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.@en

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.

@en

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.

@en

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.@en

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.@en

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.@en

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.@en

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.@en

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.

@en

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.@en

[Intro] The paper introduces a participatory tool for assessment of the Middle-Class Mass Housing (MCMH) in Europe that was simultaneously applied in two studies, on the two cases New Belgrade (Serbia) and Almere Haven (The Netherlands). The studies were exploring the values, problems and opportunities of these residential neighbourhoods through the eyes of their residents. [Method] A comparative analysis reveals contrasting and complementary aspects of the two cases. Exploratory interviews and surveys were used to collect testimonies of residents, informing the method of assessment (co-diagnosis) in residential neighbourhoods. By applying the same tool and comparing results, the paper contributes to a validation of this method for research on MCMH neighbourhoods in different regions and for different MCMH typologies and scales. [Result] The paper highlights some main themes of residents’ analysis of their neighbourhood’s strengths and weaknesses. Aspects discussed are, among others, deterioration (technical, functional, social), sense of community, place attachment, maintenance and taking care, ownership and appropriation, quality of public spaces and green areas, satisfaction and comfort. Both researches are still in development, but some preliminary conclusions can be sketched. Although both cases were built in the same decades (1970s-80s), they seem to hold opposite architectural and urban characteristics. New Belgrade is composed of modernist blocks with mass housing types in a high-rise urban pattern with mainly collective green spaces. Almere Haven is a suburban low-rise pattern and consists of a wide variety of typologies, materials and a range of private, collective and public green spaces. However, the residents’ opinions and assessments show many similarities, regarding the themes they address and the values and problems they identify. [Value for MCMH] The paper illustrates the diversity of MCMH in two different European regions and projects, identifying the broad scope that is needed to assess MCMH. Moreover, the method of exploratory talks with residents is identified as an important participatory tool within the broader analytical framework for MCMH neighbourhoods.@en

Dutch New Towns are in-between old and new. They are not yet recognized as cultural heritage. At the same time, they are passing through major transformations. Research is therefore necessary to document and assess them, to inform stakeholders and prevent later regrets for disregarding this Groeikernen legacy. This paper presents a comparative analysis of five low-rise suburban neighbourhoods in Dutch New Towns. The central question in this research is: what are the urban and architectural attributes (tangible and intangible) of the residential architecture in Groeikernen? The applied methods were fieldwork, archival, and literature research. The paper presents two extreme positions in design concepts and societal aims that have dominated the Groeikernen residential architecture. On the one hand, the humanist approach advocating an organic architecture focused on the human scale, diversity, and inclusivity. This architecture was a countermovement to Modernism, producing mass housing in disguise. On the other end, a neo-rationalist reintroduction of the Modernist tradition by a pragmatic and formal architecture manifests mass housing unambiguously. This paper discusses the influence of these two positions on the architectural discourse, by illustrating their specific impact on the documented neighbourhoods. Many designs of housing typologies adopt characteristics of these extremes, playing on both sides. This leads to a rich collection of typologies, combining humanist and neo-rationalist characteristics. The exploration of tangible and intangible attributes of the Groeikernen legacy in this paper aims to enable a future discussion about its values, which is needed for the development of informed heritage policies, conservation, and transformation.

@en

This publication presents the Almere Heritage Cube: An Assessment framework for Participatory Heritage Valorisation in Almere. It reports a research project that has been conducted by researchers of Delft University of Technology and Eindhoven University of Technology in 2019-2020. Why Almere? What is an “Almere Heritage Cube”? Almere is representative of post-war heritage inclusive of experimental housing units and neighbourhoods representing the architectural and urban design trends of the post-war period. Although it is relatively young in age, and thus not well acknowledged by both academics and public, it possesses a significant characteristic. Based upon the observations and opinions of the residents, who know Almere best, the study explores what are the qualities of the living environments through innovative and participatory processes to preserve them for the future.@en

Two portraits of European Middle Class Mass Housing. As the experts of their living environment the resident’s explain to us what is: valuable, problematic or desirable. We explore everyday neighbourhoods of Almere Haven and NewBelgrade, using resident’s testimonies as a tool for analysis. This Video and used material is part of two on going PhD projects.@en

Structuralism represents an architecture that can interact, grow and adapt. The buildings can be recognised by their vivid open structures, composition of small units, and a spatial organisation like a city. As a reaction to CIAM functionalism, the avant-garde members of Team 10 proposed inclusive and social space and a more human form of urbanism and architecture. Starting in 1959, Dutch Structuralism became a very influential movement in the development of architecture in The Netherlands. Structuralism has been the focus of the 2017- 2018 educational programme of the Section Heritage & Architecture at the Delft Faculty of Architecture. It has been a resounding success and is has been a pleasure to see so many young designers being inspired by the works and concepts of what is one of the most influential movements in post-war architecture in the Netherlands. In various Master studios, 64 students have surveyed and analysed four icons of Structuralism before embarking on a redesign project for their adaptive re-use: the Centraal Beheer office building, designed by Herman Hertzberger, the Faculty of Arts building and the Willibrordus Church, both designed by Joop van Stigt, and Aldo van Eyck’s Pastor van Ars Church in The Hague. This project ‘The Future of Structuralism’ shows our search for what Structuralism is and our assessment of some of its opportunities and shortcomings. But most importantly, it focusses on potential strategies for reuse. The structure of this booklet is thematic. By focusing on several themes that were important in Structuralism, we aim to link ideology, current examples from practice of transformed Structuralist buildings and design strategies. Through an exhibition, a debate and this publication, we hope to bring the work from within the chair to a wider audience and add new perspectives to the debate on the movement and its future values.@en

Volgens prognoses van ABF Research is er tot 2035 behoefte aan een miljoen extra woningen. Grootschalige industriële woningbouw kan bijdragen aan het terugdringen van het tekort. Dit heeft in het verleden echter de positie van bouwes versterkt en daarbij zeggenschap van bewoners en aanpasbaarheid van de woningvoorraad beperkt. Het 1M Homes-initiatief van de TU Delft onderzoekt onder meer hoe Open Bouwen, in combinatie met digitalisering en automatisering, kan bijdragen aan een duurzame oplossing voor het woningtekort en tegelijkertijd bewoners zeggenschap kan geven.@en

Purpose: Although residential neighbourhoods are the largest and most resilient share of a city and the process of urban conservation and renewal is ongoing, methods to assess their values are limited. This paper presents the results of a systematic literature review, revealing the state of the art and its knowledge gaps with regard to methods for assessing values of architecture in residential neighbourhoods. Design/methodology/approach: The systematic literature review is based on studies selected by a research protocol, using a digital database of peer-reviewed literature. A metanarrative approach is used to synthesise the qualitative data from reviewed articles. This review has two stages: (1) giving an overview of the field and (2) categorising research methods and disciplines. Findings: The review revealed a wide variety of studies from different disciplines and deduced its key trends, titled as “storylines”, concerning the methods to assess significance, integrating a broader scope of values and different perspectives. In particular, the “storylines” outside traditional heritage disciplines offer methods to include more stakeholders, link value assessment to policy development or highlight heritage potential. Results reveal the diversity in concepts and strengthen the need for an interdisciplinary vocabulary on values and methods, enabling planners and policymakers to compare their results and help to create more attractive and resilient cities. Originality/value: By reviewing and comparing the selected studies from a wider range of disciplines and research fields, this paper shares insights into the complementary characteristics of the different types of value research, outlining the added value of the different perspectives.

@en

Contribution (essay) to a publication as part of a urban sociatal project about the contemporary values and need for change of the urban renewal areas of the 1970's in Rotterdam-West.@en

This article seeks to analyse the reciprocal influence between the post-war urban planning policies and the development of residential neighbourhoods in Lelystad between 1965 and 1990. This city has been designed ‘from scratch’ as the urban centre of the IJsselmeer Polders, the largest land reclamation project of the Netherlands. Lelystad’s neighbourhood development will be described and contextualised in the Dutch New Towns planning policy (1960–1985), which intended to avoid increasing congestion in the most densely populated area in the Netherlands: the Randstad. Lelystad is seen as a significant case. This New Town exemplifies the evolution in urban planning in The Netherlands in the second half of the twentieth century. Cornelis van Eesteren, who had presided over the CIAM (Congrès Internationaux d’Architecture Moderne) from 1930 to 1947, was responsible for the urban design in 1964, based on the principles of the Modern city and the functionalist design of residential neighbourhoods. However, Van Eesteren was dismissed, and his plan was modified. The successive urban plans, elaborated by the IJsselmeer Polders Development Authority (a public body for the development of the polders), adopted a technical and practical approach, and later moved to functionally integrated neighbourhoods, based on more organic ‘Woonerf’ theories. The research investigates the relationship between the general and the particular by studying the socioeconomic and political context that conditioned the Dutch New Towns and the specific urban and architectural characteristics of a selection of residential ensembles in Lelystad’s neighbourhoods. Furthermore, the research seeks to illustrate the relevance and the influence of both urban planning policies and the effective design of residential configurations.@en

Description in words, drawings and photo's of a traditional Japanese wooden townhouse, its characteristics and the opportunities for reuse. Special focus on the function of the corridor (toriniwa).@en