L.G.K. Spoormans
info
Please Note
<p>This page displays the records of the person named above and is not linked to a unique person identifier. This record may need to be merged to a profile.</p>
40 records found
1
Community participation is widely recognised as essential for sustainable heritage management. While international doctrines increasingly advocate participatory approaches, heritage management practices remain largely place-based and continue to prioritise territorially defined local communities. In the context of international migration and diaspora, such approaches inadequately address diasporic built heritage, whose cultural significance is conveyed by transnational diasporic communities across countries of origin and destination. Limited research has examined how diasporic communities negotiate their roles with other stakeholders in the participatory management of diasporic built heritage. This study presents a systematic literature review of 106 English-language publications, following the PRISMA guidelines, to examine how diasporic communities and other stakeholders participate in the management of diasporic built heritage. The analysis focuses on (1) mapping the geographic, institutional, and thematic patterns of current research, and (2) analysing stakeholder categories and cross-sector roles across origins and destinations. The results reveal a diverse, but uneven, geographic distribution of the case studies and institutions retrieved from English-language publications. A stakeholder framework is developed to bridge minority and mainstream (cross-sector) roles across origins and destinations, offering insights into the comprehensive understanding and identification of stakeholder roles for fostering further novel research on diasporic built heritage.
...
Community participation is widely recognised as essential for sustainable heritage management. While international doctrines increasingly advocate participatory approaches, heritage management practices remain largely place-based and continue to prioritise territorially defined local communities. In the context of international migration and diaspora, such approaches inadequately address diasporic built heritage, whose cultural significance is conveyed by transnational diasporic communities across countries of origin and destination. Limited research has examined how diasporic communities negotiate their roles with other stakeholders in the participatory management of diasporic built heritage. This study presents a systematic literature review of 106 English-language publications, following the PRISMA guidelines, to examine how diasporic communities and other stakeholders participate in the management of diasporic built heritage. The analysis focuses on (1) mapping the geographic, institutional, and thematic patterns of current research, and (2) analysing stakeholder categories and cross-sector roles across origins and destinations. The results reveal a diverse, but uneven, geographic distribution of the case studies and institutions retrieved from English-language publications. A stakeholder framework is developed to bridge minority and mainstream (cross-sector) roles across origins and destinations, offering insights into the comprehensive understanding and identification of stakeholder roles for fostering further novel research on diasporic built heritage.
Apples & Oysters
Developing a framework for value-based decision-making in sustainable housing retrofits
Community Engagement for Resilient Neighbourhoods
Position Paper for BK Festival ‘Resilient Neighbourhoods’
Conference paper
(2025)
-
S. Asadollahi Asl Zarkhah, G.A. van Bortel, T.A.O.E. Esteban, J. E. Goncalves, E. Pérez Guembe, G. Slingerland, L.G.K. Spoormans, L.G.K. Spoormans, T.A.O.E. Esteban
This position paper consolidates the work of researchers from various departments and areas of expertise across the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment at Delft University of Technology. It discusses the relevance, applications, and different methods of community engagement in the built environment. The inclusion of main take-away, recommendations for community engagement, and a range of example projects demonstrating various methods, bridge the gap from scientific knowledge to application in practice.
...
This position paper consolidates the work of researchers from various departments and areas of expertise across the Faculty of Architecture and the Built Environment at Delft University of Technology. It discusses the relevance, applications, and different methods of community engagement in the built environment. The inclusion of main take-away, recommendations for community engagement, and a range of example projects demonstrating various methods, bridge the gap from scientific knowledge to application in practice.
Community participation in heritage management is increasing. Actively participating communities, groups, and individuals can help identify and protect values and attributes that convey these values and guide sustainable management. However, how can diasporic communities participate in built heritage management? In addition to existing studies on community participation in built heritage management, this systematic literature review draws from 106 scholarly articles and distils how diasporic communities participate in built heritage management. The results categorise four relationships between diasporic communities and built heritage, from the conservation of built heritage, the reconstruction and design of diasporic spaces and places, and the use of built environments as venues, to the representation and interpretation of built environments. The five categories of research trends summarised in this study represent multidisciplinary research interests, including the analysis of well-implemented heritage management strategies, reflections on challenges in managing participatory heritage practices, studies on creating community-centred heritage, the design of participatory methods and tools, and surveys on future-oriented heritage preferences. Strategies and challenges related to twenty factors of participation are identified through SWOT analysis, revealing strengths (heritage initiatives, participation, and sense of identity), weaknesses (regulation, authorised heritage discourse, and resources), opportunities (participation, sense of identity, and resources), and threats (stakeholders’ interests/relationships, authorised heritage discourse, and resources), followed by a discussion of cross-domain factors and interconnectedness. The findings can be considered, referenced, and adapted for future participatory built heritage management that engages diasporic communities. This study also discusses current research limitations and recommendations.
...
Community participation in heritage management is increasing. Actively participating communities, groups, and individuals can help identify and protect values and attributes that convey these values and guide sustainable management. However, how can diasporic communities participate in built heritage management? In addition to existing studies on community participation in built heritage management, this systematic literature review draws from 106 scholarly articles and distils how diasporic communities participate in built heritage management. The results categorise four relationships between diasporic communities and built heritage, from the conservation of built heritage, the reconstruction and design of diasporic spaces and places, and the use of built environments as venues, to the representation and interpretation of built environments. The five categories of research trends summarised in this study represent multidisciplinary research interests, including the analysis of well-implemented heritage management strategies, reflections on challenges in managing participatory heritage practices, studies on creating community-centred heritage, the design of participatory methods and tools, and surveys on future-oriented heritage preferences. Strategies and challenges related to twenty factors of participation are identified through SWOT analysis, revealing strengths (heritage initiatives, participation, and sense of identity), weaknesses (regulation, authorised heritage discourse, and resources), opportunities (participation, sense of identity, and resources), and threats (stakeholders’ interests/relationships, authorised heritage discourse, and resources), followed by a discussion of cross-domain factors and interconnectedness. The findings can be considered, referenced, and adapted for future participatory built heritage management that engages diasporic communities. This study also discusses current research limitations and recommendations.
De WijkWijzer is een digitale ‘wandel-enquête’ waarmee op een gebruiksvriendelijke wijze de kwaliteiten van woonwijken worden onderzocht. De WijkWijzer is een initiatief van de TU Delft, met speciale aandacht voor alledaags en jong erfgoed (zoals Post 65 woonwijken): buurten die nog volop in gebruik zijn en waarvan de erfgoedwaarde niet altijd vanzelf spreekt. Wil je resultaten bekijken of zelf aan de slag met een WijkWijzer voor jouw buurt? Op deze website kan je alle relevante informatie vinden. WijkWijzer staat open om met jouw woonwijk aan de slag te gaan!
...
De WijkWijzer is een digitale ‘wandel-enquête’ waarmee op een gebruiksvriendelijke wijze de kwaliteiten van woonwijken worden onderzocht. De WijkWijzer is een initiatief van de TU Delft, met speciale aandacht voor alledaags en jong erfgoed (zoals Post 65 woonwijken): buurten die nog volop in gebruik zijn en waarvan de erfgoedwaarde niet altijd vanzelf spreekt. Wil je resultaten bekijken of zelf aan de slag met een WijkWijzer voor jouw buurt? Op deze website kan je alle relevante informatie vinden. WijkWijzer staat open om met jouw woonwijk aan de slag te gaan!
Welke instandhoudingsopgave komt op ons af met de recente focus op het erfgoed van de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw? Niet alleen in Nederland en België, maar in veel landen wordt nadrukkelijk gekeken naar de erfgoedwaardigheid van de gebouwen, complexen en structuren uit de periode 1960-1990. Afhankelijk van de wettelijke context, politieke en sociaal-maatschappelijke markeringen in periode deze wordt de precieze tijdspanne in verschillende regio’s anders gedefinieerd. In Nederland staat de periode bekend als ‘Post 65’ en is een vervolg op de Wederopbouwperiode vanaf 1945, na het einde van de Tweede Wereldoorlog.
In diverse steden en dorpen zijn de lokale bouwkundige hoogtepunten van na 1965 al benoemd en de eerste voornemens tot aanwijzing als rijksmonument zijn begin september 2025 wereldkundig gemaakt (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed 2025). ...
In diverse steden en dorpen zijn de lokale bouwkundige hoogtepunten van na 1965 al benoemd en de eerste voornemens tot aanwijzing als rijksmonument zijn begin september 2025 wereldkundig gemaakt (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed 2025). ...
Welke instandhoudingsopgave komt op ons af met de recente focus op het erfgoed van de tweede helft van de twintigste eeuw? Niet alleen in Nederland en België, maar in veel landen wordt nadrukkelijk gekeken naar de erfgoedwaardigheid van de gebouwen, complexen en structuren uit de periode 1960-1990. Afhankelijk van de wettelijke context, politieke en sociaal-maatschappelijke markeringen in periode deze wordt de precieze tijdspanne in verschillende regio’s anders gedefinieerd. In Nederland staat de periode bekend als ‘Post 65’ en is een vervolg op de Wederopbouwperiode vanaf 1945, na het einde van de Tweede Wereldoorlog.
In diverse steden en dorpen zijn de lokale bouwkundige hoogtepunten van na 1965 al benoemd en de eerste voornemens tot aanwijzing als rijksmonument zijn begin september 2025 wereldkundig gemaakt (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed 2025).
In diverse steden en dorpen zijn de lokale bouwkundige hoogtepunten van na 1965 al benoemd en de eerste voornemens tot aanwijzing als rijksmonument zijn begin september 2025 wereldkundig gemaakt (Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed 2025).
Diasporic communities and their heritage are vital in shaping cultural diversity in urban planning and management. However, diasporic heritage management overlooked cross-geographical networks that constitute cultural significance. This study develops a workflow to explore diasporic heritage’s spatial and semantic networks. Global social media data about Chinatowns on Flickr is collected and analysed through Named Entity Recognition, and Spatial and Semantic Network Analysis. Findings reveal the diasporic flows based on places frequently recognised as origin and destination of Chinese diasporic heritage, and the distribution of places, zooming in from worldwide to the Netherlands. Semantic networks in different Dutch cities are compared.
...
Diasporic communities and their heritage are vital in shaping cultural diversity in urban planning and management. However, diasporic heritage management overlooked cross-geographical networks that constitute cultural significance. This study develops a workflow to explore diasporic heritage’s spatial and semantic networks. Global social media data about Chinatowns on Flickr is collected and analysed through Named Entity Recognition, and Spatial and Semantic Network Analysis. Findings reveal the diasporic flows based on places frequently recognised as origin and destination of Chinese diasporic heritage, and the distribution of places, zooming in from worldwide to the Netherlands. Semantic networks in different Dutch cities are compared.
Much of the building stock subjected to the upcoming European Renovation Wave is neither listed as heritage nor considered valuable architecture. This also applies to Dutch housing built between 1965 and 1985, more than 30% of the Dutch housing stock, for which there is no consensus on their cultural significance. Their successful renovation process requires broad support. What attributes do citizens consider significant in their neighbourhood? How do we include a multitude of stakeholders? And can digital methods help collect and process responses? This article reveals significant attributes of residential neighbourhoods from 1965 to 1985, assessed by various stakeholders with a digital tool based on case studies in Amsterdam and Almere. A mobile application allowed individuals to identify significant attributes at various scales while visiting the neighbourhood. By qualitative data analysis of survey and interview results, groups of tangible and intangible attributes were deduced. Results show that identifying attributes by current stakeholders broadens existing expert-led assessments on 1965–1985 neighbourhoods by including, for example, generic attributes not originally intended by the designers. Asking open-ended questions is considered essential to identify undiscovered attributes by alternative stakeholders, although dealing with large numbers of responses is recognised as a challenge to cluster and classify. Lastly, the mobile application appears to be a useful digital tool, but integrating scientific consistency and usability is recommended for further development. Engaging multiple stakeholders with such mobile applications allows for collecting opinions, anticipating conflicts, or shared interests between stakeholders and integration into renovation designs. It can empower citizens to preserve the neighbourhood attributes that are most significant to them.
...
Much of the building stock subjected to the upcoming European Renovation Wave is neither listed as heritage nor considered valuable architecture. This also applies to Dutch housing built between 1965 and 1985, more than 30% of the Dutch housing stock, for which there is no consensus on their cultural significance. Their successful renovation process requires broad support. What attributes do citizens consider significant in their neighbourhood? How do we include a multitude of stakeholders? And can digital methods help collect and process responses? This article reveals significant attributes of residential neighbourhoods from 1965 to 1985, assessed by various stakeholders with a digital tool based on case studies in Amsterdam and Almere. A mobile application allowed individuals to identify significant attributes at various scales while visiting the neighbourhood. By qualitative data analysis of survey and interview results, groups of tangible and intangible attributes were deduced. Results show that identifying attributes by current stakeholders broadens existing expert-led assessments on 1965–1985 neighbourhoods by including, for example, generic attributes not originally intended by the designers. Asking open-ended questions is considered essential to identify undiscovered attributes by alternative stakeholders, although dealing with large numbers of responses is recognised as a challenge to cluster and classify. Lastly, the mobile application appears to be a useful digital tool, but integrating scientific consistency and usability is recommended for further development. Engaging multiple stakeholders with such mobile applications allows for collecting opinions, anticipating conflicts, or shared interests between stakeholders and integration into renovation designs. It can empower citizens to preserve the neighbourhood attributes that are most significant to them.
Exhibition
(2024)
-
Kuangyi Xing, L.G.K. Spoormans, D.K. Czischke, A. Pereira Roders, W. de Jonge, A. Soro
The dataset, underlying the paper “Do I See What You See?” was selected for the project Nexum: Data 4 Art, organised by 4TU. The art pieces by Kuangyi Xing were exhibited in June 2024 in WORM and in the Dutch Design Week 2024 in Eindhoven.
...
The dataset, underlying the paper “Do I See What You See?” was selected for the project Nexum: Data 4 Art, organised by 4TU. The art pieces by Kuangyi Xing were exhibited in June 2024 in WORM and in the Dutch Design Week 2024 in Eindhoven.
Various trends and movements influenced the architectural transcendence after Modernism. Well-known histories include European architects calling for human scale and variety and Anglo-Saxon architects adopting a visual language of archetypes, popular taste, and symbolism. In other regions, various emanations and terminology can be found, like Metabolism, Critical Regionalism or Late Socialism. Although there is a growing interest in this young legacy, many buildings of the 1970s and 1980s are threatened with demolition or drastic transformation. They are facing the same issues as the Modern Movement legacy, being disguised at the risk of disappearing. This conference session, therefore, calls for developing and sharing knowledge about architecture dating from the decades after Modernism. Documentation of various international cases, movements, and developments is considered a first step towards comparisons, evaluation, and, finally, informing decision-making about conservation.
This paper discusses some themes and theories, aiming to explore a framework for identifying and discussing similarities and differences in their underlying ideologies and contexts. The first theme addressed is pluralism, as defined by Charles Jencks. Pluralism is observed as a socio-political plurality, with various cultural, geographical and regime-related contexts. Also, on the building scale, the absence of a dominant ideology led to the combination of architectural styles. A second theme is nostalgia, relating e.g. to classical references in post-modern buildings, but also to the increased interest in heritage in the 1970s and onwards. The current interest in the 1970s and 80s legacy can be again considered a nostalgic longing. Opposite of nostalgia, futurism is the last theme discussed. Metabolism and high-tech created visions and solutions to societal and environmental issues, as we are facing today.
Although the themes discussed do not provide a complete or comprehensive representation of the building stock under discussion, they aim to foster discussion on its characteristics and underlying ideologies. ...
This paper discusses some themes and theories, aiming to explore a framework for identifying and discussing similarities and differences in their underlying ideologies and contexts. The first theme addressed is pluralism, as defined by Charles Jencks. Pluralism is observed as a socio-political plurality, with various cultural, geographical and regime-related contexts. Also, on the building scale, the absence of a dominant ideology led to the combination of architectural styles. A second theme is nostalgia, relating e.g. to classical references in post-modern buildings, but also to the increased interest in heritage in the 1970s and onwards. The current interest in the 1970s and 80s legacy can be again considered a nostalgic longing. Opposite of nostalgia, futurism is the last theme discussed. Metabolism and high-tech created visions and solutions to societal and environmental issues, as we are facing today.
Although the themes discussed do not provide a complete or comprehensive representation of the building stock under discussion, they aim to foster discussion on its characteristics and underlying ideologies. ...
Various trends and movements influenced the architectural transcendence after Modernism. Well-known histories include European architects calling for human scale and variety and Anglo-Saxon architects adopting a visual language of archetypes, popular taste, and symbolism. In other regions, various emanations and terminology can be found, like Metabolism, Critical Regionalism or Late Socialism. Although there is a growing interest in this young legacy, many buildings of the 1970s and 1980s are threatened with demolition or drastic transformation. They are facing the same issues as the Modern Movement legacy, being disguised at the risk of disappearing. This conference session, therefore, calls for developing and sharing knowledge about architecture dating from the decades after Modernism. Documentation of various international cases, movements, and developments is considered a first step towards comparisons, evaluation, and, finally, informing decision-making about conservation.
This paper discusses some themes and theories, aiming to explore a framework for identifying and discussing similarities and differences in their underlying ideologies and contexts. The first theme addressed is pluralism, as defined by Charles Jencks. Pluralism is observed as a socio-political plurality, with various cultural, geographical and regime-related contexts. Also, on the building scale, the absence of a dominant ideology led to the combination of architectural styles. A second theme is nostalgia, relating e.g. to classical references in post-modern buildings, but also to the increased interest in heritage in the 1970s and onwards. The current interest in the 1970s and 80s legacy can be again considered a nostalgic longing. Opposite of nostalgia, futurism is the last theme discussed. Metabolism and high-tech created visions and solutions to societal and environmental issues, as we are facing today.
Although the themes discussed do not provide a complete or comprehensive representation of the building stock under discussion, they aim to foster discussion on its characteristics and underlying ideologies.
This paper discusses some themes and theories, aiming to explore a framework for identifying and discussing similarities and differences in their underlying ideologies and contexts. The first theme addressed is pluralism, as defined by Charles Jencks. Pluralism is observed as a socio-political plurality, with various cultural, geographical and regime-related contexts. Also, on the building scale, the absence of a dominant ideology led to the combination of architectural styles. A second theme is nostalgia, relating e.g. to classical references in post-modern buildings, but also to the increased interest in heritage in the 1970s and onwards. The current interest in the 1970s and 80s legacy can be again considered a nostalgic longing. Opposite of nostalgia, futurism is the last theme discussed. Metabolism and high-tech created visions and solutions to societal and environmental issues, as we are facing today.
Although the themes discussed do not provide a complete or comprehensive representation of the building stock under discussion, they aim to foster discussion on its characteristics and underlying ideologies.
The suburban low-rise neighbourhood is the ‘ideal’ of the Dutch middle class. After WWII, a series of planning concepts were implemented on a national level: post-war expansion districts (1945-1965), Groeikernen (1965-1985), and Vinex districts (1995-2005). Middle-class families of successive generations moved into these (once) new neighbourhoods, leaving the city for “huisje, boompje, beestje” (house, tree, animal), a Dutch saying meaning the bourgeois life in a house with a garden, children and pets.
...
The suburban low-rise neighbourhood is the ‘ideal’ of the Dutch middle class. After WWII, a series of planning concepts were implemented on a national level: post-war expansion districts (1945-1965), Groeikernen (1965-1985), and Vinex districts (1995-2005). Middle-class families of successive generations moved into these (once) new neighbourhoods, leaving the city for “huisje, boompje, beestje” (house, tree, animal), a Dutch saying meaning the bourgeois life in a house with a garden, children and pets.
Web of attributes
Analysing residents’ appreciation of a Dutch neighbourhood from a new heritage perspective
In the last century, the concept of what can be heritage has expanded in definition, opening to everyday architecture and living environments. More recently, the group of stakeholders to be involved in heritage assessment and management has slowly grown, with authorities acknowledging that heritage significance lies in the representation and identification for people and that people could help define it. Studying the significance of everyday residential neighbourhoods and the inclusion of individual responses creates a demand for new methods. Although in heritage studies these methods remain undefined, studies on housing preferences offer starting points for new approaches. This paper presents a significance assessment of an everyday living environment by its residents, from a new heritage perspective. By analysing individual responses, this research discusses more inclusive methods of assessing significance. A neighbourhood in the Dutch town Almere, is used as a case study. Based on a survey in diary format, residents’ appreciation of their living environment is analysed using values-attributes and means-end theory. Results show that assessments of individual residents consist of chains of tangible and intangible attributes. The paper proposes a new analytical model, the ‘Web of Attributes’, which visualizes residents’ responses and reveals the diversity and relations between the attributes best appreciated in a specific living environment. The Web of Attributes can serve as visual reporting in statements of significance, for listed and non-listed neighbourhoods. By combining theories from housing preferences and heritage significance assessment, this novel research explores narrow the gap between the assessments of heritage and everyday neighbourhoods.
...
In the last century, the concept of what can be heritage has expanded in definition, opening to everyday architecture and living environments. More recently, the group of stakeholders to be involved in heritage assessment and management has slowly grown, with authorities acknowledging that heritage significance lies in the representation and identification for people and that people could help define it. Studying the significance of everyday residential neighbourhoods and the inclusion of individual responses creates a demand for new methods. Although in heritage studies these methods remain undefined, studies on housing preferences offer starting points for new approaches. This paper presents a significance assessment of an everyday living environment by its residents, from a new heritage perspective. By analysing individual responses, this research discusses more inclusive methods of assessing significance. A neighbourhood in the Dutch town Almere, is used as a case study. Based on a survey in diary format, residents’ appreciation of their living environment is analysed using values-attributes and means-end theory. Results show that assessments of individual residents consist of chains of tangible and intangible attributes. The paper proposes a new analytical model, the ‘Web of Attributes’, which visualizes residents’ responses and reveals the diversity and relations between the attributes best appreciated in a specific living environment. The Web of Attributes can serve as visual reporting in statements of significance, for listed and non-listed neighbourhoods. By combining theories from housing preferences and heritage significance assessment, this novel research explores narrow the gap between the assessments of heritage and everyday neighbourhoods.
Housing developments in the Netherlands have been influenced by national and local policies regarding spatial planning, building regulations, tax regulations and subsidy programs. At the beginning of the 20th century, the ‘Woningwet’ [Housing Act, 1901] kick-started Dutch policies on housing. This act aimed to put an end to unhealthy housing conditions, promoting the construction of good housing. Although the Housing Act made public housing a ‘matter of the State’, it designated municipalities as the first executors.
...
Housing developments in the Netherlands have been influenced by national and local policies regarding spatial planning, building regulations, tax regulations and subsidy programs. At the beginning of the 20th century, the ‘Woningwet’ [Housing Act, 1901] kick-started Dutch policies on housing. This act aimed to put an end to unhealthy housing conditions, promoting the construction of good housing. Although the Housing Act made public housing a ‘matter of the State’, it designated municipalities as the first executors.
Although attention for citizen involvement in urban development and heritage management processes is growing, both in practice and in research, the specifics of stakeholders’ interests have been less researched. This paper reveals and discusses the assessment by individuals and groups, to differentiate stakeholders, based on the heritage significance they convey on neighbourhood attributes. Fifty-nine interviews on a Dutch neighbourhood in Amsterdam Zuidoost were analysed integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. Results confirm important differences between and within stakeholder groups regarding their interest in particular attribute categories and scales, indicating the need to further specify stakeholders beyond the commonly used ‘community’ and ‘experts’. The identification of stakeholder interests is important to involve relevant groups in the identification and designation of significant attributes, buildings, and areas and to anticipate potential conflicts or shared interests in neighbourhood renovation processes.
...
Although attention for citizen involvement in urban development and heritage management processes is growing, both in practice and in research, the specifics of stakeholders’ interests have been less researched. This paper reveals and discusses the assessment by individuals and groups, to differentiate stakeholders, based on the heritage significance they convey on neighbourhood attributes. Fifty-nine interviews on a Dutch neighbourhood in Amsterdam Zuidoost were analysed integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. Results confirm important differences between and within stakeholder groups regarding their interest in particular attribute categories and scales, indicating the need to further specify stakeholders beyond the commonly used ‘community’ and ‘experts’. The identification of stakeholder interests is important to involve relevant groups in the identification and designation of significant attributes, buildings, and areas and to anticipate potential conflicts or shared interests in neighbourhood renovation processes.
The Netherlands: Amsterdam, Rotterdam, Almere
Mass Housing in Disguise
Housing construction in the post-WWII Netherlands is characterised by policies and regulations, at national and local level. The tradition of ‘volkshuisvesting’ which promotes planning for the whole population including the middle class, largely determined the production and allocation of housing through planning policies, subsidy, and tax programmes. In the Dutch context, it is difficult to distinguish ‘middle class’ by housing typology, ownership or neighbourhood, as middle class is 1) broadly interpreted, 2) housing areas combine different housing types and groups, and 3) the residents’ composition of residents’ changes over time. Driven by planning and housing policies and influenced by technological and social developments, different housing types emerged over successive periods. This article explains three key periods by outlining the historical context and illustrating with corresponding case studies. In the reconstruction period of the 1950s, industrial mass-housing systems were developed, a clear example of which is the mid-rise Airey housing development in Sloterhof Amsterdam, notable for its façade of concrete tiles. In the late 1960s, technological developments made large high-rise flats possible. The flats in a park-like setting in Ommoord Rotterdam are a clear example of this modern living environment, intended for middleclass families. In the 1970s, an aversion to highrise and uniformity and more attention to quality and diversity in form and households led to more varied architecture on a human scale. The organically shaped low-rise housing in ‘woonerf’ De Werven Almere with a diversity of housing types combining tenants and homeowners is indicative of this period. In The Netherlands, large-scale housing projects from successive periods are not always recognisable as mass housing due to the row house as the popular housing type of the middle class.
...
Housing construction in the post-WWII Netherlands is characterised by policies and regulations, at national and local level. The tradition of ‘volkshuisvesting’ which promotes planning for the whole population including the middle class, largely determined the production and allocation of housing through planning policies, subsidy, and tax programmes. In the Dutch context, it is difficult to distinguish ‘middle class’ by housing typology, ownership or neighbourhood, as middle class is 1) broadly interpreted, 2) housing areas combine different housing types and groups, and 3) the residents’ composition of residents’ changes over time. Driven by planning and housing policies and influenced by technological and social developments, different housing types emerged over successive periods. This article explains three key periods by outlining the historical context and illustrating with corresponding case studies. In the reconstruction period of the 1950s, industrial mass-housing systems were developed, a clear example of which is the mid-rise Airey housing development in Sloterhof Amsterdam, notable for its façade of concrete tiles. In the late 1960s, technological developments made large high-rise flats possible. The flats in a park-like setting in Ommoord Rotterdam are a clear example of this modern living environment, intended for middleclass families. In the 1970s, an aversion to highrise and uniformity and more attention to quality and diversity in form and households led to more varied architecture on a human scale. The organically shaped low-rise housing in ‘woonerf’ De Werven Almere with a diversity of housing types combining tenants and homeowners is indicative of this period. In The Netherlands, large-scale housing projects from successive periods are not always recognisable as mass housing due to the row house as the popular housing type of the middle class.
Everyday Heritage
Identifying attributes of 1965-1985 residential neighbourhoods by involved stakeholders
In improving the sustainability of our built environment, we face challenges regarding energy, climate, and equality. In facing these challenges, European countries and institutions emphasise the need to protect and advance the cultural values of the built environment. However, the largest part of the stock that needs sustainable renovation is not listed, nor is its heritage significance assessed, detailing what is valuable (attributes) and why (values). Herein lies the risk that present significant attributes are not identified and maintained in future renovations, causing the loss of a variety of resources and their heritage significance. Moreover, the risk to destroy existing values and attributes can also reduce citizen’s support for future developments. This problem is faced by the housing stock built in Dutch cities between 1965 and 1985, which is more than 30% of the housing stock in the Netherlands. Although in recent years there is a growing attention for Dutch architecture built after 1965, there is a need for more knowledge about its heritage significance. In assessing everyday residential neighbourhoods, the need to involve citizens alongside experts is recommended. The societal relevance of this PhD research is underlined both at national and international levels, with respectively the Dutch ‘Post 65’ program, the upcoming Dutch Environmental Law (Omgevingswet), the European Faro Convention and its Dutch ratification, the Renovation Wave and European Green Deal, and the national and global housing crisis. The objectives of this PhD research are two-fold. First, it aims to reveal new knowledge about the attributes of 1965-1985 residential neighbourhoods. Second, it aims to contribute to the development and testing of methodologies that assess the heritage significance of residential neighbourhoods. The main research question is: What attributes of residential neighbourhoods, built in The Netherlands between 1965-1985, can be identified as significant by the involved stakeholders? This question is further deconstructed in three main components: how (methods), what (attributes) and who (stakeholders). The research adopts a broad conception of heritage, assuming that all buildings and neighbourhoods have heritage significance, including attributes that are valuable, to someone, in some form. These attributes can be the tangible embodiment of a value, but they can also be an intangible attribute, such as an event, use or meaning. The first part of the thesis explains the development of the research framework. An ‘integral view’ research approach allowed multiple value categories and stakeholder perspectives to be included. Exploration of a range of 1965-1985 residential neighbourhoods led to identification of main types, low-rise and mid-rise, that hold representative urban and architectural attributes and could serve as examples for the empirical research. The Heritage Cube developed by Peter Howard was adopted, adapted, and tested as a conceptual model for the operational framework. It integrates attributes, stakeholders, and scales, fitting the purpose of identifying attributes by different stakeholders and finding the potentially differentiated opinions of individuals and groups. The second part of the thesis explains the empirical qualitative research. The operational framework was used to examine three case studies, mixing methods, stakeholders and data collection. Methods included interviews, inductive and deductive coding methods for content analysis, followed by theory-building on stakeholder differences and attribute classification. Results show that by an ‘integral view’ research approach attributes can be identified in both tangible and intangible categories, and, on successive scale levels. The stakeholders involved in the identification have an influence on the attributes, as different stakeholder groups and different individuals show similarities but also focus on different attribute categories and scale levels. Attributes that were intended in the original planning and design of the neighbourhoods are currently assessed as significant but also later added or changed attributes. The research results suggest that attributes specific for 1965-1985 neighbourhoods are perceived as valuable, but also more generic attributes. The identification of this wide range of attributes, according to the ‘integral view’ and a broad definition of heritage, results from open-ended questioning by multiple participatory methods. A process of inductive analysis, classifying and relating attributes resulted in a network of attributes and sub-attributes that illustrates a shared narrative of a neighbourhood. The study provides insights and recommendations for practitioners in heritage participation regarding e.g. the participatory methods that can contribute to the democratic renewal as proposed by the European Faro Convention and the ‘integral view as a way of thinking for heritage professionals and agencies to assess residential neighbourhoods. The attributes and attribute categories identified in the empirical research can provide a basis for further exploration in the Post 65 inventories expected in Dutch municipalities and at the national level in the coming years. For academics, this research provides insights in the heritage assessment of significance by various stakeholders and individuals and the related influence on types and categories of attributes. This research has expanded the boundaries of what can constitute heritage by assessing the heritage significance of attributes in not-listed everyday neighbourhoods. Deep knowledge about attributes of the existing built environment informs efficient use of the existing ones and can help to refuse or rethink the use of new materials and thereby helping the circular economy. Further developing, testing and applying this broader heritage definition and related research methods can contribute to a more informed and sustainable renovation and development of the entire built environment, informed by its heritage significance, regardless of the heritage status.
...
In improving the sustainability of our built environment, we face challenges regarding energy, climate, and equality. In facing these challenges, European countries and institutions emphasise the need to protect and advance the cultural values of the built environment. However, the largest part of the stock that needs sustainable renovation is not listed, nor is its heritage significance assessed, detailing what is valuable (attributes) and why (values). Herein lies the risk that present significant attributes are not identified and maintained in future renovations, causing the loss of a variety of resources and their heritage significance. Moreover, the risk to destroy existing values and attributes can also reduce citizen’s support for future developments. This problem is faced by the housing stock built in Dutch cities between 1965 and 1985, which is more than 30% of the housing stock in the Netherlands. Although in recent years there is a growing attention for Dutch architecture built after 1965, there is a need for more knowledge about its heritage significance. In assessing everyday residential neighbourhoods, the need to involve citizens alongside experts is recommended. The societal relevance of this PhD research is underlined both at national and international levels, with respectively the Dutch ‘Post 65’ program, the upcoming Dutch Environmental Law (Omgevingswet), the European Faro Convention and its Dutch ratification, the Renovation Wave and European Green Deal, and the national and global housing crisis. The objectives of this PhD research are two-fold. First, it aims to reveal new knowledge about the attributes of 1965-1985 residential neighbourhoods. Second, it aims to contribute to the development and testing of methodologies that assess the heritage significance of residential neighbourhoods. The main research question is: What attributes of residential neighbourhoods, built in The Netherlands between 1965-1985, can be identified as significant by the involved stakeholders? This question is further deconstructed in three main components: how (methods), what (attributes) and who (stakeholders). The research adopts a broad conception of heritage, assuming that all buildings and neighbourhoods have heritage significance, including attributes that are valuable, to someone, in some form. These attributes can be the tangible embodiment of a value, but they can also be an intangible attribute, such as an event, use or meaning. The first part of the thesis explains the development of the research framework. An ‘integral view’ research approach allowed multiple value categories and stakeholder perspectives to be included. Exploration of a range of 1965-1985 residential neighbourhoods led to identification of main types, low-rise and mid-rise, that hold representative urban and architectural attributes and could serve as examples for the empirical research. The Heritage Cube developed by Peter Howard was adopted, adapted, and tested as a conceptual model for the operational framework. It integrates attributes, stakeholders, and scales, fitting the purpose of identifying attributes by different stakeholders and finding the potentially differentiated opinions of individuals and groups. The second part of the thesis explains the empirical qualitative research. The operational framework was used to examine three case studies, mixing methods, stakeholders and data collection. Methods included interviews, inductive and deductive coding methods for content analysis, followed by theory-building on stakeholder differences and attribute classification. Results show that by an ‘integral view’ research approach attributes can be identified in both tangible and intangible categories, and, on successive scale levels. The stakeholders involved in the identification have an influence on the attributes, as different stakeholder groups and different individuals show similarities but also focus on different attribute categories and scale levels. Attributes that were intended in the original planning and design of the neighbourhoods are currently assessed as significant but also later added or changed attributes. The research results suggest that attributes specific for 1965-1985 neighbourhoods are perceived as valuable, but also more generic attributes. The identification of this wide range of attributes, according to the ‘integral view’ and a broad definition of heritage, results from open-ended questioning by multiple participatory methods. A process of inductive analysis, classifying and relating attributes resulted in a network of attributes and sub-attributes that illustrates a shared narrative of a neighbourhood. The study provides insights and recommendations for practitioners in heritage participation regarding e.g. the participatory methods that can contribute to the democratic renewal as proposed by the European Faro Convention and the ‘integral view as a way of thinking for heritage professionals and agencies to assess residential neighbourhoods. The attributes and attribute categories identified in the empirical research can provide a basis for further exploration in the Post 65 inventories expected in Dutch municipalities and at the national level in the coming years. For academics, this research provides insights in the heritage assessment of significance by various stakeholders and individuals and the related influence on types and categories of attributes. This research has expanded the boundaries of what can constitute heritage by assessing the heritage significance of attributes in not-listed everyday neighbourhoods. Deep knowledge about attributes of the existing built environment informs efficient use of the existing ones and can help to refuse or rethink the use of new materials and thereby helping the circular economy. Further developing, testing and applying this broader heritage definition and related research methods can contribute to a more informed and sustainable renovation and development of the entire built environment, informed by its heritage significance, regardless of the heritage status.
Collective housing (CH) is undergoing a revival in Belgium. Since 2009, the Flemish Government Architect and his team have been advocating CH, stressing its importance as a task for architects given the demand for affordable housing and the need to reduce the environmental impact of housing. This support for CH has converged with the work of the non-profit citizen organization Samenhuizen (“Living together”) and the ad hoc initiatives taken by individual households and architects. In the Netherlands too, where there is a longer tradition of CH, the phenomenon is once more on the rise because of the housing crisis. As it is a developing topic, the terminology used for CH is also evolving. Drawing on publications on the subject in both Belgium and the Netherlands as well as on interviews with relevant stakeholders, this article sheds light on two widely published cases in both countries (pioneering and current, greenfield and conversion). These cases are compared in regard to thematic areas, based on an extensive literature study on collaborative housing by Lang et al. (2018). In addition to such aspects as the balance between “individuality” and the “collective,” we compare the role played by architects in both countries. Besides similarities, we show that the historical context, and especially the housing policy of each country, has a great influence and that the role of the architect is essential in the development of older and contemporary cohousing projects.
...
Collective housing (CH) is undergoing a revival in Belgium. Since 2009, the Flemish Government Architect and his team have been advocating CH, stressing its importance as a task for architects given the demand for affordable housing and the need to reduce the environmental impact of housing. This support for CH has converged with the work of the non-profit citizen organization Samenhuizen (“Living together”) and the ad hoc initiatives taken by individual households and architects. In the Netherlands too, where there is a longer tradition of CH, the phenomenon is once more on the rise because of the housing crisis. As it is a developing topic, the terminology used for CH is also evolving. Drawing on publications on the subject in both Belgium and the Netherlands as well as on interviews with relevant stakeholders, this article sheds light on two widely published cases in both countries (pioneering and current, greenfield and conversion). These cases are compared in regard to thematic areas, based on an extensive literature study on collaborative housing by Lang et al. (2018). In addition to such aspects as the balance between “individuality” and the “collective,” we compare the role played by architects in both countries. Besides similarities, we show that the historical context, and especially the housing policy of each country, has a great influence and that the role of the architect is essential in the development of older and contemporary cohousing projects.
This paper seeks to approach the context –social, economic and political– that conditioned themassive housing construction in the Netherlands after World War II. For this purpose, it has beennecessary to build a general framework about the construction of public housing in the second halfof the twentieth century, through the analysis of approved urban planning and housing legislationand the identification of the organisations responsible for public housing construction in these years.As the central methodology, the research has required an extensive search of literature andreferences to articulate the relationship between the knowledge previously generated. For thispurpose, in addition to research publications, professional papers or legislative documents, it hasbeen necessary to consult to experts, researchers or professionals as part of a research stay at theDelft University of Technology.Compared to other European contexts, the Dutch housing policy has two differentialcharacteristics that should be highlighted. Firstly, the long history and massive production of publicrental housing promoted by housing corporations. Secondly, a lower legislative output that favoursgreater flexibility, but also agility and adaptability. In this respect, the new regulations that cameinto force in 1965 made it possible to divide the time frame analysed into two periods.The first of these, known as Reconstruction Period, is characterised by a more significant rolefor the Government in solving the housing problem through the Central Housing Directorate of theMinistry of Reconstruction and Housing. The priority was to develop measures to alleviate thehousing shortage. The annual housing construction programs were accompanied by additionalfinancial aid to promote residential production, as well as measures to streamline the design andconstruction processes of housing.The second one introduces a third specific feature of Dutch housing production: innovation.According to the results of this work, this can be exemplified in two directions. From thetypological point of view, the Experimental Housing Programme is promoted, which favours theconstruction of experimental residential projects in its functional programme and its constructiveresolution. From the geographical distribution of public housing, there is also a significant change,focussing on cities of intermediate scale, to curb the excessive growth of the large Dutch cities ofthe Randstad.
...
This paper seeks to approach the context –social, economic and political– that conditioned themassive housing construction in the Netherlands after World War II. For this purpose, it has beennecessary to build a general framework about the construction of public housing in the second halfof the twentieth century, through the analysis of approved urban planning and housing legislationand the identification of the organisations responsible for public housing construction in these years.As the central methodology, the research has required an extensive search of literature andreferences to articulate the relationship between the knowledge previously generated. For thispurpose, in addition to research publications, professional papers or legislative documents, it hasbeen necessary to consult to experts, researchers or professionals as part of a research stay at theDelft University of Technology.Compared to other European contexts, the Dutch housing policy has two differentialcharacteristics that should be highlighted. Firstly, the long history and massive production of publicrental housing promoted by housing corporations. Secondly, a lower legislative output that favoursgreater flexibility, but also agility and adaptability. In this respect, the new regulations that cameinto force in 1965 made it possible to divide the time frame analysed into two periods.The first of these, known as Reconstruction Period, is characterised by a more significant rolefor the Government in solving the housing problem through the Central Housing Directorate of theMinistry of Reconstruction and Housing. The priority was to develop measures to alleviate thehousing shortage. The annual housing construction programs were accompanied by additionalfinancial aid to promote residential production, as well as measures to streamline the design andconstruction processes of housing.The second one introduces a third specific feature of Dutch housing production: innovation.According to the results of this work, this can be exemplified in two directions. From thetypological point of view, the Experimental Housing Programme is promoted, which favours theconstruction of experimental residential projects in its functional programme and its constructiveresolution. From the geographical distribution of public housing, there is also a significant change,focussing on cities of intermediate scale, to curb the excessive growth of the large Dutch cities ofthe Randstad.
Dutch residential neighbourhoods built after 1965 (Post 65) are characterised by a varied range of housing and living environments. As a reaction to the post-war Reconstruction period, architects and urban designers focussed on quality of life and identification with the living environment. Midrise housing was the compromise between high-rise and low-rise, combining quality and efficiency. Today, Post 65 residential neighbourhoods are not recognised as valuable architecture or cultural heritage. Although academic interest in Post 65 architecture is increasing, attributes of midrise typologies are understudied. Research is necessary to document and assess them, to inform stakeholders and contribute to decision making in renovation processes. The central question in this paper is: What are the urban and architectural attributes (tangible and intangible) of Dutch midrise residential neighbourhoods built after 1965? The paper discusses a comparative analysis of five residential midrise examples, focussing on building typology and visual language. The research applied mixed methods and integrates fieldwork, archival and literature research and uses 2D-matrices, juxtaposing urban and architectural attributes. Results show a variety in terms of typology and use of visual language. Two spatial organisational concepts are identified. A 'snake' shapes the urban space, and creates a front. It refers to a formal urban model in which the urban form is the starting point and the development of the building block a means to that end. A 'mesh' arranges housing units and urban space in a sprawling structure, in which a human scale living environment is the starting point. Regarding visual language, the projects show referencing to various architectural movements. This pluralism applies to the 'collection' of Post 65 midrise complexes but also to single neighbourhoods. The urban and architectural attributes are diverse, with diversity as the common denominator. Following Jencks' definitions, the Post 65 midrise neighbourhoods can therefore be regarded as Post-Modern.
...
Dutch residential neighbourhoods built after 1965 (Post 65) are characterised by a varied range of housing and living environments. As a reaction to the post-war Reconstruction period, architects and urban designers focussed on quality of life and identification with the living environment. Midrise housing was the compromise between high-rise and low-rise, combining quality and efficiency. Today, Post 65 residential neighbourhoods are not recognised as valuable architecture or cultural heritage. Although academic interest in Post 65 architecture is increasing, attributes of midrise typologies are understudied. Research is necessary to document and assess them, to inform stakeholders and contribute to decision making in renovation processes. The central question in this paper is: What are the urban and architectural attributes (tangible and intangible) of Dutch midrise residential neighbourhoods built after 1965? The paper discusses a comparative analysis of five residential midrise examples, focussing on building typology and visual language. The research applied mixed methods and integrates fieldwork, archival and literature research and uses 2D-matrices, juxtaposing urban and architectural attributes. Results show a variety in terms of typology and use of visual language. Two spatial organisational concepts are identified. A 'snake' shapes the urban space, and creates a front. It refers to a formal urban model in which the urban form is the starting point and the development of the building block a means to that end. A 'mesh' arranges housing units and urban space in a sprawling structure, in which a human scale living environment is the starting point. Regarding visual language, the projects show referencing to various architectural movements. This pluralism applies to the 'collection' of Post 65 midrise complexes but also to single neighbourhoods. The urban and architectural attributes are diverse, with diversity as the common denominator. Following Jencks' definitions, the Post 65 midrise neighbourhoods can therefore be regarded as Post-Modern.