Unfortunately I don't have first hand experience of being on the site, but from what I hear its an extremely harsh neighborhood.
The government placed immigrants in these housing units, driving out the middle class that were there.
Low income + dense area = crime.
So I would say it seems unsuccessful for as safe environment, but how many high-rise affordable public housing units are safe (or "successful")?
What do you all think?
your equation is on the spot, it is kind of like the Parisian 'banlieue' with a lot of (illegal) immigrants. For years it was a forgotten/ignored area until on oct 4 1992 an El-Al Boeing crashed into one of the buildings and killed a lot of people. How sadly the occasion, this became an opportunity for change and improvement of the area. Since then some changes have been made. Replacing some of the blocks with low density suburban homes or modifying/renovating existing blocks.
For some of the plans for one of the blocks (including Greg Lynn)
and link
and to show that a long way is still to go, a disturbing scene where a mad crowd blocks an ambulance with a very sick patient, after immigration police (allegedly) went after some illegal immigrants and one of them fell/jumped from a balcony when trying to escape extradition.: link
interestingly, if you want to get a cheap place to live it aint bad. a former colleague of mine lived there, only paid about 300/mn. once inside you were in a typical architects apartment with corb furniture and wall to wall books.
similarly jeremy till used to live in park hill. in a way i guess we are the only ppl that actually like these housing schemes.
here's a question you could chew on:
the failure of a public housing project... is it because of the people who occupy them or the architecture itself?
most of these places aren't responding to any real need (adequate lighting, places for children to play, etc)
I was reading about Pruitt-Igoe in St lous MO, which was torn down in the 70's (the project was only about 20 years old). Many critics blame the architect, as well as Le Corbusier since the buildings were modeled after his ideas ("city floating on green" etc).
yeah well it is pretty easy to say that the architects are to blame, but we should also remember that "building management" has a huge responsiblity. eg rubbish removal, repairs, security etc.
my personal believe that i stand by however un-PC is that if you house hundreds of low socio-economic tenants in one high density scheme you are asking for trouble.
those architects did have the high ambitions, in hindsight we can say that many failed, but their intentions were good.
The Bijlmer was NOT a failure at the time (rebuilding Holland after WWII)... but during time requirements of living have changed, the population occupying the housing has changed. Maybe architects are to blame here that they designed and build contemporary and maybe not flexible enough. Also the scale of the housing is massive; this will contribute to a lack of (social) security. It is now a rough area to live in but society has become rougher as well...
i think rem talks about this particular project in either smlxl or content. a proposal he made for reconfiguring or something?...
maybe just not workable in western culture? because we're used to a different way of occupying space (like, using/expecting a lot of it)?
jump has had some interesting comments re: tower block residential. he lives in this kind of environment in japan and seems to think it's great - and that it's working.
yeah rem did write about renovating Bijlmermeer. don't think he ever did it. i have no idea if it works there or not...
pruitt igoe was a success to start, then the gov stopped supporting maintenance and filled it with problem people, after which it went downhill i have an article on it somewhere but a sure you can find same with google. its success and failure are well documented...architecture did not play much of a role. policy and people did.
steven is right. i live in corbu-type banlieue in northern tokyo. is brilliant, but all middle class here. lower middle class live in taller towers than mine. me, i am in 5 story walk up- absolutley brilliant functionally, natural light in amazing abundance, natural ventilation as well, and kids can play without fear of cars. i teach my girls to rollerblade on the perfect wheel-ready plasticised ground that covers all the treelined paths in the area...old people have gardens between buildings...kids play soccer andbaseball in dedicated fields...and the place is pretty happy. it works. the planning is great but the people are what make the difference i feel.
but don't take my word for it. sir peter hall has written the same in his books. very accessable tome by said luminary is cities of tomorrow which i recommend all architects read just to get a basic understanding of the cities we are designing in....anyway, he makes the rather good point that architecture and planning are often not as impt as the people who inhabit what we have built...
fair enough. nothing spectacular architecturally. typologically some very nice ideas that are sadly not part of japanese housing standard anymore; presumably they were not profitable. for example about 75% of my flat has floor to ceiling windows facing south (3 rooms). each of the rooms exits to an 11m long balcony, though in japan its function is for hanging laundry usually, rather than just hanging out.
anyway. our place looks like this, a 5 story walk-up
between my flat and the subway is a layer of 12 story high towers (with shops on ground floor)
the planning is kind of cool though cuz the rigid layout is pulled apart to create little triangles of green space and to make a path for through traffic for pedestrians who take the short cut through our complex to reach the subway line. google map's shots aren't the best cuz they were taken in winter, but you can get an idea...
said green space is for use by residents, many of whom are retired of late, so there are lots of small flower gardens...
while tokyo is supposed to be urban jungle we are kind of lucky cuz its quite green where we live, everything walkable and trees all over the place. this is pic of road to farmers market and open air grocery
for me the lesson of this place is that the development is not only impt, but the way it fits into the broader pattern is too. the street grids are not blocked by this place in typical superblock fashion, and cars and pedestrians seem to be controlled in nice balance. i have no idea who planned this place, suspect it was the city, but whoever it was did some very impressive work. if architecture was of same quality it would be a landmark.
there is a willingness too to refrain from capitulating to the uniformity of the block and the logic of towers lined up in a row. from a planners view i think that is very impt, especially on the ground where the people experience place the strongest. it may be that the dutch version does not work, but there are several places in europe that do. and quite a few in japan as well.
i once was involved in correspondence with a relatively famous new urbanist who was incensed by my support of the place where i live. he flat out refused to believe i could be happy here in a corbu-inspired landscape. corbu for him was anathema, regardless of evidence to contrary. was first time i realised dogma can be a really really bad thing, whether modernist or anti-modernist. with 50% of planet now officially urbanised and the numbers going higher i think we need to take our lessons wherever we can find them, even if we don't like the ideology that inspired them...
Thanks for sharing the pictures, jump. The question of failure/success of postwar planning goes a lot deeper than just urban layout. As in many of other european countries, people were craving to escape the poor living conditions in the city centres, and happily accepted a raised rent for larger, modern apartments. Unfortunately the quality of the flats were not always ideal, and hastily built. The original tenants moved out, many flats stood empty for long periods, rents went down, maintenance disappeared etc. There is a lot of money being pumped into the Biljmermeer at the moment, but there is still a certain stigmatization that the city is trying to erase. As in other similar areas (Hoogvliet outside Rotterdam is also going through a very ambitious renovation scheme) there is certainly a need of variation of housing typologies, so many of the original blocks have been knocked down and replaced with more expensive houses, which makes me wonder if one is not just trying to force out low-income tenants...
i agree with you a-f. i think a lot of it has to do with who is living in the places and what kind of support/maintenance is being provided. pruitt-igoe offers clear proof of that. planning can have an effect, but is not really the central reason for success or failure...but it is an easy scapegoat...eay to see, easier to change than systemic cultural problems too...
japan is kind of lucky as segregation is not as institutionalised here as in north america or europe. and the culture is one where this kind of place can work more easily than in others...maybe.
I agree with with p2an and jump with the fact that maintainence has a lot to do with it. Security is also a big factor. Using NYC as an example, there are housing projects that are falling apart and are used to house low income families. Conversely, you can see buildings that are almost identical in site plan, floor plan and materials that garner much higher rents. The two main differences are the level of maintainence and attention given to each, and the level of security at each place. In the nicer, high-rent buildings you will always see at least some sort of surveillence device, if not a door man/security/concierge when you walk in.
However, I disagree that the people living there contribute to the levels of crime. Coming from personal experience, I think that a lot of the people who live in these places just feel that if nobody cares then why should they.
when researching improvement to some of the public housing here in louisville, we learned that the crime in the area didn't come from the residents themselves - the people on the books as actually residing in the units were mostly single mothers - but from their boyfriends, these guys with no known addresses who just hung out on the streets outside the buildings and caused trouble.
our housing authority maintains these places reasonably well and security is also reasonably good.
but a huge difference was seen when some of the public housing units at one location were actually sold to those residents willing to commit to the program. they were helped to figure out how to make the financials work - rent becoming payment toward ownership. actually owning a the unit and the yard in front increased their personal investment and the whole place got better. probably not a universal answer, but a good one in those particular circumstances.
i love how p2an was afraid his response would be unPC.
one of the things i loved about living in europe was that PC didn't exist, people said what they believed and weren't afraid of offending people's (americans?) delicate sensibilities.
jump, those photos look amazing. i would kill for some density like that in seattle.
as an englishman, it also took me time to adjust to both german and dutch frankness. as we all know the english have a really hard time talking about or even acknowledging nudity and sex. so i had a great time in germany when i went on a excursion with a group from the office and we all ended up in a sauna...ahhhh great memories.
Feb 3, 08 3:45 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Netherlands Public Housing project
I'm trying to figure out the name for this unsuccessful Netherlands Public Housing project. It starts with BJ______________.
The footprint resembles this doodle
____ ____
/ \____/ \
anyone have an idea?
borneo sporenburg in amsterdam?
bijlmermeer probably...
hah nice. I can't believe this worked
Bijlmermeer looks/sounds like the one.
Thanks AP, a-f for the help!
Who said it was unsuccesful? Maybe now, care to elaborate?
Unfortunately I don't have first hand experience of being on the site, but from what I hear its an extremely harsh neighborhood.
The government placed immigrants in these housing units, driving out the middle class that were there.
Low income + dense area = crime.
So I would say it seems unsuccessful for as safe environment, but how many high-rise affordable public housing units are safe (or "successful")?
What do you all think?
your equation is on the spot, it is kind of like the Parisian 'banlieue' with a lot of (illegal) immigrants. For years it was a forgotten/ignored area until on oct 4 1992 an El-Al Boeing crashed into one of the buildings and killed a lot of people. How sadly the occasion, this became an opportunity for change and improvement of the area. Since then some changes have been made. Replacing some of the blocks with low density suburban homes or modifying/renovating existing blocks.
For a video of the crash: link
For some of the plans for one of the blocks (including Greg Lynn)
and link
and to show that a long way is still to go, a disturbing scene where a mad crowd blocks an ambulance with a very sick patient, after immigration police (allegedly) went after some illegal immigrants and one of them fell/jumped from a balcony when trying to escape extradition.:
link
interestingly, if you want to get a cheap place to live it aint bad. a former colleague of mine lived there, only paid about 300/mn. once inside you were in a typical architects apartment with corb furniture and wall to wall books.
similarly jeremy till used to live in park hill. in a way i guess we are the only ppl that actually like these housing schemes.
here's a question you could chew on:
the failure of a public housing project... is it because of the people who occupy them or the architecture itself?
most of these places aren't responding to any real need (adequate lighting, places for children to play, etc)
the people, more specifically. the mix, or lack thereof.
I was reading about Pruitt-Igoe in St lous MO, which was torn down in the 70's (the project was only about 20 years old). Many critics blame the architect, as well as Le Corbusier since the buildings were modeled after his ideas ("city floating on green" etc).
yeah well it is pretty easy to say that the architects are to blame, but we should also remember that "building management" has a huge responsiblity. eg rubbish removal, repairs, security etc.
my personal believe that i stand by however un-PC is that if you house hundreds of low socio-economic tenants in one high density scheme you are asking for trouble.
those architects did have the high ambitions, in hindsight we can say that many failed, but their intentions were good.
The Bijlmer was NOT a failure at the time (rebuilding Holland after WWII)... but during time requirements of living have changed, the population occupying the housing has changed. Maybe architects are to blame here that they designed and build contemporary and maybe not flexible enough. Also the scale of the housing is massive; this will contribute to a lack of (social) security. It is now a rough area to live in but society has become rougher as well...
Some deeplinkin'
New plans form OMA in Singapore....
i think rem talks about this particular project in either smlxl or content. a proposal he made for reconfiguring or something?...
maybe just not workable in western culture? because we're used to a different way of occupying space (like, using/expecting a lot of it)?
jump has had some interesting comments re: tower block residential. he lives in this kind of environment in japan and seems to think it's great - and that it's working.
yeah rem did write about renovating Bijlmermeer. don't think he ever did it. i have no idea if it works there or not...
pruitt igoe was a success to start, then the gov stopped supporting maintenance and filled it with problem people, after which it went downhill i have an article on it somewhere but a sure you can find same with google. its success and failure are well documented...architecture did not play much of a role. policy and people did.
steven is right. i live in corbu-type banlieue in northern tokyo. is brilliant, but all middle class here. lower middle class live in taller towers than mine. me, i am in 5 story walk up- absolutley brilliant functionally, natural light in amazing abundance, natural ventilation as well, and kids can play without fear of cars. i teach my girls to rollerblade on the perfect wheel-ready plasticised ground that covers all the treelined paths in the area...old people have gardens between buildings...kids play soccer andbaseball in dedicated fields...and the place is pretty happy. it works. the planning is great but the people are what make the difference i feel.
but don't take my word for it. sir peter hall has written the same in his books. very accessable tome by said luminary is cities of tomorrow which i recommend all architects read just to get a basic understanding of the cities we are designing in....anyway, he makes the rather good point that architecture and planning are often not as impt as the people who inhabit what we have built...
Jump: some pictures of your crib please :)
fair enough. nothing spectacular architecturally. typologically some very nice ideas that are sadly not part of japanese housing standard anymore; presumably they were not profitable. for example about 75% of my flat has floor to ceiling windows facing south (3 rooms). each of the rooms exits to an 11m long balcony, though in japan its function is for hanging laundry usually, rather than just hanging out.
anyway. our place looks like this, a 5 story walk-up
between my flat and the subway is a layer of 12 story high towers (with shops on ground floor)
the planning is kind of cool though cuz the rigid layout is pulled apart to create little triangles of green space and to make a path for through traffic for pedestrians who take the short cut through our complex to reach the subway line. google map's shots aren't the best cuz they were taken in winter, but you can get an idea...
said green space is for use by residents, many of whom are retired of late, so there are lots of small flower gardens...
while tokyo is supposed to be urban jungle we are kind of lucky cuz its quite green where we live, everything walkable and trees all over the place. this is pic of road to farmers market and open air grocery
for me the lesson of this place is that the development is not only impt, but the way it fits into the broader pattern is too. the street grids are not blocked by this place in typical superblock fashion, and cars and pedestrians seem to be controlled in nice balance. i have no idea who planned this place, suspect it was the city, but whoever it was did some very impressive work. if architecture was of same quality it would be a landmark.
there is a willingness too to refrain from capitulating to the uniformity of the block and the logic of towers lined up in a row. from a planners view i think that is very impt, especially on the ground where the people experience place the strongest. it may be that the dutch version does not work, but there are several places in europe that do. and quite a few in japan as well.
i once was involved in correspondence with a relatively famous new urbanist who was incensed by my support of the place where i live. he flat out refused to believe i could be happy here in a corbu-inspired landscape. corbu for him was anathema, regardless of evidence to contrary. was first time i realised dogma can be a really really bad thing, whether modernist or anti-modernist. with 50% of planet now officially urbanised and the numbers going higher i think we need to take our lessons wherever we can find them, even if we don't like the ideology that inspired them...
or something like that.
Thanks for sharing the pictures, jump. The question of failure/success of postwar planning goes a lot deeper than just urban layout. As in many of other european countries, people were craving to escape the poor living conditions in the city centres, and happily accepted a raised rent for larger, modern apartments. Unfortunately the quality of the flats were not always ideal, and hastily built. The original tenants moved out, many flats stood empty for long periods, rents went down, maintenance disappeared etc. There is a lot of money being pumped into the Biljmermeer at the moment, but there is still a certain stigmatization that the city is trying to erase. As in other similar areas (Hoogvliet outside Rotterdam is also going through a very ambitious renovation scheme) there is certainly a need of variation of housing typologies, so many of the original blocks have been knocked down and replaced with more expensive houses, which makes me wonder if one is not just trying to force out low-income tenants...
- cultural analysis and projects in Hoogvliet
Shared Spaces - articles from the ministry of spatial planning
thanks for those links. interesting!
i agree with you a-f. i think a lot of it has to do with who is living in the places and what kind of support/maintenance is being provided. pruitt-igoe offers clear proof of that. planning can have an effect, but is not really the central reason for success or failure...but it is an easy scapegoat...eay to see, easier to change than systemic cultural problems too...
japan is kind of lucky as segregation is not as institutionalised here as in north america or europe. and the culture is one where this kind of place can work more easily than in others...maybe.
I agree with with p2an and jump with the fact that maintainence has a lot to do with it. Security is also a big factor. Using NYC as an example, there are housing projects that are falling apart and are used to house low income families. Conversely, you can see buildings that are almost identical in site plan, floor plan and materials that garner much higher rents. The two main differences are the level of maintainence and attention given to each, and the level of security at each place. In the nicer, high-rent buildings you will always see at least some sort of surveillence device, if not a door man/security/concierge when you walk in.
However, I disagree that the people living there contribute to the levels of crime. Coming from personal experience, I think that a lot of the people who live in these places just feel that if nobody cares then why should they.
when researching improvement to some of the public housing here in louisville, we learned that the crime in the area didn't come from the residents themselves - the people on the books as actually residing in the units were mostly single mothers - but from their boyfriends, these guys with no known addresses who just hung out on the streets outside the buildings and caused trouble.
our housing authority maintains these places reasonably well and security is also reasonably good.
but a huge difference was seen when some of the public housing units at one location were actually sold to those residents willing to commit to the program. they were helped to figure out how to make the financials work - rent becoming payment toward ownership. actually owning a the unit and the yard in front increased their personal investment and the whole place got better. probably not a universal answer, but a good one in those particular circumstances.
i love how p2an was afraid his response would be unPC.
one of the things i loved about living in europe was that PC didn't exist, people said what they believed and weren't afraid of offending people's (americans?) delicate sensibilities.
jump, those photos look amazing. i would kill for some density like that in seattle.
haha, holz. nicely detected. the reason i semi-apologised for my soooo unPC'ness was purely because theres so many fucking americans on archinect.
genau!
i really miss it, i mean it took a while to get used to, but by the end, i enjoyed tha candor and willingness to sepak one's mind freely.
whoa, i need a spellchecker
as an englishman, it also took me time to adjust to both german and dutch frankness. as we all know the english have a really hard time talking about or even acknowledging nudity and sex. so i had a great time in germany when i went on a excursion with a group from the office and we all ended up in a sauna...ahhhh great memories.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.