it has a medium level of social integration. Lastly, there is the ”Big-Diamond”type that has high integration of all criteria, hence it has the highest level of integration. The Big Diamond type is located outside of the highway ring and north of the IJ river, in neighbourhoods within lower land price areas, where the share of housing corporation ownership and social housing is high. But first and foremost, the Big Diamond has a correlation with housing corporation ownership. All privately owned high-rises have lower social integration. Further on, the Half-Diamond type, the type with the lowest social integration, is within the A10 ring and south of the IJ river, in high value and gentrified neighbourhoods, like the Oostelijk Havengebied or Zuid.

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

Evolution of social and spatial integration of high-rises into the housing landscape (see figure 93). In 1932, De Wolkenkrabber, the first highrise, was finished. It was spatially exceptional with its 48 meters, integrating only in terms of its location and the openness of the architecture. The very modern construction for that time was very expensive. That was the biggest constraint in offering the apartments on the social housing market, which was then the majority in the surrounding. But, it was also the social acceptance towards living in high-rises that was missing. Afterall, the building was conceived for rather extraordinary, single households and wealthy people. Certainly it was not meant, nor, generally speaking, popular within the workers class. Those were just the early beginnings. After the break in urban expansion during the Second World War, the buildings became higher in the new developments. Construction became cheaper. Still, high-rises were an exception but more usual than in the early 1900s. In 1968, the Torenwijk was finished. The six towers were only 41 meters high, but in that context they were seen as high-rises. Although it had become more socially accepted to live in highrises, the construction costs did not allow it to be affordable to everyone. It was again for the wealthy inhabitants that these buildings were constructed and advertised. But the difference compared to before was that households other than only singles were also supposed to live in the buildings.

The increase in height reached a peak during the seventies, when the Bijlmermeer, the modernistic high-rise neighbourhood, was built. With the plan of 30 meter high, honeycomb shaped, slab buildings, high-rises became less of an exception and integrated well in terms of height. The same happened with social acceptance, where high-rise housing became relatively normal. At the same time, social housing was at its peak, hence the highrise buildings should have also been in the same sector as the rest. The K-towers, 61 meters and built in 1975, are an example of the BIjlmermeer development. Their construction costs were too high to achieve this ambition. The apartments were, still being under the housing corporation, rented out on the free market for a higher price. But after the failure of Bijlmermeer, urban politics changed the course of urban development. Housing was planned in lowto mid-rise buildings. High-rises became an exception again. Socially they were still accepted, but they were not an option for social housing anymore. This did not mean it became unpopular. The biggest interest came from the private housing market. At the same time, because construction costs were still relatively high, there was no interest in building high-rises from the side of housing corporations. These aspects made high-rise housing exclusive again so that only the wealthy could afford it - but still for a diversity of households. As the housing market was diversifying in Amsterdam, the privately owned apartments started integrating relatively well into the housing landscape. And

Fig.93: Integration evaluation of all buildings from conceived space perspective

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

so did the Skydome, which was built in 1995, with the Oostelijk Havengebied development.

side as it resembles the mixed character of the neighbourhood.

From here the housing sector split into the private sector and the housing corporation sector. The municipality allowed for a housing market deregulation. What emerged, in terms of high-rise development, were high-rise areas. The Symphony building, constructed in 2009 and rising up to 105 meters, is part of one of these high-rise neighbourhoods. It is also the symbol of the market deregulation and even real estate fraud in Amsterdam. Spatially, the building should integrate highly. Socially, it should integrate into the wealthier, privately owned part of the neighbourhood. With the other adjacent neighbourhood from the 1960s, less wealthy and partly owned by a housing corporation, integration was not intended.

Looking at the evolution, we can see that social and spatial integration has increased. The social integration hereby has undergone a higher increase. The evolution was not a linear increase, but especially after the 1970s dropped and started increasing again. But, in total, more recently constructed high-rises have a higher integration than the first high-rise in 1932. What has also emerged is a diversification of high-rises (see previous paragraph).

In contrast, on the other side of the two-folding of the market, where housing corporations started constructing high-rises again, there is the Waterlandplein complex. Being part of an urban renewal development, in terms of height, the buildings do not fully integrate into the mid-rise surroundings. But they are not too high, with a maximum of 68 meters, in order not to fully disconnect from their surroundings. Meanwhile, living in high-rises had become relatively accepted in Amsterdam and construction costs for up to seventy meters in height had become reasonable (Nycolaas, 05.08.2019). The Waterlandplein project shows the possibility of mixing housing sectors, household types, and also ownership. The high-rises highly integrate on the social

It became visible that the conceived and perceived spaces from today differ. The social integration in most cases increases from conceived to perceived, while the spatial integration drops in most cases. On the one hand, there is a discrepancy between the way the buildings were conceived and what was feasible to realise - sometimes because of construction costs, sometimes because of social acceptance. On the other hand, there is the aspect of time in which the building itself, and especially the context, have changed.

High-rises in the context of Amsterdam

CHAPTER 4:

Conclusions and further questions

High-rises are a highly discussed architectural typology both globally and in the Amsterdam context. They are closely tied to the symbolism of global cities and real estate speculation and more broadly to unequal housing opportunities. In times when housing is often seen as an investment instead of a basic human right, high-rises are a popular tool for speculation. The research on the city scale, as well as the case studies of De Wolkenkrabber, Torenwijk, K-towers, Skydome, Symphony, and Waterlandplein on the neighbourhood scale provide a contemporary snapshot of highrises in Amsterdam and their integration into the housing landscape. They show not only the diversity of high-rises, but also the changes that have happened within the last 100 years. The thesis showed that high-rises have evolved differently than initially conceived. Partly because the urban environment is dynamic, partly because of unforeseen obstacles in the realisation of the initial plans. This finding is in line with Lefebvre’s (1991) space model stating that the relationship between perceived, conceived, and lived spaces is relational and always changing. While this research focuses on the analysis of conceived and perceived spaces, further research can be done on developing research methodologies to better understand the lived spaces. Firstly, the findings show that high-rises are located throughout the whole city, with the exception of the pre-World War Two parts of the city. They are mainly located around the primary urban networks, hence, from a location perspective, they are highly accessible. One could say that the spatial integration is high from a two-dimensional perspective, which is the flat perspective commonly used by planners and architects. However, the integration decreases when the third dimension is taken into consideration. This being the nature of high-rise buildings, it is not surprising that they don’t integrate well into a low-rise surrounding. But as high-rises become higher, so does this discrepancy. It is primarily a design question, 82

Conclusions and further questions

that ought to be researched further, looking at how to remove the discrepancy between the two- and three dimensional perspective. In other words, the question is how can spatial integration and the connection to the surroundings be increased? Secondly, it also became apparent that a significant percentage of the high-rises in Amsterdam serve the housing function. However, most of the high-rises dedicated to housing are primarily part of the private sector. This is mainly a historical development initially caused by high construction costs, making highrises only affordable to wealthy inhabitants. However, since the first housing high-rise, technological progress in building construction has evolved, enabling lower costs, hence lower rents. Another hurdle that had to be overcome was how to make high-rises, being a new architectural typology, an attractive housing option for the inhabitants of a predominantly low-rise city. With the decreasing rents in the high-rises developed by housing corporations, social acceptance towards living in high-rises steadily increased over time. Though, with the failure of social housing high-rises within the Bijlmermeer development that were mainly due to social problems, the idea of high-rises for social housing became stigmatised in Amsterdam from the 1970s. In the 1990s, with the privatisation of about half of the housing sector in Amsterdam and the high interest by the real estate market in high-rises, the new constructions were mainly developed by the private sector. In this regard, Amsterdam is following the global trend, where high-rises are primarily assigned to housing for the wealthy. In the global discourse, it is pointed out that “urban places have many similarities of physical appearance, economic structure and social organisation and are beset by the same problems of employment, housing, health, transport and environmental quality. The elements in many urban skylines are the same, as commercial and residential areas are increasingly dominated by high-rise developments constructed in

international styles.“ (Clake, 2003: 2) The increased high-rise construction, together with the increased integration of high-rises into the housing landscape, could be an indicator that it is not only the skyline of Amsterdam that is changing, but also the housing landscape within the city. Further research on the effects of high-rise housing on social structures and the interaction between these two is needed. On the city scale, it became apparent that high-rise construction has expanded in the last 30 years and its integration into the housing landscape, in terms of ownership and housing sector type, has increased over time. However, the integration of the high-rises in the social housing sector hasn’t followed these trends. Slowly, from the early 2000s, some housing corporations started developing high-rises within the social housing sector. Nevertheless, while privately developed high-rises dominate the new constructions, examples of new highrises serving as social housing are still rare. The last two case studies, of the Symphony building and the Waterland complex, clearly showed the two sides of the privately and the housing corporation developed high-rises. The question of integration has shifted from the question of cost and social acceptance, to the question of regulation and models of financing. But as the buildings are becoming higher, so are the costs. Further research is needed to clarify height-wise what could be an affordable highrise model, that can effectively serve the social housing sector. The Waterlandplein project shows the potential of high-rise integration into the social housing sector and how the early hurdles of construction cost and social acceptance can be overcome. It’s a prime example of how the demand for more density can be aligned with the demand for affordable housing.

social, 40% middle segment, and 20% free market housing for all neighbourhoods, is a strong tool in fighting these dynamics. In the city scale analysis it became evident that only 16% of the housing high-rises are dedicated to social housing. The remaining 84% are part of the private housing market. This proportion stands in strong contrast to the 40-40-20 policy. The discrepancy between the social and the private sector within high-rises could eventually lead to segregation, in a vertical dimension, if not counteracted with appropriate policies. The question is how the 40-40-20 policy can be applied to high-rise developments, given the cost structures and the interests from the real estate market? This thesis has shown the level of integration of high-rises into the current housing landscape, with its successes and shortcomings over the course of the last century. It provides a foundation for future research to shine a light on what the path forward could be to further integrate high-rises into the housing landscape and leverage their potential to provide affordable housing as a key element to drive Amsterdam’s Compact City vision.

Similarly to other global cities, Amsterdam too is facing the challenges of social polarisation. Here, the 40-40-20 policy, which demands 40% Conclusions and further questions

References Agricola, E., Brinkman, E., Sorgedrager, B. & Werf, J. (2013). Atlas AUP gebieden Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Valiz. Amsterdamse Nieuwbouwprijs (2019). Amsterdam Symphony - Amsterdamse Nieuwbouwprijs 2011. [online] Amsterdam Woont. Available at: https://www.amsterdamwoont.nl/nieuwbouwprijs/amsterdamsenieuwbouwprijs-2011/amsterdam-symphony/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Algemeen Handelsblad (1932) De Wolkenkrabber aan het Daniel Willinkplein is thans gereed. Algemeen Handelsblad, February 2,. pp 3. Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/ view?coll=ddd&query=%28Algemeen+Handelsblad%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_gte_+%2224-021932%22%29&cql%5B%5D=%28date+_lte_+%2228-02-1932%22%29&redirect=true&identifier=ddd:010662253:mpeg21:p 003&resultsidentifier=ddd:010662253:mpeg21:a0058 [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Algemeen Handelsblad (1960). Osdorp wordt Amsterdams mooiste tuinstad buiten de Ringdijk, Algemeen Handelsblad, June 23, pp 2. Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/w?query=Zes+torenflats:+uniek&coll=ddd&identif ier=KBNRC01:000036699:mpeg21:a0017&resultsidentifier=KBNRC01:000036699:mpeg21:a0017 [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Algemeen Handelsblad (1963). Zes torenflats: uniek bouwproject aan Sloterplas, Algemeen Handelsblad, June 22, pp 12. Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/w?query=Nederlands+beroepsvervoer+beducht&coll=ddd&ide ntifier=KBNRC01:000033317:mpeg21:a0148&resultsidentifier=KBNRC01:000033317:mpeg21:a0148 [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Algemeen Handelsblad (1965). Luxe Flatwoningen aan het Water. Algemeen Handelsblad. April 17, pp 12 Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/w?query=LUXE+FLATWONINGEN+AAN+HET+WATER&coll=ddd&ide ntifier=KBNRC01:000034767:mpeg21:a0131&resultsidentifier=KBNRC01:000034767:mpeg21:a0131 [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Arcam (2019a). De Wolkenkrabber | ARCAM. [online] Arcam.nl. Available at: https://www.arcam.nl/dewolkenkrabber/ [Accessed 4 Sep. 2019]. Arcam (2019b). K-towers | ARCAM. [online] Arcam.nl. Available at: https://www.arcam.nl/en/k-torens/ [Accessed 4 Sep. 2019]. Bergh, T. (2017). Gemeente Amsterdam gelooft nog steeds in skyline van de Sluisbuurt. [online] NRC. Available at: https://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2017/04/08/soeters-creeert-een-spookbeeld-7845945-a1553508 [Accessed 17 Aug. 2019]. Boerlage, S. (2018). Met die woontorens dreigt een Bijlmerscenario in de Sluisbuurt. [online] Parool.nl. Available at: https://www.parool.nl/columns-opinie/met-die-woontorens-dreigt-een-bijlmerscenario-in-desluisbuurt~b77813f6/ [Accessed 17 Aug. 2019]. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License. Britannica Encyclopedia (2019). High-rise building | architecture. [online] Encyclopedia Britannica. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/technology/high-rise-building [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Brunt, L. (2017). Het Vancouverisme heeft nu ook Amsterdam bereikt. [online] Parool.nl. Available at: https://www. parool.nl/columns-opinie/het-vancouverisme-heeft-nu-ook-amsterdam-bereikt~b0c090ef/ [Accessed 17 Aug. 2019]. Bruijn, P. de, Oorthuys, G. (1977) Bijmermeer : Wohnüberbauung für 50000 Einwohner 10 km südwestlich Amsterdam in Werk - Archithese : Zeitschrift und Schriftenreihe für Architektur und Kunst, vol. 64, no. 5, pp 12-16. Buijn, P. (2004). Highrise – Lowland. In: CTBUH 2004. CTBUH, pp.605 - 612. Cambridge Dictionary (2019). HIGH-RISE | Bedeutung im Cambridge Englisch Wörterbuch. [online] Dictionary. cambridge.org. Available at: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/de/worterbuch/englisch/high-rise [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Camu, K. (2019). Zo gaat de skyline van de toekomst eruit zien. [online] Vastgoed Journaal Available at: 84

https://vastgoedjournaal.nl/news/39960/zo-gaat-de-skyline-van-de-toekomst-eruit-zien [Accessed 23 Aug. 2019] Clark, D. (2010). Urban world, global city. London: Routledge. Couzy, M. (2017). Wat voor stad laat Eberhard van der Laan achter? [online] Parool.nl. Available at: https://www. parool.nl/nieuws/wat-voor-stad-laat-eberhard-van-der-laan-achter~b187b25b/ [Accessed 18 Aug. 2019]. Couzy, M. (2018). Groen licht voor Sluisbuurt, inclusief omstreden woontorens. [online] Parool.nl. Available at: https:// www.parool.nl/nieuws/groen-licht-voor-sluisbuurt-inclusief-omstreden-woontorens~ba505d88/ [Accessed 18 Aug. 2019]. Collins Dictionary (2019). High-rise Definition und Bedeutung | Collins Wörterbuch. [online] Collinsdictionary.com. Available at: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/de/worterbuch/englisch/high-rise [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat (2019). CTBUH Height Criteria | Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat. [online] Ctbuh.org. Available at: https://www.ctbuh.org/criteria/ [Accessed 4 Sep. 2019]. Cie Architects (2019a). Amsterdam Symphony, Zuidas, Amsterdam. [online] Cie Architects. Available at: https://cie.nl/ page/513/amsterdam-symphony?lang=nl [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Cie Architects (2019b). Waterlandplein, Amsterdam. [online] Cie Architects. Available at: https://cie.nl/page/694/ waterlandplein?lang=nl [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Damen, T. (2016). Pontsteiger door hete markt een 'miljoenengebouw'. [online] Parool.nl. Available at: https://www. parool.nl/nieuws/pontsteiger-door-hete-markt-een-miljoenengebouw~b2e65b99/ [Accessed 23 Aug. 2019]. Damen, T. (2019). Protest bij Raad van State over hoogbouw Sluisbuurt op Zeeburg. [online] Parool.nl. Available at: https://www.parool.nl/amsterdam/protest-bij-raad-van-state-over-hoogbouw-sluisbuurt-op-zeeburg~b65db386/ [Accessed 15 Aug. 2019]. Davies, G. (2013). Is Failure Central to the Architectural Profession?. [online] Failed Architecture. Available at: https:// failedarchitecture.com/pruitt-igoe-is-failed-architecture-central-to-the-architectural-profession/ [Accessed 22 Aug. 2019]. Emporis (2019). Emporis. [online] Emporis.com. Available at: https://www.emporis.com [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Evenhuis, A. (1994). Het KNSM Eiland is ingenomen en meteen vol. Trouw, [online] p.17. Available at: https://www. delpher.nl/nl/kranten/w?query=skydome+amsterdam&coll=ddd&page=2&facets%5Btype%5D%5B%5D=artikel&ide ntifier=ABCDDD:010823296:mpeg21:a0264&resultsidentifier=ABCDDD:010823296:mpeg21:a0264 [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Feddes, F. (2014). A millennium of Amsterdam. Bussum: Thoth. Friedmann, J. and Wolff, G. (1982). World city formation: an agenda for research and action. International Journal of Urban and Regional Studies, pp.309-343 Fincher, R. & Wiesel I. (2012). High Rise Homes in Smith, S. J. (ed). (2012). International Encyclopedia of Housing and Home. vol. 2, pp 379-383. Oxford: Elsevier Science. Gehl, J. (2010). Cities for people. Washington, DC: Island Press. Goldberger, P. (2014). Too Rich, Too Thin, Too Tall?. [online] Vanity Fair | The Complete Archive. Available at: https://archive.vanityfair.com/article/2014/5/too-rich-too-thin-too-tall [Accessed 18 Aug. 2019]. Graham, S. (2018). Vertical : The City from Satellites to Bunkers. Verso Books. Glaeser, E. (2011). How Skyscrapers Can Save the City. [online] The Atlantic. Available at: https://www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2011/03/how-skyscrapers-can-save-the-city/308387/ [Accessed 17 Aug. 2019]. Heemschut, Erfgoedvereniging (2019). Post ’65 Architectuur 1966-1990 in Amsterdam [Online] Available at: https:// assets.heemschut.nl/docs/02c6b770-5498-46c2-a928-6f5ab2e9f87a.pdf [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Het Nieuwsblad van het Zuiden - Tilburg (1940). Wolkenkrabbers. [online] Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/ nl/kranten/w?query=wolkenkrabbers+hemeljongens&coll=ddd&identifier=ddd:010692791:mpeg21:p015&resultside ntifier=ddd:010692791:mpeg21:a0202 [Accessed 19 Aug. 2019]. 85

Het Parool (2017). 'Hoogbouw zorgt voor betere kansen voor duurzaamheid'. [online] Het Parool Available at: www. parool.nl/columns-opinie/hoogbouw-zorgt-voor-betere-kansen-voor-duurzaamheid~bf41d4b1/ [Accessed 17 Aug. 2019]. Hilger, C. (2011). Vernetzte Räume. Plädoyer für den Spatial Turn in der Architektur. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag. Huriot, J. (2012). Towers of Power - Metropolitics. [online] Metropolitiques.eu. Available at: https://www. metropolitiques.eu/Towers-of-Power.html [Accessed 17 Aug. 2019]. Kooij, E. v. d. (2019) Urban Typologies for Productive Neighbourhoods in Shah, M. & Woodroffe J. (ed.) (2019). Productive Amsterdam. Bussum: THOTH Publishers. Koolhaas, R. (1994). Delirious New York. New York, New York: Monacelli Press. Koops, R. (2017). Hoogbouw Sluisbuurt 18 meter lager dan gepland. [online] Het Parool. Available at: https://www. parool.nl/nieuws/hoogbouw-sluisbuurt-18-meter-lager-dan-gepland~b4826c9b/ [Accessed 23 Aug. 2019] Koster, E. (1995). Eastern docklands. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. Oxford: Blackwell. Leeuwenberg, F. and Poelman, L. (2009). On the waves of the city. Amsterdam: Museum Het Schip. Löw, M. (2008). The Constitution of Space: The Structuration of Spaces Through the Simultaneity of Effect and Perception. European Journal of Social Theory, 11(1), pp.25–49. Löw, M. (2018). Vom Raum aus die Stadt denken. Bielefeld: transcript Verlag. Madanipour, A. (2011). Social exclusion and space. in LeGates, R. and Stout, F. (2011). The City Reader. 5th ed. Hoboken: Taylor and Francis. Madden, D. and Marcuse, P. (2016). In defense of housing. London: Verso. Merriam Webster (2019). Definition of HIGH-RISE. [online] Merriam-webster.com. Available at: https://www. merriam-webster.com/dictionary/high-rise [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Municipality of Amsterdam (2001). Plan van Aanpak Nieuwendam-Noord. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam. Municipality of Amsterdam (2010). Amsterdam Pocket Atlas. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam. Municipality of Amsterdam (2011a). Structuurvisie Amsterdam 2040. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam. Municipality of Amsterdam (2011b). Hoogbouw in Amsterdam. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam. Municipality of Amsterdam (2018). Hoogbouw Effect Rapportage Sluisbuurt. [online] Municipality of Amsterdam. Available at: http://ftp.ruimtelijkeplannen.amsterdam.nl/DRO/plannen/NL.IMRO.0363.M1711BPGST-/ NL.IMRO.0363.M1711BPGST-VG01/b_NL.IMRO.0363.M1711BPGST-VG01_26.pdf [Accessed 23 Aug. 2019]. Municipality of Amsterdam (2019a). Gebiedsgericht Werken Dashboard. [online] Gebiedinbeeld.amsterdam.nl. Available at: https://gebiedinbeeld.amsterdam.nl/ [Accessed 20 Aug. 2019]. Municipality of Amsterdam (2019b). Dataportaal. [online] Data.amsterdam.nl. Available at: https://data. amsterdam.nl/datasets/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Municipality of Amsterdam (2019c). Gebouwd in Amsterdam. [online] gebouwdin.amsterdam.nl Available at: https://www.gebouwdin.amsterdam.nl [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Municipality of Amsterdam (2019d). Stadsarchief [online] beeldbank.amsterdam.nl Available at: https:// beeldbank.amsterdam.nl [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019] Municipality of Amsterdam (2019e). Gebouwd in Amsterdam. Bijlmer K-flats. [online] gebouwdin.amsterdam.nl Available at: https://www.gebouwdin.amsterdam.nl/main.asp?action=display_html_pagina&name=detailpagina&b ooMarge=-1&item_id=312 Nederlandse Dagblad (1993). Wolkenkrabber van 187 meter in Amsterdam nog steeds niet van de grond. Nederlandse Dagblad, February 19, pp 10. Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/w?query=wolkenkrabber+van+187 +amsterdam&coll=ddd&identifier=ddd:010628784:mpeg21:a0155&resultsidentifier=ddd:010628784:mpeg21:a0155 86

[Accessed 19 Aug. 2019]. Nieuwsblad van het Noorden (1928). Een millioenenplan. Nieuwsblad van het Noorden, January 19, pp 2. Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&identifier=ddd:010667796:mpeg21:p002 Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek (2018). Amsterdam in cijfers 2018. Amsterdam: Gemeente Amsterdam O’sullivan, F. (2018). Amsterdam Plans a Distinctly American High-Rise Island. [online] Citylab. Available at: https:// www.citylab.com/design/2018/09/amsterdam-zeeburgereiland-residential-tower-heights-plan/571258/ [Accessed 14 Sep. 2019]. Palmkoek, E. (1994). Skydome wordt Architectuurmonument. [online] De Telegraaf, January 12, pp 25. Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/w?query=skydome+architectuurmonument&coll=ddd&identifier=ddd:0106921 45:mpeg21:a0676&resultsidentifier=ddd:010692145:mpeg21:a0676 [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Stil, H. (2019). Echt, die Y Towers komen er. Zegt de ontwikkelaar. [online] Het Parool. Available at: https://www. parool.nl/amsterdam/echt-die-y-towers-komen-er-zegt-de-ontwikkelaar~b9b30c78/ [Accessed 23 Aug. 2019] Rijksmonumenten (2019a). de Wolkenkrabber in Amsterdam | Monument. [online] Rijksmonumenten.nl. Available at: http://rijksmonumenten.nl/monument/532002/de-wolkenkrabber/amsterdam/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Rottenberg, F. (2018). Wonen in de oudste woontoren van Nederland: 'Het uitzicht was fabelachtig'. [online] EenVandaag. Available at: https://eenvandaag.avrotros.nl/item/wonen-in-de-oudste-woontoren-van-nederland-het-uitzichtwas-fabelachtig/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019] Pistor, R. and Aluvihare, R. (1994). A city in progress. Amsterdam: Dienst Riumtelijke Ordening. Sabo Advies (2014). De vernieuwing van de Bijlmermeer. [online] Municipality of Amsterdam. Available at https:// saboadvies.nl/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/achtergronden_en_ontwikkelingen_vernieuwing_bijlmermeer_-_ background_information_renewal_bijlmermeer.pdf [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019] Sassen, S. (1991). The Global City: New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press Savini, F., Boterman, W., van Gent, W. and Majoor, S. (2016). Amsterdam in the 21st century: Geography, housing, spatial development and politics. Cities, 52, pp.103-113. Schaap, T. (2019). Real urbanism. Amsterdam: Architectura & Natura Publisher and Authors. Smit, M. (2016). Architect Sjoerd Soeters: Bij hoogbouw blijven mensen binnen. [online] Het Parool. Available at https://www.parool.nl/nieuws/architect-sjoerd-soeters-bij-hoogbouw-blijven-mensen-binnen~b8e85f53/ [Accessed 30 July. 2019]. Soja, E. (1996). Thirdspace. Oxford: Blackwell. Soomeren, P. van, Kleuver, J. de, Klundert, W. van de (2014). High-rise in trouble, The bijlmermeer in Amsterdam. Amsterdam: COST Skyscrapercenter.com. (2019). 100 Tallest Completed Buildings in the World - The Skyscraper Center. [online] Available at: https://www.skyscrapercenter.com/buildings [Accessed 17 Aug. 2019]. Skyscraperpage.com. (2019). SkyscraperPage.com. [online] Available at: https://skyscraperpage.com [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Stokman W. (2019). ‚Alles van waarde is weerloos’ in Shah, M. & Woodroffe J. (ed.) (2019). Productive Amsterdam. Bussum: THOTH Publishers. Stöger, H. and Weidenholzer, J. (2007). Auf dem Weg zur desintegrierten Stadt? – Zum Problem der sozialräumlichen Segregation in Europa in Hoscher, D., Thomas Wala, T. and Wurm, K. (ed.) (2007). Jahrbuch Wohnbauförderung 2007. Vienna: LexisNexis - ARD Orac. Sudjic, D. (2005). The edifice complex. London: Allen Lane. Staalenhoef, J. (2017). 'Hoogbouw Sluisbuurt: absoluut niks Amsterdams’. [online] Het Parool. Available at https:// www.parool.nl/columns-opinie/hoogbouw-sluisbuurt-absoluut-niks-amsterdams~b2587f0f/, [Accessed 30 July. 2019]. 87

Stichting Geheugen van Plan Zuid (2019). De Wolkenkrabber van J.F. Staal - 75 jaar. [online] Geheugenvanplanzuid. nl. Available at: http://geheugenvanplanzuid.nl/archief/architectuur/wolkenkrabber75.htm [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Veer, J. (2019). One Among Many - Amsterdam in the 21st Century. Baumeister, (6), pp.77 - 83. Vogel, H. (1983). Leven in De Wolkenkrabber. Het Parool, October 29, pp 23. Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/ nl/kranten/w?query=amsterdam+leven+in+de+wolkenkrabber&coll=ddd&identifier=ABCDDD:010846356:mpeg21: a0294&resultsidentifier=ABCDDD:010846356:mpeg21:a0294 [Accessed 27 Aug. 2019]. Volkskrant, De (1966). Aan het Slotermeer in een Wereldstad. [online] Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/ kranten/w?query=torenwyck+amsterdam&coll=ddd&identifier=ABCDDD:010877689:mpeg21:a0077&resultsidenti fier=ABCDDD:010877689:mpeg21:a0077 [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Vroege, P. (2016). Atlas of Amsterdam. Groningen: Noordhoff Uitgevers bv. Wiel Arets Architects (2019). Projects - Wiel Arets Architects. [online] Wielaretsarchitects.com. Available at: http:// www.wielaretsarchitects.com/en/projects/knsm_island_skydome/ [Accessed 1 Sep. 2019]. Waarheid, De (1975). Huurcommissie Kralenbeek wil huurverlaging in Bijlmer. [online] De Waarheid. 12.05. Available at: https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/w?query=kralenbeek&coll=ddd&identifier=ddd:010375717:mpeg2 1:p005&resultsidentifier=ddd:010375717:mpeg21:a0098 [Accessed 19 Aug. 20 Wit, A. (1999). Nieuw Sloten, van tuin tot stad. Amsterdam: Spruijt. Wilson, M. W. (2014). GIS: a method and a practice in Ward, K. (2014). Researching the city. Los Angeles: SAGE. Yoos, J., James, V. and Blauvelt, A. (2016). Parallel cities. Minneapolis: Walker Art Center.

Interviews Anouk de Wit (18.07.2019) Director of the Van Eesteren museum in Amsterdam. In person. Weesperplein 8, Amsterdam Flora Nycolaas (05.08.2019). Urban Planner at Municipality of Amsterdam, Department for Space and Sustainability, Team New Assignments, project leader Highrise Vision Amsterdam. In person. Weesperplein 8, Amsterdam Ton Schaap (29.08.2019). Consultant and supervisor for urban design projects within the Municipality of Amsterdam. Former urban designer of the Oostelijk Havengebied. In person. Weesperplein 8, Amsterdam

Figure List All maps and graphs that are made by the author are created on the base of data which is indicated in section 1.2.4. Figure. 1, page 10: The Trialectics of Being. Made by author. Figure. 2, page 10: The Trialectics of Space. Made by author. Figure. 3, page 15: Research Design. Made by author. Figure. 4, page 20: The Multilevel City by Corbett. Retrieved from: https://audreyehunter.files.wordpress. com/2014/09/skywalks_largest.jpg Figure. 5, page 21: The Gosprom building complex in Kharkov. Retrieved from: https://medium.com/@ justinleighreynolds/charlie-chaplin-hero-of-the-soviet-avant-garde-11e2c6c98c61 Figure. 6, page 22: Demolition of the Pruitt-Igoe housing complex in St. Louis. Retrieved from: https:// architectureincontext.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/3000px_iconicimplosion_pruitt-igoemyth_credit-stl-post-dispatch. jpg Figure. 7, page 23: The global cities high-rises and skyscrapers. Retrieved from: http://jllcitiesquiz.com/globalresearch/ Skyline-Quiz/ Figure. 8, page 24: Urban growth between 1900 and 1945. Made by author. Figure. 9, page 25: Urban growth between 1945 and 1970. Made by author. Figure. 10, page 26: Urban growth between 1970 and 1990. Made by author. Figure. 11, page 27: Urban growth between 1990 and 2010. Made by author. Figure. 12, page 28: Urban growth between 1990 and 2010. Made by author. Figure. 13, page 29: Map of Amsterdam indicating ages of buildings. Made by author. Figure. 15, page 30: Changes in inhabitants by cause. Translation by author. Retrieved from: (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek 2018: 40) Figure. 16, page 30: Specialisation of new companies. Translation by author. Retrieved from: (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek 2018: 147) Figure. 17, page 31: Housing stock by segment type (2007 and 2017). Translation by author. Retrieved from: (Onderzoek, Informatie en Statistiek 2018: 310) Figure. 18, page 32: Land value, ownership & income level by district. Made by author. Figure. 19, page 33: Percentage of elderly (65+) & children per household by district. Made by author. Figure. 20, page 34: The doughnut city: an impression of the possible future for the urban development, dominated by high-rises along the A10 highway ring. Retrieved from: https://zefhemel.nl/amsterdam-makeover-2040/ Figure. 21, page 38: Building heights in Amsterdam. Made by author. Figure. 22, page 38: Buildings above 30m. Made by author. Figure. 23, page 38: Buildings above 50m. Made by author. Figure. 24, page 38: Buildings above 70m. Made by author. Figure. 25, page 38: Buildings above 90m. Made by author. Figure. 26, page 42: Example of data evaluation model. Made by author. Figure. 27, page 43: Criteria for integration of high- rises into the housing landscape. Made by author. Figure. 28, page 44: Share of functions of all high-rises. Made by author.

Figure. 29, page 44: Share of functions of high-rises above 80m. Made by author. Figure. 30, page 44: Share of functions of high-rises between 80m and 60m. Made by author. Figure. 31, page 44: Share of functions of high-rises between 60m and 40m. Made by author. Figure. 32, page 45: Analysed high-rises in Amsterdam indicated in pink (according to criteria named in section 3.1.1.). Made by author. Figure. 33, page 45: Analysed high-rises in Amsterdam indicated in black with housing high-rises indicated in pink. Made by author. Figure. 34, page 46: Ownership of housing high-rises. Made by author. Figure. 35, page 46: Share of social rent and ownership/free rental sector within housing high-rises. Made by author. Figure. 36, page 48/49: Map of Amsterdam indicating ages of buildings and case study buildings indicated with black squares. Made by author. Figure. 37, page 50/51: Timeline of the urban expansion together with case study buildings. Made by author. Figure. 38, page 52: View on De Wolkenkrabber, artist impression, ca. 1935. Retrieved from: https://beeldbank. amsterdam.nl/beeldbank/ Figure. 39, page 52: Plan Zuid. Retrieved from: https://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/beeldbank/indeling/detail?f_sk_ archief=10033%2F418 Figure. 40, page 52: Historical context, De Wolkenkrabber. Made by author. Figure. 41, page 53: De Wolkenkrabber today, with the statue of H.Page Berlage to the front. Made by author. Figure. 42, page 53: Bird eye perspective on De Wolkenkrabber, ca. 1920. Retrieved from: https://beeldbank. amsterdam.nl/beeldbank/weergave/record/?id=ANWS00299000001 Figure. 43, page 53: Spatial context, De Wolkenkrabber. Made by author. Figure. 44, page 54: Housing sector, context, De Wolkenkrabber. Made by author. Figure. 45, page 54: Ownership, context, De Wolkenkrabber. Made by author. Figure. 46, page 55: Integration evaluation, De Wolkenkrabber. Made by author. Figure. 47, page 56: View on Torenwijk. Retrieved from: https://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/beeldbank/indeling/ gallery?q_searchfield=torenwijk Figure. 48, page 56: Algemeen Uitbreidingsplan. Retrieved from: https://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/beeldbank/ indeling/lijst?q_searchfield=aup Figure. 49, page 56: Historical context, Torenwijk. Made by author. Figure. 50, page 57: Torenwijk. Retrieved from: https://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/beeldbank/indeling/gallery/start/2?q_ searchfield=torenwijk Figure. 51, page 57: Presentation of the AUPage Retrieved from: https://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/beeldbank/indeling/ gallery?q_searchfield=AUP Figure. 52, page 57: Spatial context. Made by author. Figure. 53, page 58: Housing sector, context, Torenwijk. Made by author. Figure. 54, page 58: Ownership, context, Torenwijk. Made by author. Figure. 55, page 59: Integration evaluation, Torenwijk. Made by author. Figure. 56, page 60: K-towers under construction, ca. 1975, https://beeldbank.amsterdam.nl/beeldbank/indeling/ gallery?q_searchfield=karspeldreef Figure. 57, page 60: Plan View of Bijlmeermeer before 1995. Retrieved from: (Sabo Advies, 2014: 1) Figure. 58, page 60: Historical context, K-towers. Made by author. 90

Figure. 59, page 61: K-towers after reconstructions of the surrounding. Retrieved from: https://beeldbank.amsterdam. nl/beeldbank/indeling/gallery/start/30?q_searchfield=karspeldreef Figure. 60, page 61: Plan View after reconstruction, new buildings in red and renovated in brown, newly built in purple. Retrieved from: (Sabo Advies, 2014: 15) Figure. 61, page 61: Spatial context, K-towers. Made by author. Figure. 62, page 62: Housing sector, context, K-towers. Made by author Figure. 63, page 62: Ownership, context, K-towers. Made by author Figure. 64, page 63: Integration evaluation, K-towers. Made by author Figure. 65, page 64: Historical image of Skydome. Retrieved from: https://www.arcam.nl/sky2-jpg/ Figure. 66, page 64: Plan View of Oostelijke Havengebied. Retrieved from: (Koster, 1995: 12) Figure. 67, page 64: Historical context, Skydome. Made by author Figure. 68, page 65: Skydome today. Retrieved from: (Wiel Arets Architects, 2019) Figure. 69, page 65: Birds eye view of Oostelijk Havengebied today. Retrieved from: https://www.architour.nl/ oostelijk-havengebied/ Figure. 70, page 65: Spatial context, Skydome. Made by author Figure. 71, page 66: Housing sector, context, Skydome. Made by author Figure. 72, page 66: Ownership, context, Skydome. Made by author Figure. 73, page 67: Integration evaluation, Skydome. Made by author Figure. 74, page 68: Symphony at time of construction. Retrieved from: (Cie Architects, 2019a) Figure. 75, page 68: Artist impression of the Zuidas. Retrieved from: https://hellozuidas.com/wp-content/ uploads/2019/05/Hello-Zuidas_Sustainability-Report-Zuidas-_ENG.pdf Figure. 76, page 68: Historical context, Symphony. Made by author Figure. 77, page 69: Symphony, today. Made by author Figure. 78, page 69: Model of the Zuidas area. Made by author Figure. 79, page 69: Spatial context, Symphony. Made by author Figure. 80, page 70: Housing sector, context, Symphony. Made by author Figure. 81, page 70: Ownership, context, Symphony. Made by author Figure. 82, page 71: Integration evaluation, Symphony. Made by author Figure. 83, page 72: Waterlandplein, impression by architects. Retrieved from: (Cie Architects, 2019b) Figure. 84, page 72: Urban renewal plan of Nieuwendam neighbourhood. Retrieved from: (Municipality of Amsterdam, 2001: 6) Figure. 85, page 72: Historical context, Waterlandplein. Made by author Figure. 86, page 73: Waterlandplein, during construction. Retrieved from: (Cie Architects, 2019b) Figure. 87, page 73: View on De Zwarte Ruiter tower, today. Retrieved from: (Cie Architects, 2019b) Figure. 88, page 73: Spatial context, Symphony. Made by author Figure. 89, page 74: Housing sector, context, Symphony. Made by author Figure. 90, page 74: Ownership, context, Symphony. Made by author Figure. 91, page 75: Integration evaluation, Symphony. Made by author Figure. 92, page 76/77: Integration evaluation of all buildings from perceived space perspective. Made by author Figure. 93, page 78/79: Integration evaluation of all buildings from conceived space perspective. Made by author 91

Appendix

List of analysed high-rises within the quantitative analysis Name before WWII Mercatoren X De Wolkenkrabber Apollo House Kas Bank De Bazel Beurs van Berlage Munttoren Watertoren Overamstel De Bijenkorf Montelbaanstoren After WW II - 1945 - 1959 Benno Premselahuis Philip Kohnstammhuis Silodam 1-96 1960 - 1969 Hilton Hotel Holiday Inn Amsterdam Sloterhof X Panorama Torenwijck X Torenwijck I X Torenwijck II X Torenwijck III X Torenwijck IV X Torenwijck V Aeckerstijn Langswater 136-252 Langswater 269-385 Langswater 3-119 Langswater 668-784 Langswater V Maassluisstraat 18-100 Parkﬂat Baden Powell Residentie Parkzicht Maassluisstraat 176-258 Maassluisstraat 334-416 Maassluisstraat 492-574 Osdorperhof Backershagen 1-99 Burg. Hogguerstraat 449-791 Burg. Hogguerstraat 53-393 Burg. Hogguerstraat 845-1187 Teilingen Van Heenvlietlaan 102-200 Van Leijenberghlaan 101-199 Wamberg 36-85 Assumburg Cronenburg Egelenburg Klokkenhof Nijenburg Edith Stein Huis Het Breed Europahuis Parooltoren Ringpark Havengebouw World Fashion Centre Toren 1 Nederlandsche Bank 1970 - 1979 UvA Roeterseiland - Gebouw A Leeuwenburg Novotel Amsterdam Rembrandt Park Gebouw Hotel Okura Amsterdam Statenjachtlaan 600-822 Flat A Flat B Flat C Flat D Flat E Dijkgraafplein 37-407 Stellingweg 21-339 Werengouw Nachtwachtlaan 132-221 Nachtwachtlaan 240-329 Nachtwachtlaan 332-421 Nachtwachtlaan 40-129 Nachtwachtlaan 432-521 Staalmeesterslaan 1-90 Staalmeesterslaan 101-191 Staalmeesterslaan 201-290 Staalmeesterslaan 301-390 X Kempering X Klieverink X Kouwenoord X Kralenbeek Slotervaartziekenhuis Vrije Universiteit Einstein gebouw Centerpoint I IBM Nederland World Fashion Centre Toren 3 Parnassustoren Atrium A'Dam Toren 1980 - 1989 Arena Towers (Holiday Inn Express) AMC 94 World Trade Center B-C 1990 - 2000 De Zilveren Toren De Tweeling A

OwnershipRent typeHeight Storeys Tower Slab/Block Usage private private

corporation social

private corporation private private private private private private corporation social private corporation private private private private private corporation corporation corporation corporation social private private corporation corporation private private private private private private private private private private private

private corporation corporation corporation corporation corporation private private private private private private private private private private private private corporation corporation corporation corporation

social social social

social social social social

Address

Area

built built built built built built built built built built

Mercatorplein

West

Victorieplein

Zuid

Apollolaan 15 Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 225 Vijzelstraat 32 Damrak Muntplein Overamstel Dam 1 Oude schans

Zuid Centruum Centruum Centruum Centruum Overamstel Centruum Centruum

1927 Plan West 1932 Plan Zuid 1939 1930 1926 1903 1620 1911 1915 1606

before WWII before WWII before WWII before WWII before WWII before WWII before WWII before WWII before WWII before WWII

education education housing /change

built built built

Rhijnspoorplein 1 Wibautslaan 2-4 Silodam 1-96

Oost Oost Westerpark

1951 1958 1952

After WW II - 1945 - 1959 After WW II - 1945 - 1959 After WW II - 1945 - 1959

hotel hotel housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing office office office office office office

built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built built

Apollolaan 138-140 De Boelelaan 2 Hemsterhuisstraat 147-241 Ruimzicht 3-73 Ruimzicht 258-329 Vrijzicht 112-184 Vrijzicht 26-98 Ruimzicht 172-244 Ruimzicht 75-147 Baden Powellweg 1-261 Langswater 136-252 Langswater 269-385 Langswater 3-119 Langswater 668-784 Langswater 535-651 Maassluisstraat 18-100 Langswater 401-518 Langswater 801-971 Maassluisstraat 176-258 Maassluisstraat 334-416 Maassluisstraat 492-574

Zuid Zuideramstel Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West

Pieter Calandlaan 86

Nieuw-West

Backershagen 1-99 Burg. Hogguerstraat 449-791 Burg. Hogguerstraat 53-393 Burg. Hogguerstraat 845-1187 Teilingen 1-135 Van Heenvlietlaan 102-200 Van Leijenberghlaan 101-199 Wamberg 36-85 Assumburg 4-152 Cronenburg 4-154 Egelenburg 4-152 Surinameplein 53-55 Nijenburg 4-152 (Zuideramstel) Voorburgstraat 2-242 Het Breed 701-939 James Wattstraat 79 Wibautstraat 129 Nachtwachtlaan 20 De Ruijterkade 7 Koningin Wilhelminaplein 13 Westeinde 1

Zuid Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Zuid Zuid Zuid Zuid Zuideramstel Zuideramstel Zuideramstel West Zuideramstel West Noord Oost Oost West Centruum West Centruum

1962 1968 1960 1964 1968 1968 1968 1968 1968 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1965 1966 1965 1965 1960 1960 1960 1969 1969 1964 1967 1964 1969 1969 1969 1970 1967 1967 1967 1961 1967 1968 1969 1964 1969 1966 1960 1968 1968

1960 - 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 1969 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 - 1969 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 - 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 1969 AUP - Slotermeer 1960 - 1969 AUP - Slotermeer 1960 - 1969 AUP - Slotermeer 1960 - 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 1969 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 - 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 1969 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 - 1969 AUP - Plan van 1960 Gool - 1969 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969

education education hotel hotel hotel housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing medical medical office office office office office office office /hotel/restaurant

Roetersstraat 15 Weesperzijde 190 Europa Boulevard 10 Staalmeesterlaan 410 Ferdinand Bolstraat 333 Statenjachtlaan 600-822 Loenermark 5-157 Loenermark 160- 316 Loenermark 319-471 Loenermark 477-631 Loenermark 647-777 Dijkgraafplein 37-407 Stellingweg 21-339 Het Breed 461-699 Nachtwachtlaan 132-221 Nachtwachtlaan 240-329 Nachtwachtlaan 332-421 Nachtwachtlaan 40-129 Nachtwachtlaan 432-521 Staalmeesterslaan 1-90 Staalmeesterslaan 101-191 Staalmeesterslaan 201-290 Staalmeesterslaan 301-390 Karspeldreef Karspeldreef Kouwenoordweg 65 - 1879 Karspeldreef Louwesweg 6 De Boelelaan 1105 Kabelweg 21 Hoogoorddreef 60 Johan Huizingslaan 765 Koningin Wilhelminaplein 13 Locatellikade 1 Strawinskylaan 3051 Badhuisweg 3

Centruum Overamstel Zuideramstel West Zuid Noord Noord Noord Noord Noord Noord Nieuw-West Noord Noord West West West West West West West West West Bijlmer Bijlmer Bijlmer Bijlmer

1970 1977 1970 1973 1971 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1970 1974 1973 1972 1972 1972 1972 1973 1975 1975 1970 1975 1975 1975 1974 1974 1975 1973 1980 1986 1976 1977 1976 1974 1970

1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool - 1979 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool - 1979 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool - 1979 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool - 1979 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool - 1979 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool - 1979 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 - Veldert 1979 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 - Veldert 1979 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 - Veldert 1979 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 - Veldert 1979 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 - Veldert 1979 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 - Veldert 1979 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 - Veldert 1979 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 - Veldert 1979 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 - Veldert 1979 Bijlmer Oost 1970 - 1979 Bijlmer Oost 1970 - 1979 Bijlmer Oost 1970 - 1979 Bijlmer Oost 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979 1970 - 1979

17 13 16

hotel medical office

built built built

Hoogoordreef 66 Meibergdreef 9 Strawinskylaan 425

Bullewijk Zuidas

1989 1981 1985

1980 - 1989 1980 - 1989 1980 - 1989

12 17

hotel hotel

built built

Stationsplein Strawinskylaan 2001

Zuid Zuidas

1992 1992

1990 - 2000 1990 - 2000

35 48 40 67 35 40 41 41 41 48

x 12 x 8 6 8 5

35 48 50

9 12 16

42 54 38 41 41 41 41 41 41 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 49 51 52 55 68 75

12 16 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 13 14 14 13 13 13 13 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 14 14 14 14 14 14 18 11 13 11

48 60 50 73 78 45 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 58 58 58 58 57 57 38 42 48 52 57 61 80

11 15 16 20 23 15 14 14 14 14 14 13 17 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 20 20 20 20 12 16 10 10 11 13 16 12 17

70 52 61 55 64

housing housing office office other other other other other other

x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

17 15 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Usage secondary Status

municipal/education

retail

office

hotel

Sloterdijk

West Zuid Zuidas Overhoeks

Year ExpansionGrowth plan period Buy/Rent DeveloperArch

https://www.dewes https Berlag

J.F.Sta

Peete

Maask M.F.D

ZZDP

Zanst Bijvoe

Leo d Leo d Leo d Leo d Leo d

MVSA Arthu

ZZDP

Kohn

Ellerm

Slotervaartziekenhuis Vrije Universiteit Einstein gebouw Centerpoint I IBM Nederland World Fashion Centre Toren 3 Parnassustoren Atrium Name Toren A'Dam before WWII 1980 - 1989 Mercatoren Arena Towers (Holiday Inn Express) X De Wolkenkrabber AMC ApolloTrade HouseCenter B-C World Bank 1990 - Kas 2000 Bazel Toren De Zilveren Beurs van Berlage De Tweeling A Munttoren Hildsven 2-286 Watertoren Overamstel Slotertoren De Bijenkorf Finisterre Montelbaanstoren Thomasvaer After WW - 1945 - 1959 De II Branding Benno Premselahuis Zorro Philip Kohnstammhuis Mirador Silodam 1-96 IJ-Toren 1960 - Watertoren 1969 Hilton Hotel X Skydome (KNSM toren) Holiday Inn Amsterdam Residence l'Etoile Sloterhof De Telegraaf X Panorama Torenwijck Noordkaap X Torenwijck I II Drentestaete X Torenwijck II Mexx X Torenwijck III De Europeesche X Torenwijck IV Margriettoren X Torenwijck JulianatorenV Aeckerstijn Wilhelminatoren Langswater De Tweeling136-252 B Langswater De Oliphant269-385 Langswater 3-119 Teleport Towers Langswater 668-784 Teleport Towers Langswater V Dreeftoren Maassluisstraat 18-100 ABN AMRO Hoofdoffice ParkﬂatOffice BadenTower Powell Arena A (Alpha tower) Residentie Parkzicht Belastingdienst Maassluisstraat 176-258 ABN AMRO Hoofdoffice Maassluisstraat 334-416 Rembrandt Tower Maassluisstraat 492-574 Amsterdam Arena Stadion 2001 - Osdorperhof 2010 Backershagen 1-99 OZW Burg. Hogguerstraat 449-791 ACTA Burg. Hogguerstraat 53-393 Mercure Hotel Burg. Hogguerstraat 845-1187 Mövenpick City Harbour Hotel Teilingen Calandtoren Van Heenvlietlaan Lambertus Zijlplein102-200 14-132 Van Leijenberghlaan 101-199 Milos Wamberg 36-85 Masira Blok A Assumburg De Albatros Cronenburg Het Schouw Egelenburg De Piramides Klokkenhof Woontoren Eurocenter Nijenburg Jatopa Block C Edith Stein Huis New Amsterdam Het Breed A Amsterdam X Symphony Europahuis Beatrixtoren Parooltoren Bruggebouw Zuid Ringpark ING House Havengebouw RAI Elicium World Fashion Centre Toren 1 IBM Dynatos Nederlandsche Bank La Guardia Plaza 2 1970 - PricewaterhouseCoopers 1979 UvA Roeterseiland - Gebouw A Westgate Leeuwenburg Triade Novotel Amsterdam Eurocenter Office II Rembrandt Park Gebouw Telfort Hotel Okura DWR Torens Amsterdam Statenjachtlaan La Guardia Plaza600-822 1 Flat A Q-Port Flat B & Co Kempen Flat C Acanthus Flat D II Entree Flat E Office Tower B Arena Dijkgraafplein 37-407 IJ-Toren Stellingweg 21-339 Mahler 4 - UN Studio Werengouw Ernst & Young (Vivalditower) Nachtwachtlaan La Guardia Plaza132-221 4 Nachtwachtlaan 240-329 The Rock Nachtwachtlaan 332-421 Oval Tower Nachtwachtlaan Breitner Center 40-129 Nachtwachtlaan Crystal Tower 432-521 Staalmeesterslaan 1-90 Viñoly Staalmeesterslaan Millennium Tower101-191 Staalmeesterslaan 201-290 Toyo Ito Staalmeesterslaan 301-390 Symphony Office Tower X Kempering World Trade Center H X Klieverink Mondriaantoren X Kouwenoord Alticom-toren 2011X - Kralenbeek 2020 Slotervaartziekenhuis Fletcher Tower Hotel Vrije Universiteit Leonardo Royal Hotel Einstein Van Der gebouw Valk Hotel Centerpoint Crowne PlazaI Amsterdam Amstel IBM Nederland Postillion Hotel Amsterdam World Fashion Centre Toren 3 QO Parnassustoren nhow Atrium Congreshotel Maritim Amsterdam A'Dam Samos 2Toren 1980X - De 1989 Admiraal Arena Towers (Holiday Inn Express) De Zilverling AMC Drakesteijn World Trade Center B-C Het Loo 1990 - Noodermare 2000 De Zilveren Toren Queen De Tweeling A

medical 57 12 medical 57 16 office 38 10 office 42 10 office 48 11 office 52 13 office 57 16 office 61 12 OwnershipRent typeHeight Usage office 80 Storeys 17 xTower Slab/Block private private

private private private private private private private corporation social private private private private private corporation private private private private private private corporation social private corporation private private private private private corporation corporation corporation corporation social private private corporation corporation private private private private private corporation private corporation private private private corporation private private corporation

social social social

social social social social

private corporation social corporation private private private social private

35 70 48 52 40 61 67 35 55 40 64 41 48 41 48 41 50 48 50 51 35 54 48 59 50 60

17 x 12 13 x 168 6 128 175

housing hotel housing medical office office other hotel other hotel other housing other housing other housing other housing

13 17 176 x 18 19 189 12 21 16 x 20

60 42 63 54 72 38 48 41 48 41 50 41 53 41 60 41 60 41 62 45 62 45 64 45 65 45 65 45 67 45 68 45 71 45 85 45 85 45 105 45 135 45 70 45 46 51 46 57 46 58 46 65 46 47 46 48 46 48 46 49 49 50 49 50 49 55 49 55 49 61 50 85 50 105 49 48 51 48 52 48 55 48 68 50 75 50

21 12 22 16 21 13 11 13 13 13 11 13 16 13 16 13 14 13 14 14 17 14 16 14 17 14 19 14 18 13 18 14 23 14 20 13 25 13 35 13 13 15 13 15 14 15 18 15 20 15 16 15 16 15 16 15 14 14 10 14 10 14 17 14 16 14 20 14 24 18 29 11 10 13 11 10

50 48 52 60 54 50 55 73 55 78 57 45 60 49 60 49 65 49 66 49 74 49 80 50 80 50 85 50 87 52 90 52 91 52 94 52 95 52 95 52 95 52 97 52 100 52 105 58 106 58 123 58 146 58 57 57 60 38 63 42 70 48 70 52 70 57 90 61 114 80 42

12 11 13 15 14 16 14 20 13 23 16 15 16 14 16 14 17 14 17 14 18 14 19 13 20 17 21 18 24 17 23 17 24 17 25 17 23 17 28 17 25 17 25 17 26 17 27 20 27 20 32 20 20 12 18 16 19 10 18 10 23 11 19 13 16 25 12 134 17 14

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

11 x 17 13 15 13 x x x x x xx

x x x x x x x xx x xx x x x xx x x xx x x xx x x

built built built built built built built built Usage secondary built Status /hotel/restaurant

Louwesweg 6 De Boelelaan 1105 Kabelweg 21 Hoogoorddreef 60 Johan Huizingslaan 765 Koningin Wilhelminaplein 13 Locatellikade 1 Strawinskylaan 3051 Address 3 Badhuisweg

Sloterdijk

West Zuid Zuidas Area Overhoeks

built built built built built built built built built built

Mercatorplein Hoogoordreef 66 Victorieplein Meibergdreef 9 Apollolaan 15 425 Strawinskylaan Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 225 Vijzelstraat 32 Stationsplein Damrak Strawinskylaan 2001 Muntplein Hildsven 2-286 Overamstel Ardennenlaan 144-188 Dam 1 Mezquitalaan Oude schans Lakenhalsstraat

West Bullewijk

housing education housing education housing housing /change

built built built built

Olof Palmeplein 393-529 Rhijnspoorplein 1 Ecuplein Wibautslaan 2-4 Osdorpplein 142 Silodam 1-96 Oostelijke handelskade 1067

Noord Oost Nieuw-West Oost Nieuw-West Westerpark Oost

housing hotel housing hotel housing housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing other housing housing education housing education housing hotel housing hotel housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing office office office office office office

C. van Eesterenlaan 308 Apollolaan 138-140 KNSM-laan 327 De Boelelaan 2 Van Leijenberghlaan 20 Hemsterhuisstraat 147-241 Basisweg 30 Ruimzicht 3-73 316-340 Hilversumstraat Ruimzicht 258-329 Drentestraat 24 Vrijzicht 112-184 Johan Huizingalaan 400 Vrijzicht 26-98 56 Hoogoorddreef Ruimzicht 172-244 Haaksbergweg 75 Ruimzicht 75-147 Delﬂandlaan 3 Baden Powellweg Delﬂandlaan 1 1-261 Langswater 136-252 Strawinskylaan 2631 Langswater 269-385 Haaksbergweg 4 Langswater 3-119 Kingsfordweg 151 Langswater 668-784 Kingsfordweg 151 Langswater 535-651 Haaksbergweg 3 Maassluisstraat 18-100 Gustav Mahlerlaan 10 Langswater 401-518 De Entree 201 Langswater 801-971 Kingsfordweg 1 Maassluisstraat 176-258 Gustav Mahlerlaan 10 Maassluisstraat Amstelplein 1 334-416 Maassluisstraat Arena Boulevard492-574 1

Oost Zuid Oost Zuideramstel Zuid Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Noord Nieuw-West Zuideramstel Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Bullewijk Nieuw-West Bullewijk Nieuw-West West Nieuw-West West Nieuw-West Zuidas Nieuw-West Bullewijk Nieuw-West Sloterdijk Nieuw-West Sloterdijk Nieuw-West Bullewijk Nieuw-West Zuidas Nieuw-West Bullewijk Nieuw-West Sloterdijk Nieuw-West Zuidas Nieuw-West Overamstel Nieuw-West Bullewijk

Pieter Calandlaan 86

Nieuw-West

Backershagen 1-99 Boelelaan Burg. Hogguerstraat Gustav Mahlerlaan 449-791 Burg.Muyskenweg Hogguerstraat Joan 10 53-393 Burg.Heinkade Hogguerstraat 845-1187 Piet 11 Teilingen 1-135 Pieter Calandlaan 1201-1375 Van Heenvlietlaan Lambertus Zijlplein102-200 14-132 Van Leijenberghlaan 101-199 Carolina MacGillavrylaan 2-216 Wamberg 36-85 Delﬂandplein Assumburg 4-152 Albatrospad 1-144 Cronenburg1-38 4-154 Dollardpad Egelenburg 4-152 Jan van Galenstraat Surinameplein De Boelelaan 53-55 Nijenburg 4-152 (Zuideramstel) Jan Evertsenstraat 485 Voorburgstraat 2-242 Gustav Mahlerlaan 226 Het Breed 701-939 125 Gustav Mahlerplein James Wattstraat Delﬂandlaan 5 79 Wibautstraat 129 Bos en Lommerweg Nachtwachtlaan 20500 Amstelveenseweg De Ruijterkade Europaplein 7 Koningin Wilhelminaplein David Ricardostraat 2-4 13 Westeinde 1 La Guarddiaweg

Zuid Nieuw-West Zuidas Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Centruum Zuid Osdorp Zuid Nieuw-West Zuid Science park Zuid West Zuideramstel Noord Zuideramstel Zuideramstel West West Zuid Zuideramstel West West Zuidas Noord Zuidas Oost West Oost West West Centruum Zuid West Centruum

municipal/education

retail

office stadion

commercial

hotel

Zuid

Zuid Zuidas Centruum Centruum Zuid Centruum Zuidas Centruum Noord Overamstel Nieuw-West Centruum West Centruum Nieuw-West

office education office education office hotel office hotel office hotel office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing office housing other telecom housing medical hotel medical hotel office hotel office hotel office hotel office hotel office hotel /bar/restaurant office hotel office /hotel/restaurant housing

built Adam Smithplein built Roetersstraat 15 33-57 built Adam Smithplein built Weesperzijde 190 built Jan van Galenstraat built Europa Boulevard built Barbara Strozzilaan10336-388 built Staalmeesterlaan built De Entree 222 410 built Ferdinand Bolstraat 333 built Spaklerweg 58 built Statenjachtlaan 600-822 built La Guardiaweg 36 built Loenermark 5-157 built Kingsfordweg 43 built Loenermark 160-300 316 built Beethovenstraat built Loenermark built Bijlmerdreef 319-471 24 built Loenermark built De Entree 230477-631 built Loenermark built De Entree 201647-777 built Dijkgraafplein 37-407 built Piet Heinkade 55 built Stellingweg 21-339 336 built Gustav Mahlerlaan built Het Breed 461-699 built Antonio Vivaldistraat 150 built Nachtwachtlaan 132-221 built La Guardiaweg 128 built Nachtwachtlaan 240-329 built Claude Debussylaan 134 built Nachtwachtlaan 332-421 built De Entree 99 built Nachtwachtlaan built Amstelplein 2 40-129 built Nachtwachtlaan built Hanedastraat 2 432-521 built Staalmeesterslaan 1-90 built Claude Debussylaan 5 built Staalmeesterslaan 101-191 built Radarweg 29 built Staalmeesterslaan 201-290 built Claude Debussylaan 2 built Staalmeesterslaan 301-390 built Gustav Mahlerplein 3 built Karspeldreef built Zuidplein 12 built Karspeldreef 6 built Amstelplein built Kouwenoordweg 65 - 1879 built Drenthepark built Karspeldreef built Louwesweg 6 Meibergdreef built De Boelelaan 1105 under construction Overamstel built construction Kabelweg 21 under Joan Muyskenweg 20 built Hoogoorddreef 606 under construction Amstelvlietstraat built Johanvan Huizingslaan 765 7 planned Paul Vlissingenstraat Koningin Wilhelminaplein 13 Amstelvlietstraat 2 built built construction Locatellikade 1 under Europaboulevard built Strawinskylaan 3051 planned Badhuiskade built Badhuisweg 3 Oosterringdijk

Nieuw-West Centruum Overamstel Zuideramstel Zuideramstel West Bullewijk Zuid Overamstel Noord Noord Noord Noord Bijlmer Noord Bullewijk Noord Bullewijk Nieuw-West Centruum Noord Zuidas Noord Zuidas West Sloterdijk West Zuidas West Bullewijk West Overamstel West Sloterdijk West Zuidas West Sloterdijk West Zuidas West Zuidas Bijlmer Zuidas Bijlmer Overamstel Bijlmer Bijlmer Zuidoost Overamstel Sloterdijk Oost Overamstel Overamstel West Overamstel Zuid Zuidas Overhoeks Overhoeks Science park

48 70 49 52 49 61 49

17 17 x 14 13 14 16 14

housing hotel housing medical housing office housing

built built built built

Waterlandplein 36 Hoogoordreef 66 Dr. H. Colijnstraat Meibergdreef 9 Koningin Wilhelminaplein Strawinskylaan 425 Koningin Wilhelminaplein

Noord Bullewijk Nieuw-West

49 55 49 64

14 12 14 17

housing hotel housing hotel

built built built

IJdoornlaan Stationsplein Koningin Wilhelminaplein Strawinskylaan 2001

Noord Zuid Nieuw-West Zuidas

West Zuidas West

1970 - 1979 1975 1970 - 1979 1973 1970 - 1979 1980 1970 - 1979 1986 1970 - 1979 1976 1970 - 1979 1977 1970 - 1979 1976 1970 - 1979 1974 Year Growth plan Buy/Rent De - 1979period 1970 Expansion1970 1927 Plan West 1989 1932 Plan Zuid 1981 1939 1985 1930 1926 1992 1903 1992 1620 1993 1911 1994 1915 1999 1606 1998

before- 1989 WWII 1980 before WWII 1980 - 1989 before- 1989 WWII 1980 before WWII before- 2000 WWII 1990 before- 2000 WWII 1990 before WWII 1990 - 2000 before- 2000 WWII 1990 before- 2000 WWII 1990 before- 2000 WWII 1990

1996 1990 - 2000 1951 After- WW 1998 1990 2000 II - 1945 - 1959 1958 After- WW 1998 1990 2000 II - 1945 - 195988 1952 IJ axis - Oostelijk AfterHavengebied 1998 1990 - WW 2000 II - 1945 - 195968 1997 IJ axis - Oostelijk 50 1990Havengebied - 2000 1962 IJ axis - Oostelijk 1960Havengebied 1969 1995 100 1990 - 2000 1968 1960 - 2000 1969 1997 AUP - Buitenveldert 40 1990 1960 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 - 2000 1969 1998 1990 1964 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 2000 1969 1990 1990 1968 1960 - 2000 1969 1991 AUP - Oostdorp 1990 1968 1960 - 2000 1969 1991 AUP - Oostdorp 1990 1968 1960 - 2000 1969 1992 AUP - Oostdorp 1990 1968 1960 - 2000 1969 1994 AUP - Oostdorp 1990 1968 AUP Oostdorp 1960 2000 1990 1969 2000 1965 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 2000 1969 2000 1990 1965 1960 - 2000 1969 1992 AUP - Oostdorp 1990 1965 1960 - 2000 1969 1992 AUP - Oostdorp 1990 1965 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 2000 1969 2000 1990 1965 AUP Oostdorp 1960 2000 1990 1969 2000 1965 1960 - 2000 1969 1991 AUP - Oostdorp 1990 1966 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 - 2000 1969 1999 1990 1965 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 2000 1969 2000 1990 1965 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 2000 1969 1994 1990 1960 1960 1999 1990 1969 2000 1960 1960 - 2000 1969 1995 AUP - Slotervaart 1990 1960 1960 - 2000 1969 1996 AUP - Slotervaart 1990 1969 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 2010 1969 2005 2001 1964 AUP - Slotermeer 1960 - 2010 1969 2009 2001 1967 AUP - Slotermeer 1960 - 2010 1969 2003 2001 1964 AUP - Slotermeer 1960 - 2010 1969 2006 2001 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 2010 1969 2003 2001 1969 1960 - 2010 1969 2001 AUP - Buitenveldert 2001 1969 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 2010 1969 2007 2001 1970 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 2010 1969 2009 2001 1967 1960 - 2010 1969 2006 AUP - Buitenveldert 2001 1967 1960 - 2010 1969 2010 AUP - Buitenveldert 2001 1967 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 2010 1969 2007 2001 1961 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 - 2010 1969 2006 2001 1967 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 - 2010 1969 2008 164 2001 1968 AUP Slotervaart 1960 1969 2008 Zuid axis - Zuidas 194 2001 2010 1969 Zuid AUP axis - Plan van 1960 Gool 1969 2009 82 - Zuidas 2001 - 2010 1964 1960 - 2010 1969 2000 2001 1969 1960 - 2010 1969 2004 2001 1966 1960 - 2010 1969 2002 2001 1960 1960 1969 2009 2001 - 2010 1968 1960 - 2010 1969 2003 2001 1968 1960 - 2010 1969 2002 2001 2010 1970 2002 1977 2003 1970 2006 1973 2001 1971 2005 1974 2002 1974 2001 1974 2002 1974 2003 1974 2002 1974 2002 1970 2002 1974 2009 1973 2007 1972 2004 1972 2009 1972 2001 1972 2001 1973 2002 1975 2005 1975 2004 1970 2005 1975 2009 1975 2004 1975 2001 1974 2009 1974 1975 2012 1973 2018 1980 2017 1986 2016 1976 2018 1977 2017 1976 2019 1974 2018 1970 2011

2001 - 2010 1970 -- 2010 1979 2001 1970 1979 2001 -- 2010 1970 -- 2010 1979 2001 1970 1979 2001 - 2010 1970 -- 2010 1979 2001 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool 1979 2001 -- 2010 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool 1979 2001 -- 2010 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool 1979 2001 -- 2010 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool 1979 2001 - 2010 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool 1979 2001 -- 2010 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool 1979 2001 -- 2010 1970 -- 2010 1979 2001 1970 -- 2010 1979 2001 AUP - Plan van 1970 Gool 1979 2001 - 2010 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 -- Veldert 1979 2001 2010 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 -- Veldert 1979 2001 2010 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 -- Veldert 1979 2001 2010 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 -- Veldert 1979 2001 2010 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 Veldert 1979 2001 - 2010 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 -- Veldert 1979 2001 2010 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 -- Veldert 1979 2001 2010 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 -- Veldert 1979 2001 2010 AUP - Overtoomse 1970 -- Veldert 1979 2001 2010 Bijlmer Oost 1970 1979 2001 - 2010 Bijlmer Oost 2001 1970 -- 2010 1979 Bijlmer Oost 2001 1970 -- 2010 1979 Bijlmer Oost 1970 - 1979 1970 -- 2020 1979 2011 1970 -- 2020 1979 2011 1970 -- 2020 1979 2011 1970 1979 2011 - 2020 1970 -- 2020 1979 2011 1970 -- 2020 1979 2011 1970 -- 2020 1979 2011 1970 -- 2020 1979 2011 1970 1979 2011 - 2020

2013 1989 2011 1981 2012 95 1985 2012

2011 - 2020 1980--2020 1989 2011 1980--2020 1989 2011 1980--2020 1989 2011

2012 1992 2015 1992

2011 - 2020 1990 -- 2020 2000 2011 1990 - 2000

Breitner Center Crystal Tower Viñoly Millennium Tower Toyo Ito Symphony Office Tower World Trade Center H Mondriaantoren Name Alticom-toren before 2011 - WWII 2020 Mercatoren Fletcher Tower Hotel X De Wolkenkrabber Leonardo Royal Hotel Apollo Van DerHouse Valk Hotel Kas BankPlaza Amsterdam Amstel Crowne De Bazel Hotel Amsterdam Postillion Beurs QO van Berlage Munttoren nhow Watertoren Overamstel Congreshotel Maritim Amsterdam De Bijenkorf Samos 2 Montelbaanstoren X De Admiraal After WW - 1945 - 1959 De II Zilverling Benno Premselahuis Drakesteijn Philip Kohnstammhuis Het Loo Silodam 1-96 Noodermare 1960 - Queen 1969 Hilton ScienceHotel Park II Holiday Inn Amsterdam xx De Brandaris Sloterhof De Kameleon X Panorama Torenwijck King X Torenwijck I Change X Torenwijck II X De Zwarte Ruiter II X Torenwijck The New KitIII X Torenwijck IV De Werf fase 2 X Torenwijck Het Baken V Aeckerstijn M1-toren Langswater 136-2522 Little Manhattan Langswater 269-385 xx IJdoorntoren Langswater 3-119 KEA Langswater 668-784 X Noordertoren Langswater Solids 1 en 2V Maassluisstraat 18-100 Valley Westtoren Parkﬂat Baden Powell De Spakler Residentie Parkzicht Maassluisstraat 176-258 Haut Maassluisstraat 334-416 Little Manhattan 1 Maassluisstraat 492-574 B'mine Osdorperhof Xavier Backershagen 900 Mahler 1-99 Burg. Hogguerstraat 449-791 Intermezzo Burg. Hogguerstraat 53-393 Hourglass Burg. 845-1187 ValleyHogguerstraat Zuidtoren Teilingen Pontsteiger Waterpoort Van Heenvlietlaan Valley Noordtoren 102-200 Van Leijenberghlaan 101-199 Amsteltower Wamberg Residential36-85 Tower Overhoeks Assumburg Deloitte / AKD Cronenburg Atrium Zuidtoren Egelenburg Beethoven 400 Klokkenhof O|2 Nijenburg Equinix AM4 Edith Stein Huis TelecityGroup datacenter (leer) Het Breed Europahuis Parooltoren Ringpark Havengebouw World Fashion Centre Toren 1 Nederlandsche Bank 1970 - 1979 UvA Roeterseiland - Gebouw A Leeuwenburg Novotel Amsterdam Rembrandt Park Gebouw Hotel Okura Amsterdam Statenjachtlaan 600-822 Flat A Flat B Flat C Flat D Flat E Dijkgraafplein 37-407 Stellingweg 21-339 Werengouw Nachtwachtlaan 132-221 Nachtwachtlaan 240-329 Nachtwachtlaan 332-421 Nachtwachtlaan 40-129 Nachtwachtlaan 432-521 Staalmeesterslaan 1-90 Staalmeesterslaan 101-191 Staalmeesterslaan 201-290 Staalmeesterslaan 301-390 X Kempering X Klieverink X Kouwenoord X Kralenbeek Slotervaartziekenhuis Vrije Universiteit Einstein gebouw Centerpoint I IBM Nederland World Fashion Centre Toren 3 Parnassustoren Atrium A'Dam Toren 1980 - 1989 Arena Towers (Holiday Inn Express) AMC 96 World Trade Center B-C 1990 - 2000 De Zilveren Toren

95 23 office 95 28 office 95 25 x office 97 25 office 100 26 x office 105 27 x office 106 27 office 123 32 office OwnershipRent typeHeight Storeys Tower Slab/Block Usage 146 x other private private

private corporation corporation private private corporation private private private corporation private private corporation private private private private private private corporation private private private private private private corporation corporation private corporation corporation private private private private corporation private private private private private corporation private corporation corporation private corporation private private private corporation private corporation private private private private private private private private private private private private

social

35 57 48 60 40 63 67 70 35 70 40 70 41 90 41 114 41 42 48 48

social social

49 35 49 48 49 50 49

social

social social

social social social social

social social

social social social

social social social social

18 12 19 188 236 198 5

xx x

housing hotel housing hotel office hotel office hotel other hotel other hotel other hotel other hotel other housing other housing

25 134 146 17 14 x 149 12 14 16 14

built built built built built built built built Usage secondary Status telecom built

Amstelplein 2 Hanedastraat 2 Claude Debussylaan 5 Radarweg 29 Claude Debussylaan 2 Gustav Mahlerplein 3 Zuidplein 12 Amstelplein 6 Address Drenthepark

Overamstel Sloterdijk Zuidas Sloterdijk Zuidas Zuidas Zuidas Overamstel Area

2001 2001 - 2010 Skidm 2002 2001 - 2010 AGS 2005 2001 - 2010 Rafae 2004 2001 - 2010 EGM 2005 2001 - 2010 Toyo 2009 2001 - 2010 Pi de 2004 2001 - 2010 Kohn 2001 2001 - 2010 Peter Year Expansion Growth plan period Buy/Rent Developer Arch 2009 2001 - 2010

built Mercatorplein built Meibergdreef built Victorieplein under construction Overamstel built Apollolaan 15 under construction Joan Muyskenweg 20 built construction Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal 225 under Amstelvlietstraat 6 built Vijzelstraat 32 planned Paul van Vlissingenstraat 7 built Damrak Amstelvlietstraat 2 built built construction Muntplein under Europaboulevard built Overamstel planned Badhuiskade built Dam 1 built Oosterringdijk built Oude schans 36 built Waterlandplein

West Zuidoost

Zuid Oost Centruum Overamstel Centruum Overamstel Centruum Overamstel Centruum Zuid Overamstel Overhoeks Centruum Science park Centruum Noord

1927 2012 Plan West 1932 Plan Zuid 2018 1939 2017 1930 2016 1926 2018 1903 2017 1620 2019 1911 2018 1915 2011 1606 2013

before WWII 2011 - 2020 before WWII 2011 - 2020 before WWII 2011 - 2020 before WWII 2011 - 2020 before WWII 2011 - 2020 before WWII 2011 - 2020 before WWII 2011 - 2020 before WWII 2011 - 2020 before WWII 2011 - 2020 before WWII 2011 - 2020

built Dr. H. Colijnstraat built Rhijnspoorplein 1 built Koningin Wilhelminaplein built Wibautslaan 2-4 built Koningin Wilhelminaplein built Silodam 1-96 built IJdoornlaan built Koningin Wilhelminaplein built Apollolaan 138-140 built Carolina Mac Gillavrylaan built De Boelelaan 2 built Waterlandplein built Hemsterhuisstraat 147-241 built Karspeldreef built Ruimzicht 3-73 built Koningin Wilhelminaplein built Ruimzicht 258-329 under construction August Allebéplein built Vrijzicht 112-184 built IJdoornlaan built Vrijzicht 26-98 built Bos en Lommerweg/Leeuwendalersweg built Ruimzicht under construction Overhoeks 172-244 built Ruimzicht 75-147 built Kamerlingh Onneslaan 3 built Baden Powellweg 333 1-261 built Elzenhagensingel built construction Langswater 136-252 under Cornelis Lelylaan built Langswater 269-385 built IJdoornlaan 241 built Langswater 3-119 built Carolina MacGillavrylaan 305 built Langswater 668-784 built Waterlandplein 314 built Langswater 535-651 Cas Oorthuyskade 2-36 built Ijburglaan 467-549, built construction Maassluisstraat 18-100 under Beethovenstraat 287 built Langswater 401-518 built Spaklerweg built Langswater 801-971 built Maassluisstraat 176-258 Spaklerweg built Maassluisstraat 334-416 under construction Cornelis Lelylaan built Maassluisstraat 492-574 under construction Bercylaan 1 built under construction GeorgeCalandlaan Gershwinlaan Pieter 86 built Backershagen 1-99 George Gershwinlaan built Burg. 449-791 ClaudeHogguerstraat Debussylaan 78 built Burg. Hogguerstraat 53-393 planned Parnassusweg built Burg. Hogguerstraat under construction Beethovenstraat 287 845-1187 built Teilingen 1-135 Pontsteiger 1 built Van Heenvlietlaan under construction Beethovenstraat 287102-200 built Van Leijenberghlaan 101-199 Julianaplein 1 built Wamberg 36-85 planned Badhuiskade 4 built Assumburg 4-152 3 Gustav Mahlerlaan built Cronenburg under construction Parnassusweg4-154 built Egelenburg 4-152300 under construction Beethovenstraat built Surinameplein 53-55 De Boelelaan 1108 built Nijenburg 4-152 (Zuideramstel) under constructionScience Science Park 616 Park built Voorburgstraat Science Park 1182-242 built Het Breed 701-939 built James Wattstraat 79 built Wibautstraat 129 built Nachtwachtlaan 20 built De Ruijterkade 7 built Koningin Wilhelminaplein 13 built Westeinde 1

Nieuw-West Oost West Oost West Westerpark Noord

2011 1951 2012 1958 2012 1952 2012

2011 - 2020 After 2011 - WW 2020 II - 1945 - 1959 After 2011 - WW 2020 II - 1945 - 1959 After 2011 - WW 2020 II - 1945 - 1959

Nieuw-West Zuid Science park Zuideramstel Noord Nieuw-West Bijlmer Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Nieuw-West West Nieuw-West Noord Nieuw-West West Nieuw-West NDSM Nieuw-West Oost Nieuw-West Noord Nieuw-West West Nieuw-West Noord Nieuw-West Science park Nieuw-West Noord Nieuw-West IJ burg Nieuw-West Zuidas Nieuw-West Amstelkwartier Nieuw-West Nieuw-West Amstelkwartier Nieuw-West West Nieuw-West Overhoeks Zuidas Nieuw-West Zuid Zuidas Nieuw-West Zuidas Nieuw-West Zuidas Nieuw-West Zuidas Zuid Havenstad Zuid Zuidas Zuid Overamstel Zuid Overhoeks Zuideramstel Zuidas Zuideramstel Zuidas Zuideramstel Zuidas West Zuideramstel Zuideramstel Science park West Science park Noord Oost Oost West Centruum West Centruum

2015 1962 2013 1968 2012 1960 2012 1964 2015 1968 2016 1968 2013 1968 2011 1968 2018 1968 2014 1965 2014 1965 2017 1965 2013 1965 2016 1965 2013 1965 2011 1966 2020 1965 2017 1965 1960 2018 1960 2017 1960 2017 1969 2018 1969 2016 1964 2017 1967 2019 1964 2020 1969 2017 1969 2020 1969 2017 1970 2019 1967 2014 1967 2017 1967 2016 1961 2015 1967 2017 1968 2016 1969 1964 1969 1966 1960 1968 1968

2011 - 2020 1960 1969 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 1969 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 1969 2011 - 2020 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 -- 2020 1969 2011 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 -- 2020 1969 2011 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 -- 2020 1969 2011 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 -- 2020 1969 2011 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 1969 2011 - 2020 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 -- 2020 1969 2011 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 -- 2020 1969 2011 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 -- 2020 1969 2011 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 -- 2020 1969 2011 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 1969 2011 - 2020 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 -- 2020 1969 2011 AUP Oostdorp 1960 1969 IJ axis - IJburg2011 - 2020 AUP axis - Slotervaart 1960 -- 2020 1969 Zuid - Zuidas 2011 AUP axis - Oostdorp 1960 -- 2020 1969 Zuid - Overamstel 2011 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 - 1969 1960 1969 Zuid axis - Overamstel 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 1969 2011 -- 2020 AUP 1960 1969 IJ axis- -Slotervaart Overhoeks 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Oostdorp 1960 1969 Zuid axis - Zuidas 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 1969 Zuid axis - Zuidas 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Slotermeer 1960 1969 Zuid axis - Zuidas 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Slotermeer 1960 1969 Zuid axis - Zuidas 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Slotermeer 1960 1969 Zuid axis - Zuidas 2011 -- 2020 AUP 1960 1969 Ij axis- -Buitenveldert Houthavens 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 1969 Zuid axis - Zuidas 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 1969 Zuid axis - Overamstel 2011 -- 2020 AUP 1960 1969 IJ axis- -Buitenveldert Houthavens 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 1969 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 1969 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 1969 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 1969 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Buitenveldert 1960 1969 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Slotervaart 1960 1969 2011 -- 2020 AUP - Plan van 1960 Gool - 1969 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969 1960 - 1969

Centruum Overamstel Zuideramstel West Zuid Noord Noord Noord Noord Noord Noord Nieuw-West Noord Noord West West West West West West West West West Bijlmer Bijlmer Bijlmer Bijlmer

1970 1977 1970 1973 1971 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1974 1970 1974 1973 1972 1972 1972 1972 1973 1975 1975 1970 1975 1975 1975 1974 1974 1975 1973 1980 1986 1976 1977 1976 1974 1970

housing education housing education housing housing housing housing hotel housing hotel housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing housing office housing office housing office housing other housing other housing other housing office office office office office office

municipal/education /bar/restaurant retail

/change

Zuid Overamstel

49 42 52 54 54 38 54 41 55 41 57 41 58 41 58 41 60 41 60 45 60 45 61 45 65 45 66 45 66 45 69 45 70 45 73 45 45 73 45 73 45 75 45 75 46 77 46 77 46 80 46 80 46 82 46 98 46 100 46 107 49 50 49 60 49 60 49 60 49 72 50 72 50 49 51 52 55 68 75

14 12 17 16 16 13 17 13 17 13 18 13 18 13 18 13 19 13 20 13 20 14 20 14 17 14 22 14 21 149 13 19 14 23 14 13 22 13 24 13 24 13 23 15 22 15 24 15 19 15 22 15 26 15 25 15 32 15 32 14 14 15 14 14 14 13 14 13 18 11 13 11

48 60 50 73 78 45 49 49 49 49 49 50 50 50 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 52 58 58 58 58 57 57 38 42 48 52 57 61 80

11 15 16 20 23 15 14 14 14 14 14 13 17 18 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 20 20 20 20 12 16 10 10 11 13 16 12 17

70 52 61

17 13 16

hotel medical office

built built built

Hoogoordreef 66 Meibergdreef 9 Strawinskylaan 425

Bullewijk Zuidas

1989 1981 1985

1980 - 1989 1980 - 1989 1980 - 1989

hotel

built

Stationsplein

Zuid

1992

1990 - 2000

x x x xx x x x

x x x x xx x x

x x x x x x x x x

17 15 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

hotel office office office

office/hotel office office hotel

hotel onderwijs/medical data center data center

Sloterdijk

West Zuid Zuidas Overhoeks

https://www.dewes https Berlag Saarb

Oeve J.F.Sta Paul d Conc

OMA Team

Hans

De A

498

Van D

Oeve VMX Geurt Studi De A Klund De A Stadgenoot Baum MVR Meca 160 Lingotto 545

90 279 60 152 80

55 279 147 159 127 175

238 nnb 192 200 Lingotto

Team Studi Archi Kenk Inbo Atelie Dam MVR Aron MVR Powe Team

MVSA UN S EGM Benth Peete Rosba

Maask M.F.D

ZZDP

Zanst Bijvoe

Leo d Leo d Leo d Leo d Leo d

MVSA Arthu

ZZDP

Kohn

List of demographic analysis

BB_ HH_ WOO NDU UR_ B_HH_KIND3PLUS GEM Area

Amsterdam

whole city

Zuid

Rivierenbuurt

Zuid

K54 - Rijnbuurt

Zuid

K53 - IJselbuurt

Zuid

K52 Scheldebuurt Average of direct neighbourhood (Radius 500m)

Zuid

13 Zuid

West 38

Case study area/ Direct neighbourhood/Case study

West West

Wolkenkrabber

F81 - Osdorp-Oost Average of direct neighbourhood (Radius 500m) Average of all building of the project

15 West

Torenwijk I

16 West

Torenwijk II

9 West

Torenwijk III

11 West

Torenwijk IV

10 West

Torenwijk V

5 West

Zuidoost 50

Zuidoost Zuidoost

Panorama Torenwijk

T92 - Bijlmer-Oost Average of direct neighbourhood (Radius 500m) Average of all building of the project

10 Zuidoost

Kempering

11 Zuidoost

Klieverink

10 Zuidoost

Kouwenoord

11 Zuidoost

Kralenbeek

OHG 62

OHG

9 OHG

Zuidas 39

Zuidas

2 Zuidas

Noord 77

Noord Noord

M33 - Oostelijk Havengebied Average of direct neighbourhood (Radius 500m) Skydome (KNSM toren)

K23- Zuidas Average of direct neighbourhood (Radius 500m) Symphony A Amsterdam

N68-Waterlandpleinbuurt Average of direct neighbourhood (Radius 500m) Average of all building of the project

% singles

% 65+ % % 1+ % children years inhabitants households (elderly)

53,00 %

20,00 %

23,00 %

12,00 %

55,17 % 59,20 % 56,30 % 50,00 %

22,77 % 21,00 % 23,00 % 24,30 %

21,33 % 18,00 % 20,00 % 26,00 %

13,23 % 13,60 % 11,90 % 14,20 %

46,25 %

33,85 %

17,91 %

13,03 %

33,33 %

57,14 %

9,52 %

31,71 % 20,50 %

52,50 %

21,30 %

25,30 %

44,44 %

24,78 %

15,18 %

27,93 %

60,42 % 60,32 % 61,40 % 55,07 % 61,29 % 55,07 % 69,35 %

30,86 % 28,57 % 35,09 % 31,88 % 30,65 % 34,78 % 24,19 %

8,72 % 11,11 % 3,51 % 13,04 % 8,06 % 10,14 % 6,45 %

31,89 % 45,92 % 45,98 % 18,58 % 30,11 % 24,11 % 26,67 %

50,30 %

15,30 %

33,10 %

11,20 %

21,97 %

37,42 %

32,69 %

10,82 %

45,13 % 46,94 % 45,64 % 44,59 % 43,33 %

23,91 % 22,45 % 22,82 % 28,38 % 22,00 %

30,96 % 30,61 % 31,54 % 27,03 % 34,67 %

6,05 % 6,76 % 6,71 % 5,86 % 4,86 %

43,40 %

25,00 %

32,30 %

7,50 %

34,41 %

31,83 %

32,16 %

7,81 %

57,78 %

36,67 %

5,56 %

20,00 %

63,40 %

20,50 %

15,00 %

2,30 %

45,45 %

31,64 %

11,23 %

27,88 %

45,83 %

33,33 %

20,83 %

4,70 %

42,10 %

17,10 %

39,70 %

12,20 %

30,61 %

34,07 %

31,48 %

15,69 %

41,02 % 32,26 %

33,97 % 40,00 %

25,00 % 27,74 %

13,15 % 5,65 %

1 Noord

8 Noord

Noordertoren IJdoorntoren - De Zwarte Ruiter

8 Noord

De Brandaris - De Admiral

35,32 % 55,48 %

34,83 % 27,10 %

29,85 % 17,42 %

18,43 % 15,36 %

sum of the cases

50,19 %

31,87 %

17,94 %

19,46 %

Statutory Declaration

I hereby affirm that the Master Thesis at hand is my own written work and that I have used no other sources and aids other than those indicated. All passages, which are quoted from publications or paraphrased from these sources, are indicated as such, i.e. cited, attributed. This thesis was not submitted in the same or in a substantially similar version, not even partially, to another examination board and was not published elsewhere.

..................

.......................................

Place, Date

Signature (First and Surname)

100