year: 2010
site: August Allebéplein, Amsterdam
commission type: competition entry
team: Marc van Asseldonk, Auguste van Oppen

Following riots and the change in the Dutch political landscape at the turn of the century, a sense of urgency surrounded urban renewal in post war neighbourhoods. This development coincided with a more gradual shift in public opinion unfavourable to these areas. Is consumerism finally eating away at architecture?

While the current renewal operation is comparably titanic to the reconstruction efforts after World War II, they occur in a very different paradigm with the present allocation of responsibility to the market. Housing corporations are held accountable by the government for the number of demolished, newly built and sold homes each year. The ensuing strategies are developed by the corporations themselves. Although this does not imply the housing corporations are feigned organisations, it does entail there are very different conditions in play. At a mere fifty years of age, sixty percent of the heroic post-war efforts are to be demolished and rebuilt. Is the demolition and reconfiguration of architecture a legitimate tool to change the demographics of a neighbourhood or is it the path of least resistance? Does this lead to genuine improvement or does it simply relocate a problem and assimilate the effects?

In the early twentieth century Cornelis Van Eesteren and kindred spirits drew up the Algemeen Uitbreidings Plan (AUP), a comprehensive design for the expansion of Amsterdam. They maintained total control over the execution of their idea according to prevailing convictions. The architects of today, driven by opportunity in their new role, seek coalitions and architectural objectives in an area characterised by the urban scale. Is it that the architecture produced back in the fifties does not age well, or are there other motives in play? Will the outcome of urban renewal be the result of a deliberate strategy or more the residue of dominant forces?

Much has changed since the inception of the AUP and the August Allebéplein. The demographic composition of The Netherlands has transformed and the population itself has appeared to be less homogenic than expected. While families have become smaller, more space is required. Car usage has increased beyond belief. As opposed to a grid city, which thrives on diversity and initiative, post-war neighbourhoods have tremendous difficulty accommodating these realities. At every scale these are very vulnerable to changes in the initial grand scheme. While the open urban design invites spontaneity, it is precisely the clutter which kills the urban concept and eventually deprives the neighbourhoods of their good reputation.

Considering August Allebéplein and Overtoomse Veld in general, these observations can be made concrete. Judging by the architecture, the original supermarket along the Marius Bauerstraat was the first infill in the area. Later isolated developments, the abundance of cars and the joyous addition of the previously mentioned supermarket added to the cluttering and downsizing of the open space. Original inhabitants left, attracted by a revaluation of the inner city and suburban developments. They were relieved by culturally different; predominantly disadvantaged Turkish and Moroccan immigrants. Original inhabitants who stayed behind often felt threatened in the public space and social problems were given a fertile breeding ground.

The pursued solutions aimed at reversing social problems are shocking. A small mosque, apparently built in the nineties, has received a neighbour recently in the form of a larger police station. It is an unforgiving structure, a bastion with countless security cameras but no windows. The open residential neighbourhood surrounding August Allebéplein is being closed off dogmatically, with the ideals of the pre-war city in mind. Is this what architecture can contribute to the open society that we often pride ourselves on, or is this a clear sign of repression?

A different strategy is conceivable: one that harnesses the qualities of the physical city and its inhabitants, creating a unique living environment in the process. By removing spatial clutter from August Allebéplein and dismissing demographic demolition in Overtoomse Veld, a very different outcome is imagined. Instead of using architecture as a scapegoat, contrast is added, strengthening it and using it as a provocation for further development. This scenario assumes the ability to consider alternatives on a grander scale.

In the midst of crises of capitalism and consumption, Overtoomse Veld will not become an early example of total architectural consumption. Rather, a strategy is sought after to allow the area to experience a subjective revaluation similar to Amsterdam’s city centre. The clear lines of Van Eesteren’s urban framework are taken as a starting point. A second layer is then added with respectful deliberation.

Through adding contrast and identity on an urban scale, between residential milieus and in the public space, areas can be identified with and subsequently appropriated by their users. The appropriation of space is instrumental in revitalising the social structure. Once a space can be related to and considered one’s own or part of a collective, the space is cherished. Cherished spaces are no more neglected than one’s own.

The strategy for the open housing blocks is geared towards identity and involvement. What better way to add character to courtyards than to empower its most frequent users, the residents, to transform these open spaces. A form of gentrification is also applied to the housing blocks by giving their residents a toolbox to transform their homes. By streamlining administrative and building processes, diversity is not only encouraged in the public space, but also amongst its users. Where identity is pursued in the open housing blocks, diversity in housing typologies is sought after in areas designated for densification.

An alternation is conceivable of post-war and contemporary architecture, different collective and public spaces. In the archipelago of experiences of Overtoomse Veld, August Allebéplein forms its main island. Having recovered its functional and spatial clarity, a single intervention is done to the square itself. The now-anonymous Buma building is transformed to a hybrid public and religious building in the conviction that society as a whole must construct a collective history.

The original urban composition of Overtoomse Veld was carefully designed. The aesthetics of efficient architecture and rhythmic urban design have a tremendous inherent quality in them. Although technically explicable, using an arithmetic approach in the renewal of such landscapes is shameful. Capitalising on existing qualities whilst deliberately inserting new ideas alternately provides an appropriate answer in the waning age of consumption.