It is a long-standing and well-appreciated tradition of Docomomo International to emphasize its diversity expressed in buildings, sites, and neighborhoods due to different geography, language, education, and personalities. The term multiple modernisms has been coined to express regional, stylistic, and constructive differences in the formal and philosophical expression of Modern Movement across the globe, within the continents, and even within countries. Docomomo conferences and Docomomo Journals have used and interpreted the term over the last 30 years to express and acknowledge the diversity in the growing community of national working parties. We only need to refer to the recent Docomomo Journal no. 67 (2022) on Multiple Modernities in Ukraine1, or no. 36 (2007) on Other Modernisms2, published in parallel with the 2006 Docomomo International Conference in Istanbul and Ankara (Turkey) with the same title. Other issues highlighted local and regional particularities together and, at the same time, referenced common roots and personal links, such as the preservation technology dossier no. 13 on Perceived Technologies in the Modern Movement 1918-1975 published by the International Specialist Committee on Technology (ISC/T) in 2014. In that publication, the specific and long-term collaborations of architects with engineers and artists were explored often leading to exceptional solutions in structure, design, and function.@en

Docomomo International is proud to present the first Open Issue of the Docomomo Journal. Creating the opportunity for scholars, practitioners, policy makers, activists or any other group of authors to publish in our journal without having to wait for a thematic Special Issue on a theme that would fit their topic felt like the logical next step in (the continued) continuing professionalization of the Docomomo Journal.
In the plan of action for the candidacy of Delft University of Technology as the new headquarters for Docomomo International – presented in 2021 – open access to the journal and expansion of its reach was advocated:
“In addition, Docomomo International aims to involve the Docomomo network more actively into the production of content – in particular linked with the new biannual conferences, seminars and workshops related to digitization, education and sustainability. This will strengthen the role of the Docomomo Journal as a link between Docomomo members, the Docomomo chapters to serve the Docomomo network, and its impacts on professional practices and the general public.”
The Open Issue aims for contributions that do not fit within the topic of the thematic Special Issues but fit the overall scope of the Docomomo Journal. All contributions to this open issue have had the same peer reviewing process, but instead of organized by guest editors, now under the wings of the editors-in-chief. The 2024 Open Issue features articles on the Lagoa Rowing Stadium in Rio de Janeiro, industrial heritage in Egypt and Iran, on Erik Gunnar Asplund’s Stockholm public library, the transformation of a former hospital to a criminal justice complex in São Paulo, and the House of Manoel Coelho in Curitiba.
The creation of a yearly Open Issue in addition to the two regular thematic Special Issues is the next step in the evolution of the Docomomo Journal, that once started as a simple Newsletter and evolved into an academic peer-reviewed and indexed journal (figure 1). The first Newsletter was published in 1989 and changed into a Journal in 1993 (no. 9). Starting with no. 28 in 2003 the lay-out and graphics of the Docomomo Journal changed tremendously, marking the transition into a more academic oriented journal. Another change in graphics took place in 2010, starting with no. 42 and Ana Tostões and Ivan Blasi as editors, also marking the move towards online publication of the individual articles in the Docomomo Journal. In 2022, with the special issue on Modern Plastic Heritage (no. 66) a new lay-out and publication scheme was adopted to accommodate fast online and open access publication of new issues of the journal and its individual articles.
The 2024 Open Issue (no. 71) marks the newest development and we call upon the Docomomo Community to continue using, referencing and contributing to the Docomomo Journal, not only to the thematic Special Issues, but also to the Open Issues.@en

In 2022, Docomomo International launched a call for papers on Modern Movement in Ukraine together with Docomomo Ukraine. More than 20 proposals were received, most of them from authors based in Ukraine itself—despite the difficult circumstances. The Docomomo Journal 67 presented a first selection of those articles to display regional and architectural particularities and current challenges of archiving, documenting, protecting, and preserving the modern heritage. Nearly 100 examples of Ukrainian modern buildings were presented in a graphical overview. The modern Ukranian architecture was dominated by Constructivism from the mid-1920s to the early 1930s, with Kharkiv as the epicenter of production, while Socialist Realism with the Stalin Empire emerged from 1932, lasting until 1955, with Kyiv as the capital of Ukraine. From December 1919 to January 1934, Kharkiv was the first capital of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic and the cultural, economic, and educational center of the new Ukrainian Republic. The status as new capital led to prestigious master plans and construction projects, among them the world-famous Derzhprom building at Freedom Square–as a symbol of Constructivism–or the Kharkiv Tractor Factory–as a symbol of the industrialization of agriculture. The leading role of Kharkiv as a forerunner and capital of Constructivism is often expressed by the famous State Industry House (Derzhprom) built from 1925 to 1928. Being the only modern ensemble in Ukraine nominated as UNESCO World Heritage, it became and still is the focus of identification and pride—despite the many controversial reflections and discussions about the conservation efforts and changes carried out since the original construction in the 1950s and after the year 2000. This explains the many articles dealing with Freedom Square and Dherzprom as a reaction to the call for papers in 2022 and also Docomomo International’s commitment to dedicate this special issue of the Docomomo Journal to Kharkiv under the title From Constructivism to Modernism in Kharkiv.@en

Neither pre-cast concrete nor the company Schokbeton itself is typical for the period 1975-2000, but the paper material saved from the former laboratory of the Dutch pre-cast concrete factory holds an intensive record of concrete recipes and references to buildings from the period 1945-2000. The recipes together with a large number of sample castings left on the factory site in 2015 after the bankruptcy of the company shed an interesting light development of concrete aesthetics. (Fig. 1) [...]@en

Adaptive reuse (AR) of heritage buildings is a complex process involving many stakeholders with different ambitions. Recently, a theoretical model has been proposed to facilitate this process. However, the validation of this model and investigation of the nexus between process steps, methods/tools used by architects, and the effectiveness of projects are still lacking. This paper aims to validate the model by examining four AR projects in the Netherlands, considered effective as winners of a prestigious architectural prize. The research methods included literature reviews, case visits, and interviews with architects and other stakeholders. The model was refined, and methods/tools used by architects in the process steps were identified, highlighting their link with the effectiveness of results.

@en

Adaptive reuse (AR) of heritage buildings is common practice in The Netherlands and is becoming more and more common at the International level. While AR projects are generally considered positive actions towards preserving the qualities of heritage buildings, not all projects have similar (positive) impact. To propose a methodology for dealing with the AR of heritage buildings aiming for positive impact, the AR process has been studied. After a comprehensive systematic literature review, a theoretical model representing the steps of the AR process has been sketched (fig.1). This model depicts the ideal steps of architects in dealing with heritage buildings. To check whether these steps are actually followed, two effective AR projects, winners of the NRP golden phoenix prize, were studied namely ‘LocHal’ in Tilburg (fig.2) and ‘Energiehuis’ in Dordrecht (fig.3). During the research, the cases were visited, the published literature on the cases was reviewed, and architects and other stakeholders involved were interviewed. The interviews were based on the steps of the theoretical model but the model was not shown to the architects till the end of the interview. Finally feedback was asked from the architects if the model represented their actual steps and where they diverged. The analysis of the collected data confirmed that architects followed the steps reported in figure 1. However, the process was reported to be not linear, as suggested in the model, but to include several loops between some of the steps, mainly between steps 1, 2 , 3, 4, 5, and 6 (fig.4). Next to refining of the AR model, investigation of the case studies led to the identification of tools and methods used by architects, which have possibly positively influenced the effectiveness (positive impact) of the final result. Both case studies distinguished themselves, according to the NRP jury reports, because of their high ‘social value creation’. Involving end-users, other producers, and original users in different steps of the AR process has been identified as the main method used by the architects contributing to this positive impact.@en

Docomomo International is proud to present the results of the international project Shared Heritage Africa: Rediscovering Masterpieces and other selected papers from our call for papers Shared Heritage Africa – Campuses, published in December 2022. The SHA project itself, coordinated by Docomomo Germany, focused on rediscovering post-war modern buildings from the 1950s-1980s in the partner countries Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda. This period of independence from colonial rule, from the United Kingdom (Ghana 1957, Nigeria 1960, and Uganda 1962) and from Belgium (Rwanda 1962), has a great socio-political significance and influence on the educational systems and buildings. The rediscovery of this heritage focuses on exploring the values, challenges, and opportunities through the eyes of their contemporary users. Concentrating on the post-war modern buildings constructed after indepen-dence from colonial rule, the project celebrated projects that are situated at the periphery of the architectural discourse and, therefore, seldom documented despite their social, economic, and political significance.@en

This paper explores the opportunities for locals’ participation as a tool for the sustainable redevelopment of vacant heritage. It focuses on the Politiebureau Groningen Centrum (The Netherlands) as a case study to apply a novel approach to engage community participation in architectural redesign. It fills the academic gap on participation in heritage building redesign lacking diversity in stakeholder perspectives and overcomes some of the current participatory design tools’ downsides, identified in the previous literature: lack of transparent communication and high requirement for participants. This research employs a combination of methods structured by sets of divergent and convergent phases. Cognitive mapping, semi-structured interviewing, and a 2,5D model game were tested in the research for inquiry and redesign testing, the two key participatory stages. The research outcomes include participants’ perceptions and remembrance of the site for generating redesign scenarios, the common ground in their scenario preferences, and their contrasting attitudes toward the overall material and the specific elements. The 2,5D model game tool turns out effective in transparently delivering the redesign possibilities to participants and lowering the requirements of time, language skill, and learning capacity, thus being easily repeatable for other sites and participants to boost social and community values. Future research recommendations are given on applying the approach to larger samples covering all the minorities to get in-depth knowledge on the community’s collective perspectives in relation to their sociodemographic characteristics and validate the hypothesis on their preferences toward materials and elements.@en

While heritage conservation is usually associated with the action of “keeping”, circular approaches are often seen as focusing on flexibility, and disassembly. Both share the common goal of using existing resources efficiently and avoiding waste. The conservation of cultural heritage is a complex issue that requires a cautious balance between maintaining heritage values associated with tangible and intangible attributes and managing change to answer the challenges of future use. On the one hand, mining the urban environment for material resources, risks irreparable damage to the historic urban fabric. On the other hand, salvaging components from heritage buildings and re-purposing them can be a sustainable strategy to extend a buildings’ lifetime and minimize construction waste. In the case of buildings threatened by demolition, as several churches in the Netherlands, salvaging components might even be the only way to keep (some) of this heritage alive. In these cases, circular design approaches need to go beyond inventorying materials and components: the traceability of values and meanings to the involved communities become key factors driving reuse strategies. The Zero Waste Church graduation studio at TU Delft provides architecture students with the opportunity to discuss how heritage values might shift to integrate sustainability as a value to preserve. The students selected cases based on three key circularity principles: refuse, reduce, and value retention. By choosing vacant buildings, the students were prompted to refuse the notion of building new and to value space as a limited resource. Some of the selected buildings faced demolition, resulting in projects that have the potential to reduce material waste. Through a heritage value assessment, the students demonstrated that despite being under threat, these heritage buildings still add value to local communities. Students explored creative approaches to redesign from values related to tangible and intangible attributes. This approach aims at instigating awareness and transformative attitudes towards the built environment. Individual students approach the challenge from different perspectives, contributing to a multitude of readings and strategies to deal with the complexity of bridging heritage and circularity. The implementation of the first edition of the Zero Waste studio faced challenges when conflicts arose in determining what to keep, add or transform. A key learning from this experience is that circularity needs to be an integrated part of a design project from the earliest stages. While a fully zero waste heritage may be an unachievable ambition, the aim is to trigger reflection and adopt an explorative approach towards a project.@en

After the two 2022-issues of the Docomomo Journal, number 66 on ‘Modern Plastic Heritage’ and number 67 on ‘Multiple Modernisms in Ukraine,’ this issue reveals another chapter of an often and diversely described theme of Modern Movement and a pressing subject worldwide: Housing.@en

Final report of the research project KaDEr@en

The paper studies local community centres (Serbian: centar mesne zajednice - CMZ) of post-war mass housing neighbourhoods in New Belgrade. Those were designed and built in 1970s as multifunctional centres with facilities and programmes complementary to the housing blocks: socio-cultural, commercial (grocery stores), daily services (post office, bank, crafts, etc.) spaces for socio-political activities and office spaces for the local community. The local community centres significantly increased quality of life of the residents, liveability and socialisation in the neighbourhoods. Furthermore, one of the main aims of these spaces was to enable actual realisation of the self-management in local communities. This paper reflects on the ideological and theoretical basis for their conceptualisation, referring to Edvard Kardelj, one of the main ideologues of self-management and originator of the local community concept in Yugoslavia. Moreover, the paper investigates: how the local community centres were planned, designed and programmed, and how they were spatially integrated in the existing residential blocks; how their organisational and governing role has been neglected over time, and their main purpose altered; and what are potentials and socio-spatial capacities for their future reuse. Reaffirmation of local community centres as utilitarian, governing and social space is recognized as key for promoting participation and collaborative governance in New Belgrade blocks, as well as for improving social connections, solidarity and sense of belonging in these neighbourhoods. As such, the local community centres could be one of the main factors of revitalisation of the blocks, increasing vitality and improving quality of life of the residents. Furthermore, the local community centres could have a major role in unlocking the potential of institutions and individuals towards new effective urban governance structures, as well as institutionalising citizens' participation and bottom-up governance as direct democracy in the city today.

@en

When moving the Docomomo Headquarters to Delft in January 2022, it announced a new cycle of the Docomomo journal by turning the journal fully open access and by introducing a peer-review process. This allows for further scientific indexation of the journal and attracting a wider range of authors. In September 2022 the Docomomo Journal was indexed by Scopus and the issues 1-65 from 1990-2021 are available online in our Docomomo journal Archive. Since then, the Docomomo Journal 66 on Modern Plastic Heritage was published and with this Docomomo Journal 67 we are approaching the country that has dominated our political and cultural discussions in 2022: Ukraine. In January 2022 it was not predictable that national autonomy, human lives and cultural heritage are threatened and destroyed by Russian aggression that started on 24th February 2022. In March of this year, Docomomo International published the Solidarity Statement on Ukraine and has since then been working on this special issue on the Multiple Modernities in Ukraine.@en

The Adaptive Reuse (AR) of heritage buildings is a complex process, which aims to preserve the values of heritage buildings while adapting them for use in the present and transferring them to the future. This paper aims to identify steps in this process and develop a structured model. The model is an ‘ideal’, it needs validation in practice; however, it is expected that following this model can help to preserve and conserve the values of heritage buildings. To come to an overview of the process and to identify its main steps, a literature review at an international level has been conducted. The analysis of the literature revealed that the AR process as a whole in relation to heritage buildings has not been widely studied. Based on the results of this review, a conceptual model representing the AR process of heritage buildings has been defined. This model consists of 10 steps: ‘initiative’, ‘analysis of heritage buildings’, ‘value assessment, ‘mapping level of significance’, ‘definition of adaptive reuse potential’, ‘definition of design strategy’, ‘final decision-making’, ‘execution’, ‘maintenance’, and ‘evaluation after years’. This model can act as a comprehensive theoretical basis for further studies on the AR process of heritage buildings.@en

Adaptive reuse (AR) of modern buildings, including industrial buildings from the late 19th and 20th centuries, is a complex process as it involves many actions and actors, which influence the result of projects. Effective AR can provide many advantages for societies. This paper aims to provide an overview of the three most highlighted criteria, mentioned by previous researchers, for assessing effectiveness of AR of modern buildings.
This research followed seven steps: 1.Reviewing the criteria of “effectiveness” in AR projects in the literature 2.Collecting the data (jury reports of NRP and Europa-Nostra awards) 3.Distilling the reports related to modern heritage buildings 4.Translation of Dutch reports in English 5.Analysing and coding the texts following the criteria mentioned in the literature 6.Analysing the role of effective AR of modern heritage buildings in providing sublimation and social value 7.Formulating some conclusions/recommendations.
This review indicates despite the attribution of the effectiveness of AR of non-modern heritage buildings to the attraction of tourists, the effectiveness of AR in modern buildings is often attributed to positive effects on the surroundings and local community. Moreover, in modern buildings, compared to non-modern buildings, qualities provided by new interventions are highlighted more. This can be related to open space plans, stronger materials, wider spans, and spacious urban settings providing a higher tolerance for acceptable change.
By revealing the aspects of effectiveness within these two criteria, this study contributes to the broader understanding of the AR potential of modern buildings. Though this review is useful for encouraging the reuse of modern buildings, the methods/tools to be used to achieve effective results need more investigation in future research.
@en

Adaptive reuse (AR) of heritage buildings is a complex process due to the involvement of many actions and actors, which influence the results of the projects. The effectiveness of AR projects can be described by various criteria. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the criteria of effectiveness in AR projects with the final scope to guide and improve the AR process. A review of the jury reports of two highly prestigious awards in the Netherlands (NRP Golden Phoenix award) and Europe (Europa Nostra) has been conducted. In total, the reports of 48 cases have been reviewed. The five criteria mentioned in the regulations of the NRP award have been used to categorize the aspects mentioned in the jury reports of both awards. These criteria are: “social value creation”, “sublimation (both architectural and cultural aspects)”, “environmental sustainability”, “economic value creation”, and “innovation”. This review reveals that “social value creation” and “sublimation” are among the most highlighted criteria that the juries considered for the effectiveness of AR projects. Often aspects mentioned for these criteria overlap partially with those aspects mentioned in the criterion of “economic value creation”. This indicates that enhancement of the qualities of heritage buildings and their surroundings and improvement of the social values and the resulting positive economic effects are strictly interrelated. The overview of the criteria of effectiveness, as defined in this work, will serve as a basis for the investigation of the tools and methods which can be used in the AR process to achieve these criteria@en

Industrial heritage is among the products of modern urban development, and the influencing factors of its regeneration and development are often complex. Due to different national conditions, the research progress and approaches in industrial heritage reuse in China are different from other countries. While industrial heritage sites in Europe have become part of urban redevelopment in several regions, China still focuses mostly on single objects, lacking systematic analysis, especially at the urban scale. Regarding the city of Nanjing, an operational approach to complex urban dynamics is proposed based on a simplified analysis of official statistics, maps and GIS technology. The influence mechanisms of Nanjing’s urban planning on industrial heritage regeneration and development after 1990 are analyzed. The results show that urban growth boundaries, traffic accessibility, eco-environmental policies, population distribution, industrial renovation investment and natural resource change all have a significant impact on the abandonment and regeneration of Nanjing industrial heritage. This study expands the research perspective of industrial heritage reuse in China and proposes a clearer systematic planning strategy for the future of industrial heritage in cities.

@en

The concepts of collective management of housing and urban spaces are being revisited within the contemporary discussions about community-driven approaches and practices and, in particular, related to the revitalization of residential neighbourhoods. This research identifies the concepts of self-management and social ownership of housing in the post-World War II period in Yugoslavia as an important legacy of Yugoslav urban planning and housing policies. Although they were subsequently neglected, these concepts can contribute to contemporary global discussions about housing affordability and the role of community in ensuring spatial and social equality. New Belgrade mass housing blocks—the main site for testing the new dwelling concepts, in terms of both policies and modernist design—are the object of this research. The article is mainly a theoretical analysis of the issues of common interest and engagement, common good, and common spaces which played a decisive role in its design. The study applies interpretative and correlational research methods in re-theorizing these concepts and their underlying narratives. It traces how the perspectives on the collective practices and spaces evolved over time, revealing a correlation between changed social practices and the spatial deterioration of the New Belgrade mass housing blocks. The study highlights the importance of both collective practices and common spaces for addressing housing issues, emphasizing their instrumentality, and potentiality for rearticulating the dialogue between public and private, engaging citizens in interactive and inclusive decision-making and co-creation of the urban reality.@en

The article examines the existing infrastructure of open common spaces within two New Belgrade mass housing blocks (Blocks 23 and 70a) through a typo-morphological analysis. These spaces between the buildings, although the most neglected, underused, and deteriorated components of mass housing neighbourhoods, are at the same time crucial to the quality, vitality and integrated governance of these neighbourhoods. They represent the primary tangible commons in cities and neighbourhoods. The question of urban commons is increasingly present in scientific literature, urban and architectural discourse. Nevertheless, approaches exploring the spatiality of the urban commons are scarce, leading to insufficient understanding of the spatial aspect and potentials of the already existing commons. Therefore, this study includes (1) identification, typological decoding and classification of the common spaces, focusing on the case of New Belgrade blocks, followed by (2) analysis of the spatial patterns and integration of the identified spaces within the blocks. The study confirms the complexity and diverse typology of the common spaces. It finds that the in-between, common spaces contribute to higher integration of different segments of the blocks. The open common spaces have an essential role in humanisation of the blocks, and thus the quality of life in the blocks as integrated neighbourhoods. The findings indicate that the spatial setting of the open common spaces in New Belgrade blocks allows for (re)emergence of collective practices, leading to inclusive and integrated rehabilitation of the neighbourhoods.@en