Editorial
Articles
-
In the early 1960s John Habraken proposed a fundamental revision of the division of roles in house building. He defined housing as an act, rather than an object, and declared that people seeking housing deserved a larger role in the housebuilding process. He differentiated two levels of decision-making and responsibility in the house-building process, and associated these with two architectural terms, support and infill. It is this element in Habraken’s theoretical work for which he has chiefly become known. Over subsequent decades the Dutch Foundation for Architectural Research (Stichting Architecten Research, or SAR) developed the technical and organizational aspects of this concept.
Unlike many other theoreticians, Habraken has produced virtually no designs. While individuals such as Lucien Kroll, Constant Nieuwenhuys and Yona Friedmann translated their ideas into compelling images and designs, some utopian, Habraken has refrained from designing, on the grounds that the concept he has always propagated would otherwise become too associated with his person. ‘To build dwellings is par excellence a civilised activity, and our civilisation is by no means confined to the activities of a number of more or less talented architects. That is perhaps the least part of it, for civilisation is first and foremost rooted in everyday actions of ordinary people going about their business.’1 Habraken does not consider a design from the point of view of the designer, but from that of the designed object and the user. He belongs to a generation of investigators who research the built environment, the everyday, rather than specific, exceptional architecture; a generation that includes people such as Christopher Alexander and Kevin Lynch.
In the early 1960s John Habraken proposed a fundamental revision of the division of roles in house building. He defined housing as an act, rather than an object, and declared that people seeking housing deserved a larger role in the housebuilding process. He differentiated two levels of decision-making and responsibility in the house-building process, and associated these with two architectural terms, support and infill. It is this element in Habraken’s theoretical work for which he has chiefly become known. Over subsequent decades the Dutch Foundation for Architectural Research (Stichting Architecten Research, or SAR) developed the technical and organizational aspects of this concept.
Unlike many other theoreticians, Habraken has produced virtually no designs. While individuals such as Lucien Kroll, Constant Nieuwenhuys and Yona Friedmann translated their ideas into compelling images and designs, some utopian, Habraken has refrained from designing, on the grounds that...
In the early 1960s John Habraken proposed a fundamental revision of the division of roles in house building. He defined housing as an act, rather than an object, and declared that people seeking housing deserved a larger role in the housebuilding process. He differentiated two levels of...
-
Twentieth-century housing and modern mass culture were characterized by standardization, industrialization and repetition. These were not simply the consequences of production logistics, which, influenced by early management concepts such as Fordism and Taylorism, demanded optimized and efficient resource deployment, but also elements in political and aesthetic programmes. The new egalitarian society, whether a socialist model society or one of the many versions of the welfare state, sought to redistribute property and income, particularly through housing. Modern architecture drew up an aesthetic programme that manifested this society through the large-scale use of new organizational models and industrial building techniques. Le Corbusier’s Ville Contemporaine and Ville Radieuse are still some of the most radical expressions of this programme, together with a number of other plans such as those proposed by the Russian constructivists or Hilberseimer’s Hochhausstadt and his later regional urbanization models for the USA. In all these schemes uniformity and unity in typology and architectural expression are the logical consequences of incorporating both new production methods and a range of politico-ideological requirements.
Accommodating differences was certainly not an important issue for the first generation of modern architects. Although there are varying interpretations of this generation, which also recognize a tolerant approach to differences in early modern models, the extent to which such interpretations are simply a projection of late twentieth-century ideas remains unresolved. Thus structuralists see a superstructure in Le Corbusier’s visionary Obus plan, in which dwellings of diverse styles could be allocated their own place, despite the evidence that Obus should largely be regarded as an ultimate effort to enable the Algiers Kasbah and its residents to become part of the great project to modernize Europe and its former colonies. City designs by architects such as Josep- Lluís Sert and Jaap Bakema do reveal a more nuanced approach, with space for difference and the accommodation of a range of household forms and lifestyles, but these differences are only deemed possible within all-embracing social arrangements, such as provided for by democratic welfare states, and are given form accordingly, as modulations of the aesthetic of the large number.
Twentieth-century housing and modern mass culture were characterized by standardization, industrialization and repetition. These were not simply the consequences of production logistics, which, influenced by early management concepts such as Fordism and Taylorism, demanded optimized and efficient resource deployment, but also elements in political and aesthetic programmes. The new egalitarian society, whether a socialist model society or one of the many versions of the welfare state, sought to redistribute property and income, particularly through housing. Modern architecture drew up an aesthetic programme that manifested this society through the large-scale use of new organizational models and industrial building techniques. Le Corbusier’s Ville Contemporaine and Ville Radieuse are still some of the most radical expressions of this programme, together with a number of other plans such as those proposed by the Russian constructivists or Hilberseimer’s Hochhausstadt and his...
Twentieth-century housing and modern mass culture were characterized by standardization, industrialization and repetition. These were not simply the consequences of production logistics, which, influenced by early management concepts such as Fordism and Taylorism, demanded optimized and...
-
Probably the biggest revolution ever in architecture happened in 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev banned Stalinist classicism and demanded a radical industrialization of the building industry. Architects that had excelled in creating beautiful palaces for the people were put aside in favour of the building industry, which was assigned to improve construction quality and raise production figures. Khrushchev was certainly not the first to consider industrialization to be the only way to the lift the shortage of housing. While Stalin’s infamous ‘sugar pies’ were erected in Moscow, in Western Europe prefabricated housing systems were developed that were meant to serve the enormous demand for housing that resulted from the devastation of the Second World War. Not surprisingly it was Western Europe – France, to be more precise – that inspired Khrushchev to demand a de-Stalinization of architecture. Yet in the Soviet Union the industrialization of housing construction would find its most radical form. It fitted seamlessly into both the ideology and the economic system. Marxism promoted the application of scientific methods to find the right solutions to the needs of society, as opposed to capitalism, which promoted competition – a method that in the eyes of the Soviets only resulted in speculation and profit.
Economically it was the only way forward if one wanted to improve the housing conditions of the population. Actually, the same was the case in Western Europe’s post-war social democracies. Whether we are talking of the working class as the foundation of communism or of the middle class as the foundation of social democracy, both systems aim at emancipating the worker. In order to create favourable housing conditions, the income of the worker must be high enough for him to be able to live in a house built by a representative of the same class he belongs to. In other words: the amount of work the construction worker invests in this house must be low enough and the payment he receives high enough to enable him to pay another construction worker to construct a house for him. If, for instance, the amount of work necessary to build his house is 50 man years, then the builder will never be able to buy the house. He will die before he has accumulated enough money to buy it using wages he has accumulated during his working life. The only way to guarantee this is to reduce the amount of man years needed to construct a house, meaning to increase productivity through industrialization.
Probably the biggest revolution ever in architecture happened in 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev banned Stalinist classicism and demanded a radical industrialization of the building industry. Architects that had excelled in creating beautiful palaces for the people were put aside in favour of the building industry, which was assigned to improve construction quality and raise production figures. Khrushchev was certainly not the first to consider industrialization to be the only way to the lift the shortage of housing. While Stalin’s infamous ‘sugar pies’ were erected in Moscow, in Western Europe prefabricated housing systems were developed that were meant to serve the enormous demand for housing that resulted from the devastation of the Second World War. Not surprisingly it was Western Europe – France, to be more precise – that inspired Khrushchev to demand a de-Stalinization of architecture. Yet in the Soviet Union the industrialization of housing construction would find...
Probably the biggest revolution ever in architecture happened in 1954, when Nikita Khrushchev banned Stalinist classicism and demanded a radical industrialization of the building industry. Architects that had excelled in creating beautiful palaces for the people were put aside in favour of the...
-
The Second World War left great parts of many English cities badly damaged or in poor structural condition through lack of maintenance. The greatest need was for low-cost housing, for which a series of imaginative competitions were held. However, underlying the bid to build a better Britain there was a fundamental belief that everyone could benefit from better planning and housing, including the middle classes. This is exemplified by the building of the Barbican Development, and this is its great significance; that and the fact that such a very large and visionary scheme – for 1213 dwellings – was conceived and actually fully realized. First proposed in 1955, the housing was largely completed in 1974, although the related arts centre in the heart of the development was not opened until 1982. The whole complex was the work of the architects Chamberlin, Powell & Bon. The architecture, highly expressive of the 1960s, was carried out with great care and perseverance to the end. The Barbican’s architecture is one of brutalist, indeed baroque, power, albeit exquisitely finished. It stands bulky, big and severe in its surroundings, its three high-rise point blocks still among the tallest in London. The project’s sheer size begs for an investigation into how it came into being. Most importantly and perhaps most remarkably, the project seems to be a success.
In 1945 the land north of St Paul’s lay devastated. The area had been the centre of London’s rag trade, rebuilt with large warehouses over deep basements largely around 1900, where bales of fabric had burned merrily in the incendiary attacks of late 1940. The County of London Plan, produced for the London County Council in 1943 as the basis of the capital’s post-war reconstruction, envisaged a continued business use. This vision was reinforced in the 1944 City of London Plan produced by the City of London Corporation (CLC), a historic and wealthy anomaly responsible for local government in the privileged Square Mile at the heart of the capital, that was always wary of allowing the county (though technically the planning authority) too great a hand there.
The Second World War left great parts of many English cities badly damaged or in poor structural condition through lack of maintenance. The greatest need was for low-cost housing, for which a series of imaginative competitions were held. However, underlying the bid to build a better Britain there was a fundamental belief that everyone could benefit from better planning and housing, including the middle classes. This is exemplified by the building of the Barbican Development, and this is its great significance; that and the fact that such a very large and visionary scheme – for 1213 dwellings – was conceived and actually fully realized. First proposed in 1955, the housing was largely completed in 1974, although the related arts centre in the heart of the development was not opened until 1982. The whole complex was the work of the architects Chamberlin, Powell & Bon. The architecture, highly expressive of the 1960s, was carried out with great care and perseverance to the...
The Second World War left great parts of many English cities badly damaged or in poor structural condition through lack of maintenance. The greatest need was for low-cost housing, for which a series of imaginative competitions were held. However, underlying the bid to build a better Britain...
Interviews
-
The development of housing layouts is initiated from at least two perspectives, that of design and that of demand. The latter is perhaps the most difficult to fathom, for while it may seem obvious that what is built is what is needed, many people’s housing wishes appear scarcely to be honoured by the housing market: generally speaking the properties on offer continue to be based on assumptions regarding the ‘standard household’, an entity that no longer exists.
In order to gain more insight into the demand aspect of housing layout development, and to discover the extent to which innovation in layout is initiated by what buyers want, we talked to property developer Edwin Oostmeijer. Despite the limited number of projects Oostmeijer has realized to date, his approach has already attracted attention at national level: in 2006 he was awarded a Gouden Piramide (Golden Pyramid), the annual prize awarded by the Dutch government for inspirational commissioning in architecture, urban design, landscape architecture and environmental planning. We talked to Oostmeijer at the site of one of his most recent projects, Ithaka, in the Homeruskwartier in Almere.
The development of housing layouts is initiated from at least two perspectives, that of design and that of demand. The latter is perhaps the most difficult to fathom, for while it may seem obvious that what is built is what is needed, many people’s housing wishes appear scarcely to be honoured by the housing market: generally speaking the properties on offer continue to be based on assumptions regarding the ‘standard household’, an entity that no longer exists.
In order to gain more insight into the demand aspect of housing layout development, and to discover the extent to which innovation in layout is initiated by what buyers want, we talked to property developer Edwin Oostmeijer. Despite the limited number of projects Oostmeijer has realized to date, his approach has already attracted attention at national level: in 2006 he was awarded a Gouden Piramide (Golden Pyramid), the annual prize awarded by the Dutch government for inspirational commissioning in...
The development of housing layouts is initiated from at least two perspectives, that of design and that of demand. The latter is perhaps the most difficult to fathom, for while it may seem obvious that what is built is what is needed, many people’s housing wishes appear scarcely to be...
-
Over the past decades architect Frits van Dongen has gained a name as an ingenious typological innovator. His oeuvre displays a gradual and above all rational development towards optimum housing typologies. Van Dongen, however, describes himself in somewhat different words: ‘I’m a kind of street fighter too, which means I’ll battle endlessly to get a project right.’ This shows how important the actual construction of homes is to Van Dongen in the development of new ideas, for one dwelling type often proves the prelude to yet another.
Over the past decades architect Frits van Dongen has gained a name as an ingenious typological innovator. His oeuvre displays a gradual and above all rational development towards optimum housing typologies. Van Dongen, however, describes himself in somewhat different words: ‘I’m a kind of street fighter too, which means I’ll battle endlessly to get a project right.’ This shows how important the actual construction of homes is to Van Dongen in the development of new ideas, for one dwelling type often proves the prelude to yet another.
Over the past decades architect Frits van Dongen has gained a name as an ingenious typological innovator. His oeuvre displays a gradual and above all rational development towards optimum housing typologies. Van Dongen, however, describes himself in somewhat different words: ‘I’m a kind of...
Case Studies
-
-
Due to the immense housing shortage in Germany in the mid- 1920s, architects faced the challenge of designing residential neighbourhoods with Kleinwohnungen für grosse Familien (small dwellings for large families). While doing this they explored new forms of accommodation and rationalized the construction process. Standard modules were developed while floor plans were minimized and reconceptualized for reasons of cost.
Two years after the Werkbundausstellung ‘Die Wohnung’ (The Dwelling) in Stuttgart (Weißenhofsiedlung) the exhibition ‘Wohnung und Werkraum’ (Dwelling and Workplace) opened in Breslau (now Wrocław, Poland) on 15 June 1929. The exhibition featured, among other things, the construction of model neighbourhood Grüneiche. As well as effective solutions for small apartments and single-family houses, the Breslau exhibition displayed two progressive models for more collective living arrangements. Hans Scharoun realized the ‘Ledigenwohnheim’, a housing block for young couples and singles, while Adolf Rading built an experimental apartment building for families. Rading based this ‘Wohnturmhaus’ or tower block house, which was planned as a high-rise but realized with only five storeys, on the idea that the individual dwelling requires only a small floor area if the residents have access to (adequate) communal facilities. The building has a steel frame, which enables each apartment to have a different layout. Each floor accommodates eight small apartments, grouped in clusters of four and linked via a corridor measuring 3.5 m in width and 40 m in length. This configuration makes every single apartment a dual aspect corner apartment. On either end of each corridor are communal spaces, which are double-height on the first floor. These spaces, like the wide corridor itself, could be used as a children’s play area by day and by adults by night. The rooftop level, with terraces, studios and laundry rooms, were aimed at collective use as well. Rading was of the opinion that the main living space (living room) ought to occupy a central place in the household and therefore also in the floor plan. This is why he moved facilities such as the kitchen and bathroom to the corners. By saving on the floor area of bedrooms and facilities (in some plans the bedroom is little more than an alcove), the living room in these small flats is still relatively large. Today the building houses students. On one side the open space between the two parts of the building has been built up to create additional apartments, which are now identical on every floor.
Due to the immense housing shortage in Germany in the mid- 1920s, architects faced the challenge of designing residential neighbourhoods with Kleinwohnungen für grosse Familien (small dwellings for large families). While doing this they explored new forms of accommodation and rationalized the construction process. Standard modules were developed while floor plans were minimized and reconceptualized for reasons of cost.
Two years after the Werkbundausstellung ‘Die Wohnung’ (The Dwelling) in Stuttgart (Weißenhofsiedlung) the exhibition ‘Wohnung und Werkraum’ (Dwelling and Workplace) opened in Breslau (now Wrocław, Poland) on 15 June 1929. The exhibition featured, among other things, the construction of model neighbourhood Grüneiche. As well as effective solutions for small apartments and single-family houses, the Breslau exhibition displayed two progressive models for more collective living arrangements. Hans Scharoun realized the ‘Ledigenwohnheim’, a...
Due to the immense housing shortage in Germany in the mid- 1920s, architects faced the challenge of designing residential neighbourhoods with Kleinwohnungen für grosse Familien (small dwellings for large families). While doing this they explored new forms of accommodation and rationalized the...
-
Within the space of a few years around 1930 urban design in Sweden underwent a radical shift from a romantic, Sittesque to a strictly functionalist style. Traditional, dense urban blocks made way for austere open-row layouts. In the 1940s these were in turn adapted into a more irregular, landscape-inspired open design that won a lot of praise and was much copied in post-war Europe. Competitions and exhibitions helped explore the most cost-efficient and qualitative dwelling types for these new open-row layouts. This led to the development of three main types of stacked housing: the tjockhus (deep block), the smalhus (narrow block) and the punkthus (tower block). The tjockhus can be described as a residential block measuring 14 to 16 m in depth with circulation cores that provide access to three to six apartments per storey. As a result the apartments generally have a single aspect. The smalhus, which is 7 to 9 m deep, is composed of a succession of circulation cores with two apartments per storey, which means that the dwellings receive daylight from two directions. The punkthus is essentially one segment of the tjockhus, with three to six apartments around a single circulation core. The battle between proponents of the tjockhus and smalhus was left undecided; whereas the narrow block’s dual aspect may have been preferable in terms of quality, the deep block was definitely more cost-effective in high-rises exceeding four storeys.
Within the space of a few years around 1930 urban design in Sweden underwent a radical shift from a romantic, Sittesque to a strictly functionalist style. Traditional, dense urban blocks made way for austere open-row layouts. In the 1940s these were in turn adapted into a more irregular, landscape-inspired open design that won a lot of praise and was much copied in post-war Europe. Competitions and exhibitions helped explore the most cost-efficient and qualitative dwelling types for these new open-row layouts. This led to the development of three main types of stacked housing: the tjockhus (deep block), the smalhus (narrow block) and the punkthus (tower block). The tjockhus can be described as a residential block measuring 14 to 16 m in depth with circulation cores that provide access to three to six apartments per storey. As a result the apartments generally have a single aspect. The smalhus, which is 7 to 9 m deep, is composed of a succession of circulation cores with two...
Within the space of a few years around 1930 urban design in Sweden underwent a radical shift from a romantic, Sittesque to a strictly functionalist style. Traditional, dense urban blocks made way for austere open-row layouts. In the 1940s these were in turn adapted into a more irregular,...
-
After the bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940 Willem van Tijen was commissioned to design one of five planned high-rises on the Zuidplein (Extension Plan Zuid, 1938). The first design phase coincided with the work on the Studie Woonmogelijkheden in het nieuwe Rotterdam (Study on housing options in the new Rotterdam), a joint venture between Van Tijen and the architecture firm Brinkman & Van den Broek and Maaskant. ‘In 1940, deeply impressed by the violence and destruction and the immense threat to our identity, we tried to put this out of our minds by trying to form a picture of what would have to be built after the war’ (Van Tijen,1970). The study was supposed to produce a sample of housing solutions that were effective on both a planning and an engineering level. Among the models that were developed was ‘the tall housing block’ in the form of a preliminary design for the Zuidpleinflat. It accommodated five dwelling types, including large-family homes. Van Tijen’s initial idea, that high-rises were unsuitable for families with children, was superseded by the special circumstances (housing shortage). Early in 1941, when the design was ready for tender, the German occupier called a building freeze and the preparations were discontinued.
After the bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940 Willem van Tijen was commissioned to design one of five planned high-rises on the Zuidplein (Extension Plan Zuid, 1938). The first design phase coincided with the work on the Studie Woonmogelijkheden in het nieuwe Rotterdam (Study on housing options in the new Rotterdam), a joint venture between Van Tijen and the architecture firm Brinkman & Van den Broek and Maaskant. ‘In 1940, deeply impressed by the violence and destruction and the immense threat to our identity, we tried to put this out of our minds by trying to form a picture of what would have to be built after the war’ (Van Tijen,1970). The study was supposed to produce a sample of housing solutions that were effective on both a planning and an engineering level. Among the models that were developed was ‘the tall housing block’ in the form of a preliminary design for the Zuidpleinflat. It accommodated five dwelling types, including large-family homes. Van Tijen’s...
After the bombing of Rotterdam in May 1940 Willem van Tijen was commissioned to design one of five planned high-rises on the Zuidplein (Extension Plan Zuid, 1938). The first design phase coincided with the work on the Studie Woonmogelijkheden in het nieuwe Rotterdam (Study on housing options...
-
Even in his earliest designs, German architect Hans Scharoun exhibited a keen interest in spatial and functional relationships, married in a balanced, ‘organic’ composition. Exposing the industrial building process and implementing a rigorous system of measurement were not among his priorities. Scharoun marched to his own tune amid the modernist-dominated architectural landscape of the first half of the twentiest century. In his housing projects and urban designs Scharoun approached the neighbourhood as a design unit. He translated the Nachbarschaft (neighbourhood concept) into the concept of the Wohnzelle: a living unit for 4,000 to 5,000 residents, with a good mix of dwelling types, high-rise and low-rise and commercial, urban and cultural functions. To Scharoun the relationship between the Wohnzelle and the surrounding city was important. Informed by the particularities of the context each Wohnzelle is unique and recognizable by its structure and silhouette.
Scharoun’s early (mass) housing projects include part of the Wohnzelle Siemensstadt I, an urban extension on the northwestern periphery of Berlin, for which he also designed the urban plan. The part for which Scharoun was responsible avoids the strict open-row layout that epitomizes the rest of the urban design: it is an ensemble of three long and narrow buildings, two of which form a funnel shape culminating in the neighbourhood entrance and the third forms a quarter circle.
The three buildings boast some special dwelling types, including a dwelling with a through lounge. In this type, like all the others a walk-up apartment, the traditional separation between the dining room and the living room has been abandoned in favour of a living room with dining area. The living room is now larger and has a dual aspect. The bathroom and the two bedrooms are parallel to the living room and grouped around a small hallway. A similar hallway can be found on the other side of the living room, where it serves the entrance, living room and kitchen. Scharoun and his wife lived in one of these apartments for 30 years.
Even in his earliest designs, German architect Hans Scharoun exhibited a keen interest in spatial and functional relationships, married in a balanced, ‘organic’ composition. Exposing the industrial building process and implementing a rigorous system of measurement were not among his priorities. Scharoun marched to his own tune amid the modernist-dominated architectural landscape of the first half of the twentiest century. In his housing projects and urban designs Scharoun approached the neighbourhood as a design unit. He translated the Nachbarschaft (neighbourhood concept) into the concept of the Wohnzelle: a living unit for 4,000 to 5,000 residents, with a good mix of dwelling types, high-rise and low-rise and commercial, urban and cultural functions. To Scharoun the relationship between the Wohnzelle and the surrounding city was important. Informed by the particularities of the context each Wohnzelle is unique and recognizable by its structure and silhouette.
...Even in his earliest designs, German architect Hans Scharoun exhibited a keen interest in spatial and functional relationships, married in a balanced, ‘organic’ composition. Exposing the industrial building process and implementing a rigorous system of measurement were not among his...
-
The oeuvre of Van den Broek & Bakema boasts many variations on the split-level apartment, in both studies and realized projects. The split-level apartment couples the efficiency of the access gallery with the dual orientation that characterizes the walk-up apartment, benefitting both ventilation and sunlighting. Secondly, compared to a maisonette the split-level apartment features a greater physical cohesion between levels. And finally, its relatively large width lends this type of building greater stability than the often narrower gallery-access apartment building. But Van den Broek and Bakema’s predilection for the split-level apartment rests on more than pragmatism alone. In Van Stoel tot Stad (From Chair to City) Bakema champions ‘the individual’s right to give personal expression to his philosophy of life’. Given that the split-level apartment lends itself to a wide range of dwelling types, it actually serves this right. Van den Broek & Bakema developed the split-level variants discussed here over a period of 15 years. Although characterized by greater and smaller typological variations, they are all made up of stacked modules. These consist of a corridor with dwellings alongside, above and below it. The number of dwellings per module varies, as does the range of dwellings, the orientation and the position of the corridors and vertical circulation.
The oeuvre of Van den Broek & Bakema boasts many variations on the split-level apartment, in both studies and realized projects. The split-level apartment couples the efficiency of the access gallery with the dual orientation that characterizes the walk-up apartment, benefitting both ventilation and sunlighting. Secondly, compared to a maisonette the split-level apartment features a greater physical cohesion between levels. And finally, its relatively large width lends this type of building greater stability than the often narrower gallery-access apartment building. But Van den Broek and Bakema’s predilection for the split-level apartment rests on more than pragmatism alone. In Van Stoel tot Stad (From Chair to City) Bakema champions ‘the individual’s right to give personal expression to his philosophy of life’. Given that the split-level apartment lends itself to a wide range of dwelling types, it actually serves this right. Van den Broek & Bakema developed the...
The oeuvre of Van den Broek & Bakema boasts many variations on the split-level apartment, in both studies and realized projects. The split-level apartment couples the efficiency of the access gallery with the dual orientation that characterizes the walk-up apartment, benefitting both...
-
When Frank Lloyd Wright visited London County Hall in the 1950s, he was introduced to what was then the world’s largest housing body. In 1956, the Housing Division of the Architect’s Department of the London County Council (LCC) employed 310 architects who worked together on the design and realization of housing projects aimed at alleviating the huge post-war shortage of (decent) homes. Wright’s response was not one of admiration but of abhorrence. The hyper-individualist and traditionalist Wright simply had no affinity for the post-war ideals of the welfare state.
In 1951 a group of architects at the Housing Division, including Leslie Martin, Colin St John Wilson, Peter Carter and Alan Colquehoun, had been working on a new prototype for the ultimate stacked house. They designed a narrow twostorey maisonette that combined some of the advantages of the traditional ground-accessed terraced house with the need for greater density through stacking. The house was 3.35 m wide and 9.45 m deep. The bottom storey featured a front door and a kitchen on the side of the gallery and a living room behind it. The upper floor had a bedroom on either side and a bathroom and toilet in between. The result was an efficient home with a relatively small façade surface in which the privacy of living rooms and bedrooms was not affected by the gallery. The living room bordered on a double-height loggia; above the gallery on the other side of the house was a narrow escape gallery, providing each home with its required escape route.
When Frank Lloyd Wright visited London County Hall in the 1950s, he was introduced to what was then the world’s largest housing body. In 1956, the Housing Division of the Architect’s Department of the London County Council (LCC) employed 310 architects who worked together on the design and realization of housing projects aimed at alleviating the huge post-war shortage of (decent) homes. Wright’s response was not one of admiration but of abhorrence. The hyper-individualist and traditionalist Wright simply had no affinity for the post-war ideals of the welfare state.
In 1951 a group of architects at the Housing Division, including Leslie Martin, Colin St John Wilson, Peter Carter and Alan Colquehoun, had been working on a new prototype for the ultimate stacked house. They designed a narrow twostorey maisonette that combined some of the advantages of the traditional ground-accessed terraced house with the need for greater density through stacking. The house was 3.35 m...
When Frank Lloyd Wright visited London County Hall in the 1950s, he was introduced to what was then the world’s largest housing body. In 1956, the Housing Division of the Architect’s Department of the London County Council (LCC) employed 310 architects who worked together on the design and...
-
The Silesian city of Katowice boasts a few distinctive groups of residential tower blocks. They were designed in the 1970s by Henryk Buszko and Aleksander Franta who, from 1956, were in charge of the Polish state-owned office PPBO. Large-scale industrial housing developments, which dominate virtually all Russian and Eastern European cities, are usually labelled Plattenbau and reached an exceptionally complex and elegant apotheosis here. In the Tysia˛clecia district Buszko and Franta designed five housing blocks, commonly known as Kukurydze (corn cobs), in which a maximum number of apartments with good ventilation and daylighting are grouped around a single core. The square core is surrounded by a garland of eight smaller, square modules, each of which accommodates a two-bedroom apartment, alternated with the occasional one-bedroom apartment. The towers are conspicuous not just for their exterior and floor plan but also for the way in which they complement the ground level. The tower blocks are built on a base with a sunken car park. The first two storeys differ from the standard storeys and contain shops and other amenities. This attempt at a more precise urban fit is lacking in most Eastern European Plattenbauten, which generally sit forlorn in an undefined space.
The Silesian city of Katowice boasts a few distinctive groups of residential tower blocks. They were designed in the 1970s by Henryk Buszko and Aleksander Franta who, from 1956, were in charge of the Polish state-owned office PPBO. Large-scale industrial housing developments, which dominate virtually all Russian and Eastern European cities, are usually labelled Plattenbau and reached an exceptionally complex and elegant apotheosis here. In the Tysia˛clecia district Buszko and Franta designed five housing blocks, commonly known as Kukurydze (corn cobs), in which a maximum number of apartments with good ventilation and daylighting are grouped around a single core. The square core is surrounded by a garland of eight smaller, square modules, each of which accommodates a two-bedroom apartment, alternated with the occasional one-bedroom apartment. The towers are conspicuous not just for their exterior and floor plan but also for the way in which they complement the ground level. The...
The Silesian city of Katowice boasts a few distinctive groups of residential tower blocks. They were designed in the 1970s by Henryk Buszko and Aleksander Franta who, from 1956, were in charge of the Polish state-owned office PPBO. Large-scale industrial housing developments, which dominate...
-
During the 1960s, large-scale, industrial housing production really took off in Europe on either side of the Iron Curtain. A 1968 publication by the Stichting Bouwresearch (Foundation for Building Research) entitled Niet Traditionele woningbouwmethoden in Nederland (Non-traditional construction methods in the Netherlands) lists more than 30 government-approved construction methods that were in use at the time. One of these was the ERA on-site casting system, developed by contractor J.P. van Eesteren with the aesthetic advice of architect R. Fledderus. The ERA system for gallery-access apartments was one of the first tunnel form systems and stood out for its 7.80-m wide bay, which made it possible to build standard two- and three-bedroom apartments without load-bearing walls. From the outset, the highly transformable living space was one of its distinguishing features. This and the rigorously implemented separation of the frame and the outer and inner walls make the ERA apartment building an early embodiment of the ideas about the separation of support and infill developed by the Stichting Architecten Research (SAR, Foundation for Architects’ Research).
The contractor used composite panels for the inner walls, which could be reused in the event of later alterations. The spatial organization of the apartment accommodates a large number of different layouts; only the position of the kitchen, toilet and shower cubicle, grouped around a single service core, is fixed. An internal hall, to be used as a playroom, provides access to the shower cubicle and toilet, and via a series of doors to all other rooms. It means that in the event of an alteration only the partition walls need to be moved and not the inner door frames. During the first few years after the system was launched, the output reached spectacular levels, first in Rotterdam, later elsewhere in the Netherlands.
During the 1960s, large-scale, industrial housing production really took off in Europe on either side of the Iron Curtain. A 1968 publication by the Stichting Bouwresearch (Foundation for Building Research) entitled Niet Traditionele woningbouwmethoden in Nederland (Non-traditional construction methods in the Netherlands) lists more than 30 government-approved construction methods that were in use at the time. One of these was the ERA on-site casting system, developed by contractor J.P. van Eesteren with the aesthetic advice of architect R. Fledderus. The ERA system for gallery-access apartments was one of the first tunnel form systems and stood out for its 7.80-m wide bay, which made it possible to build standard two- and three-bedroom apartments without load-bearing walls. From the outset, the highly transformable living space was one of its distinguishing features. This and the rigorously implemented separation of the frame and the outer and inner walls make the ERA apartment...
During the 1960s, large-scale, industrial housing production really took off in Europe on either side of the Iron Curtain. A 1968 publication by the Stichting Bouwresearch (Foundation for Building Research) entitled Niet Traditionele woningbouwmethoden in Nederland (Non-traditional...
-
In 1996 Frits van Dongen was asked to design an apartment building in a spectacular location in the Plantagebuurt area of Amsterdam. But development of the almost rectangular site at the junction of Nieuwe Herengracht and Entrepotdok proved to be no easy task. Given the limited dimensions (33 x 55 m) only two options were possible. A development based on wide, shallow houses, type B as they are known in Van Dongen’s jargon, or development based on narrow, deep houses. The first would result in a patio block, the second in a solid block. Neither option was satisfactory in the eyes of the client, who wanted a housing block with grandeur. Van Dongen managed to break the deadlock by combining the two principles. ‘The inclusion of three deep dwellings in the block with shallow apartments creates problems but also introduces some nice touches to an otherwise monotonous block,’ Van Dongen says in the interview elsewhere in this publication.
The three Long Houses (Van Dongen refers to them as type LH) are staggered on top of one another, so that their floors form the ceiling of an imposing entrance hall. At the top they form a patio-style space. Although the LH dwellings are exceptionally deep, the arrangement of the floor plan bears a resemblance to the core houses that Van Dongen built for his first housing project. But the unusual position within this project made it possible to punctuate the house’s elongated shape with the addition of a large roof terrace. The other 40 flats in the block are variations on Van Dongen’s type B and a maisonette type.
In 1996 Frits van Dongen was asked to design an apartment building in a spectacular location in the Plantagebuurt area of Amsterdam. But development of the almost rectangular site at the junction of Nieuwe Herengracht and Entrepotdok proved to be no easy task. Given the limited dimensions (33 x 55 m) only two options were possible. A development based on wide, shallow houses, type B as they are known in Van Dongen’s jargon, or development based on narrow, deep houses. The first would result in a patio block, the second in a solid block. Neither option was satisfactory in the eyes of the client, who wanted a housing block with grandeur. Van Dongen managed to break the deadlock by combining the two principles. ‘The inclusion of three deep dwellings in the block with shallow apartments creates problems but also introduces some nice touches to an otherwise monotonous block,’ Van Dongen says in the interview elsewhere in this publication.
The three Long Houses (Van...
In 1996 Frits van Dongen was asked to design an apartment building in a spectacular location in the Plantagebuurt area of Amsterdam. But development of the almost rectangular site at the junction of Nieuwe Herengracht and Entrepotdok proved to be no easy task. Given the limited dimensions (33...
-
Hofblok ‘Hoogwerf’ is one of the two housing blocks by Diener & Diener that marked the conclusion of the redevelopment of the Java and KNSM islands in Amsterdam’s Eastern Docklands in 2001. The buildings are situated at the entrance to the elongated double island. The Hofblok is an almost square volume around a courtyard, for which the architects took their inspiration from the Palazzo Piccolomini in Pienza. The ground floor features office space and five studios. The 45 apartments, at least eight per floor, are served by perimeter galleries that can be reached via two passageways into the courtyard.
It was decided to continue the east-west alignment on all sides of the courtyard. This automatically results in two different floor plans: deeper apartments on the east and west side and wider dwellings on the north and south side of the building. Because most of the apartments in the Hofblok consist of three equivalent rooms they can be organized in different ways. The rooms are approximately the same size and linked in an alternating checkerboard pattern, which results in labyrinthine floor plans. The entrances and utility rooms are situated along the gallery in the inner courtyard; most of the living rooms face the public space.
Hofblok ‘Hoogwerf’ is one of the two housing blocks by Diener & Diener that marked the conclusion of the redevelopment of the Java and KNSM islands in Amsterdam’s Eastern Docklands in 2001. The buildings are situated at the entrance to the elongated double island. The Hofblok is an almost square volume around a courtyard, for which the architects took their inspiration from the Palazzo Piccolomini in Pienza. The ground floor features office space and five studios. The 45 apartments, at least eight per floor, are served by perimeter galleries that can be reached via two passageways into the courtyard.
It was decided to continue the east-west alignment on all sides of the courtyard. This automatically results in two different floor plans: deeper apartments on the east and west side and wider dwellings on the north and south side of the building. Because most of the apartments in the Hofblok consist of three equivalent rooms they can be organized in different ways....
Hofblok ‘Hoogwerf’ is one of the two housing blocks by Diener & Diener that marked the conclusion of the redevelopment of the Java and KNSM islands in Amsterdam’s Eastern Docklands in 2001. The buildings are situated at the entrance to the elongated double island. The Hofblok is an...