Veldacademie Mark [email protected]
de wijkgedachte 2012; collectivity and individuality in loMbaRdijen
Tutors: ir. Lidwine Spoormans, dr.ir. Wido Quist & ir. Otto Trienekens
1. impro
ving
collective
2. impro
ving
ind
ividu
al
> rotterdam, lombardijen
> situation 1/500 > situation 1/500
> molièrebuurt west > location 1 > location 2
the neigborhood of molièrebuurt west mainly has problems in the collective space. There is a lack of use and accessibility and the ownership of the spaces is unclear. This has led to problems like responsibility, maintenance and safety.
> experiment 1 Improving the collective space. Perhaps the most realistic way to answer to the demands of the neighbourhood, buildings and owners is to improve the collective space. In this experiment the individual apartments stay unchanged. the impact of the improved collective on the individual owner is the main goal.
The generic solutions that were tested within this experiment are:
1.1 make readable territories
1.2 involve family houses in the territory
1.3 move parking spaces into the territory
1.4 make a community deck above parking
1.5 move entrances to the inside
1.6 create new staircases
1.7 create a buffer zone between porch and apartment
1.8 create a community building
Each solution was evaluated by looking at the influence on the different stated problems on a social, functional and architectural level. This was done both for the individual space and collective space in order to see the influence on one another. an assessment was made for which kind of owner or group of owners, the solution is applicable.
the buildings in molièrebuurt West have a very rigid and anonymous architecture. value has been added on the inside of the apartments over the years, when people, for instance, renovated bathrooms and kitchens. This value is not shown on the outside of the buildings, making these buildings too anonymous.
> experiment 2 Improving the individual space. a more experimental and less realistic approach is improving the individual apartments and by doing that reducing the collective. Taking away the problem rather than fixing it. The goal here is to reduce the problems to a minimum without solving them directly, as is the case in experiment 1.
The generic solutions that were tested within this experiment are:
2.1 merge apartments
2.2 add private outside spaces
2.3 fill the collective garden with housing
2.4.1 owners choose own window frames
2.4.2 open parts facades filled by owners
2.4.3 owners choose their fences
2.4.4 apply changeable facade materials
2.4.5 design “shopping windows”
Each solution was evaluated by looking at the influence on the different stated problems on a social, functional and architectural level. This was done both for the individual space and collective space in order to see the influence on one another. an assessment was made for which kind of owner or group of owners, the solution is applicable.
individual
> i am a: > i want to solve: > i want to improve the: > soluTIon(s):
safety/responsibility
safety/responsibility
safety/responsibility
individual space
individual space
collective space
collective space
use/accessibility
use/accessibility
use/accessibility
expression/spatial quality
expression/spatial quality
expression/spatial quality
collective of owners
housing corporation
individual space
individual space
collective space
collective space
individual space
individual space
collective space
collective space
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.2
p
1.3
p
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.3
??
2.4.2
??
2.4.2
??
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.3
2.4.3
2.4.3
2.4.3
2.4.3
2.4.5
2.4.5
2.4.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
2.4.1
2.4.1
2.4.1
2.4.4
2.4.4
2.4.4
13-27 29-43 45-59
13-27 29-43 45-59
1946
wijkgedachte 1946; collective forced upon individual
wijkgedachte 2012; collective colored by individual
2012
> section 1/500
> existing facades 1/500 > design facades 1/500 > design facades 1/500
> possible facade development 1/500
> section 1/500
