Dutch housing projects are eminently respectable - it's easy to find good examples like the high density patio-housing built at Borneo and Sporenburg (Amsterdam) or the housing developments 1 and 2 in Groningen by S333 (actually an implementation of the Europan 3 completions). It's a demonstration of contemporary architecture paying attention to the peoples' needs.
Gated community – Haverleij, an extensive golfing area is being planned according to the masterplan by Paul van Beek and Sjoerd Soeters. (image by google earth)
However, a spectre is haunting Europe - the spectre of "New Urbanism". Unfortunately the movement has landed on fertile soil, especially in the Netherlands. Among others, Rob Krier and Christoph Kohl are the leading representatives of the "New Traditionalism".
But unlike their postmodern colleagues who merge forms from architectural periods (columns, arches...), Rob Krier and Christoph Kohl simply take urban typologies of the past: elements like citadels, city walls and moats. They call it "new romanticism". "As a direct counter-thesis to globalisation, increasing mobility and the internet, projects like Brandevoort, Broekpolder or Haverleij are consciously aimed at urban typologies of an imaginary past." (Workshop Report, DBZ 6/2004, p. 109)
Commercial housing developers have discovered the attraction of "New Urbanism" housing projects. "And what is more appropriate to satisfy a need for security, even greater after September 11, than to be part of a closed community in the midst of a medieval fortress?" (Workshop Report, DBZ 6/2004, p. 110)
Brandevoort, since 1996, Paul van Beek landschappen BNT, Krier & Kohl, image by anArchitecture.
It's surprising: At the end of his career Rob Krier is becoming enormously successful! Unfortunately it's the worse side of Dutch housing.
March 02, 2007
New Urbanism – the Anti-Europan.
label:
NL,
urban geography
by
Christoph ,anarchitecture
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comment(s):
Kriers argument obviously is the satisfaction of (at least some) peoples needs. Such an exclusiveness (in both cost and shape) in architecture unveils the increasing gap between rich and poor and has no positive impact on society.
Despite some of the architectural historicism that is unfortunately often conflated with New Urbanism, the movement has much too offer - especially in its birthplace, the U.S., where sprawling drosscapes are the modus operandi. The point is to retrieve some of the characteristics of 19th century urbanism and deploy those relationships, creating a place more habitable than america's current wastelands. Perhaps the need for such a movement would be lost on a European city dweller which has the privilege of experiencing daily the richness of a real city
I think the most interesting part of Dutch Design is it variety of models, extremes, visions etc. Both Brandevoort (a newly built suburb/city extention of Helmond, near Eindhoven) and MVRDV's housing in Ypenburg (the Hague) can be developed next to eachother... And they both pin-point the Zeitgeist!
Krier understandably has many opponents, but his projects for Berlin's 1987 IBA have a certain charm in terms urban planning. There are no 'fortresses' - not in a physical sense, at least. Perhaps the imposition of 'higher planning rules' from Paul Kleihues plyed a part here?
I've written on this as link below, plus linked to your blog and this post :-)
Jim
http://architectureinberlin.wordpress.com/ritterstrasse-north-south-sites-wohnpark-am-museum/
Post a Comment