BB
B. Beurs
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>
2 records found
1
The New Social Fabric
An argument for contemporary social living environments
The New Social Fabric explores how architecture and public space can meaningfully contribute to community formation in contemporary social housing. Centered on the redevelopment of the Blikfabriek site in Hoboken, Antwerp, a transitional area between historically distinct urban fabrics, the project investigates the evolution of public and private boundaries in housing design, aiming to improve on previous ideas about community interaction.
The research shows a historical and spatial analysis of Hoboken and neighboring Kiel, tracing ideological shifts in housing typologies, from traditional row houses emphasizing private ownership, through modernist experiments with collective space around the buildings, to more recent developments characterized by pragmatic privacy. Five local case studies featuring buildings and social spaces in the area were analyzed through a consistent framework encompassing historical context, architectural expression, patterns of use, and materiality. People from the community were also interviewed.
These insights informed the design of a mixed-use complex that includes social dwellings, a sports hall, and youth facilities, arranged around a communal courtyard. The design draws inspiration from the qualities of the nearby factory and historic social housing while addressing their social shortcomings through a careful layering of public, communal, and private spaces. Key design strategies include staggered terraces, open sightlines, and activities that residents can take part in, strengthening connections between residents and their shared environment.
Rather than proposing a definitive solution or a radical change, The New Social Fabric positions itself rather as a thoughtful contribution to the ongoing discourse on urban resilience, social sustainability, and the architect’s role in shaping inclusive and adaptable environments. ...
The research shows a historical and spatial analysis of Hoboken and neighboring Kiel, tracing ideological shifts in housing typologies, from traditional row houses emphasizing private ownership, through modernist experiments with collective space around the buildings, to more recent developments characterized by pragmatic privacy. Five local case studies featuring buildings and social spaces in the area were analyzed through a consistent framework encompassing historical context, architectural expression, patterns of use, and materiality. People from the community were also interviewed.
These insights informed the design of a mixed-use complex that includes social dwellings, a sports hall, and youth facilities, arranged around a communal courtyard. The design draws inspiration from the qualities of the nearby factory and historic social housing while addressing their social shortcomings through a careful layering of public, communal, and private spaces. Key design strategies include staggered terraces, open sightlines, and activities that residents can take part in, strengthening connections between residents and their shared environment.
Rather than proposing a definitive solution or a radical change, The New Social Fabric positions itself rather as a thoughtful contribution to the ongoing discourse on urban resilience, social sustainability, and the architect’s role in shaping inclusive and adaptable environments. ...
The New Social Fabric explores how architecture and public space can meaningfully contribute to community formation in contemporary social housing. Centered on the redevelopment of the Blikfabriek site in Hoboken, Antwerp, a transitional area between historically distinct urban fabrics, the project investigates the evolution of public and private boundaries in housing design, aiming to improve on previous ideas about community interaction.
The research shows a historical and spatial analysis of Hoboken and neighboring Kiel, tracing ideological shifts in housing typologies, from traditional row houses emphasizing private ownership, through modernist experiments with collective space around the buildings, to more recent developments characterized by pragmatic privacy. Five local case studies featuring buildings and social spaces in the area were analyzed through a consistent framework encompassing historical context, architectural expression, patterns of use, and materiality. People from the community were also interviewed.
These insights informed the design of a mixed-use complex that includes social dwellings, a sports hall, and youth facilities, arranged around a communal courtyard. The design draws inspiration from the qualities of the nearby factory and historic social housing while addressing their social shortcomings through a careful layering of public, communal, and private spaces. Key design strategies include staggered terraces, open sightlines, and activities that residents can take part in, strengthening connections between residents and their shared environment.
Rather than proposing a definitive solution or a radical change, The New Social Fabric positions itself rather as a thoughtful contribution to the ongoing discourse on urban resilience, social sustainability, and the architect’s role in shaping inclusive and adaptable environments.
The research shows a historical and spatial analysis of Hoboken and neighboring Kiel, tracing ideological shifts in housing typologies, from traditional row houses emphasizing private ownership, through modernist experiments with collective space around the buildings, to more recent developments characterized by pragmatic privacy. Five local case studies featuring buildings and social spaces in the area were analyzed through a consistent framework encompassing historical context, architectural expression, patterns of use, and materiality. People from the community were also interviewed.
These insights informed the design of a mixed-use complex that includes social dwellings, a sports hall, and youth facilities, arranged around a communal courtyard. The design draws inspiration from the qualities of the nearby factory and historic social housing while addressing their social shortcomings through a careful layering of public, communal, and private spaces. Key design strategies include staggered terraces, open sightlines, and activities that residents can take part in, strengthening connections between residents and their shared environment.
Rather than proposing a definitive solution or a radical change, The New Social Fabric positions itself rather as a thoughtful contribution to the ongoing discourse on urban resilience, social sustainability, and the architect’s role in shaping inclusive and adaptable environments.
Stadhuis & Muziektheater Stopera
The influence of architects, politics and the public on the design of Amsterdam’s controversial city hall
Public participation in building projects in The Netherlands is something which really evolved after the Second World War. Architects had a utopian vision for the city of the future, but the general population didn’t find modernist designs attractive and became sceptic of modernist design. On top of that, the nation’s post-war values of anti-traditionalism, openness, tolerance, and democracy suggested public participation should increase.
The origins of Amsterdam’s combined city hall and music theater go back to the early 20th century, when Amsterdam’s City council declared a need for a new city hall, since the old city hall at Oudezijds Voorburgwal, as well as the Royal Palace on Dam square were considered too small. A design contest for a city hall on Frederiksplein was held in the 1930s, with the winning design coming from architects Berghoef & Vegter. It was never constructed due to World War II.
A reworked design to be constructed on Waterlooplein by the same architects ended up being rejected due to significant criticism from the public and other architects, and a new design contest was held, the winner being picked in 1967. This time around, the winner was Viennese architect Holzbauer, proposing an L-shaped office volume, with accessible rooftop terraces and a prominent cantilever volume. Meanwhile, architects Bijvoet and Holt had been working on a music theater / opera in the neighbourhood of De Pijp since the late 1950s. Both projects were controversial and suffered from delays, primarily because Amsterdam lacked the funds to construct either project.
It wasn’t until 1979 that a breakthrough came. The city hall design was rejected by the federal government, since it would consume too much energy. Holzbauer then got the idea to combine the city hall and the opera into one building, arguing that it would save both money and energy, as well as create a building that would be used during and outside office hours.
There were many protests against the design, both from architects and the public who demanded a different setup for the building. Holzbauer and the city council preferred however to keep the design mostly original and only make minor adjustments. Since the planning of the city hall and opera had taken so long already, they didn’t want to create an entirely new design, but instead wanted to quickly start construction. The first post was driven into the ground in the summer of 1982, but not before protestors rioted on the building site first.
The opening of the Stopera was in 1986, and the event was overshadowed by protestors. Protests and criticism had been unable though to alter Holzbauer’s vision for Amsterdam’s city hall, and remarkably little was changed about the design to please critics. Today, the Stopera stands as a symbol to highlight that every project should be integrated into not only an urban environment, but also a culture in which everyone has different opinions. Finding a good middle ground to please everyone is a difficult task. ...
The origins of Amsterdam’s combined city hall and music theater go back to the early 20th century, when Amsterdam’s City council declared a need for a new city hall, since the old city hall at Oudezijds Voorburgwal, as well as the Royal Palace on Dam square were considered too small. A design contest for a city hall on Frederiksplein was held in the 1930s, with the winning design coming from architects Berghoef & Vegter. It was never constructed due to World War II.
A reworked design to be constructed on Waterlooplein by the same architects ended up being rejected due to significant criticism from the public and other architects, and a new design contest was held, the winner being picked in 1967. This time around, the winner was Viennese architect Holzbauer, proposing an L-shaped office volume, with accessible rooftop terraces and a prominent cantilever volume. Meanwhile, architects Bijvoet and Holt had been working on a music theater / opera in the neighbourhood of De Pijp since the late 1950s. Both projects were controversial and suffered from delays, primarily because Amsterdam lacked the funds to construct either project.
It wasn’t until 1979 that a breakthrough came. The city hall design was rejected by the federal government, since it would consume too much energy. Holzbauer then got the idea to combine the city hall and the opera into one building, arguing that it would save both money and energy, as well as create a building that would be used during and outside office hours.
There were many protests against the design, both from architects and the public who demanded a different setup for the building. Holzbauer and the city council preferred however to keep the design mostly original and only make minor adjustments. Since the planning of the city hall and opera had taken so long already, they didn’t want to create an entirely new design, but instead wanted to quickly start construction. The first post was driven into the ground in the summer of 1982, but not before protestors rioted on the building site first.
The opening of the Stopera was in 1986, and the event was overshadowed by protestors. Protests and criticism had been unable though to alter Holzbauer’s vision for Amsterdam’s city hall, and remarkably little was changed about the design to please critics. Today, the Stopera stands as a symbol to highlight that every project should be integrated into not only an urban environment, but also a culture in which everyone has different opinions. Finding a good middle ground to please everyone is a difficult task. ...
Public participation in building projects in The Netherlands is something which really evolved after the Second World War. Architects had a utopian vision for the city of the future, but the general population didn’t find modernist designs attractive and became sceptic of modernist design. On top of that, the nation’s post-war values of anti-traditionalism, openness, tolerance, and democracy suggested public participation should increase.
The origins of Amsterdam’s combined city hall and music theater go back to the early 20th century, when Amsterdam’s City council declared a need for a new city hall, since the old city hall at Oudezijds Voorburgwal, as well as the Royal Palace on Dam square were considered too small. A design contest for a city hall on Frederiksplein was held in the 1930s, with the winning design coming from architects Berghoef & Vegter. It was never constructed due to World War II.
A reworked design to be constructed on Waterlooplein by the same architects ended up being rejected due to significant criticism from the public and other architects, and a new design contest was held, the winner being picked in 1967. This time around, the winner was Viennese architect Holzbauer, proposing an L-shaped office volume, with accessible rooftop terraces and a prominent cantilever volume. Meanwhile, architects Bijvoet and Holt had been working on a music theater / opera in the neighbourhood of De Pijp since the late 1950s. Both projects were controversial and suffered from delays, primarily because Amsterdam lacked the funds to construct either project.
It wasn’t until 1979 that a breakthrough came. The city hall design was rejected by the federal government, since it would consume too much energy. Holzbauer then got the idea to combine the city hall and the opera into one building, arguing that it would save both money and energy, as well as create a building that would be used during and outside office hours.
There were many protests against the design, both from architects and the public who demanded a different setup for the building. Holzbauer and the city council preferred however to keep the design mostly original and only make minor adjustments. Since the planning of the city hall and opera had taken so long already, they didn’t want to create an entirely new design, but instead wanted to quickly start construction. The first post was driven into the ground in the summer of 1982, but not before protestors rioted on the building site first.
The opening of the Stopera was in 1986, and the event was overshadowed by protestors. Protests and criticism had been unable though to alter Holzbauer’s vision for Amsterdam’s city hall, and remarkably little was changed about the design to please critics. Today, the Stopera stands as a symbol to highlight that every project should be integrated into not only an urban environment, but also a culture in which everyone has different opinions. Finding a good middle ground to please everyone is a difficult task.
The origins of Amsterdam’s combined city hall and music theater go back to the early 20th century, when Amsterdam’s City council declared a need for a new city hall, since the old city hall at Oudezijds Voorburgwal, as well as the Royal Palace on Dam square were considered too small. A design contest for a city hall on Frederiksplein was held in the 1930s, with the winning design coming from architects Berghoef & Vegter. It was never constructed due to World War II.
A reworked design to be constructed on Waterlooplein by the same architects ended up being rejected due to significant criticism from the public and other architects, and a new design contest was held, the winner being picked in 1967. This time around, the winner was Viennese architect Holzbauer, proposing an L-shaped office volume, with accessible rooftop terraces and a prominent cantilever volume. Meanwhile, architects Bijvoet and Holt had been working on a music theater / opera in the neighbourhood of De Pijp since the late 1950s. Both projects were controversial and suffered from delays, primarily because Amsterdam lacked the funds to construct either project.
It wasn’t until 1979 that a breakthrough came. The city hall design was rejected by the federal government, since it would consume too much energy. Holzbauer then got the idea to combine the city hall and the opera into one building, arguing that it would save both money and energy, as well as create a building that would be used during and outside office hours.
There were many protests against the design, both from architects and the public who demanded a different setup for the building. Holzbauer and the city council preferred however to keep the design mostly original and only make minor adjustments. Since the planning of the city hall and opera had taken so long already, they didn’t want to create an entirely new design, but instead wanted to quickly start construction. The first post was driven into the ground in the summer of 1982, but not before protestors rioted on the building site first.
The opening of the Stopera was in 1986, and the event was overshadowed by protestors. Protests and criticism had been unable though to alter Holzbauer’s vision for Amsterdam’s city hall, and remarkably little was changed about the design to please critics. Today, the Stopera stands as a symbol to highlight that every project should be integrated into not only an urban environment, but also a culture in which everyone has different opinions. Finding a good middle ground to please everyone is a difficult task.