Amsterdam. The transformation of Bijlmermeer
In April 2009 we organized a study trip to amsterdam-Rotterdam with our 2nd year architecture students. Walking the Bijlmermeer We were talking about the extent to which it is possible to transform a neighborhood. The Bijlmermeer has been a practical example of the planning promoted by the CIAM, although later it has been better known for the disappointment resulting from the problems generated and the stigma of the numerous attempts for its improvement, and today, for its radical transformation and the attempt to integrate its population.
Since 1974, see the promotional video above for the Amsterdam City HallUntil today, see the video of our visit below, we distinguish several phases in the transformation of the neighborhood after its construction, in which environmental, management and security improvements have been introduced, organizing citizen participation and integration projects. . The latest phase has resulted in the large-scale demolition of more than 50% of blocks. The Bijlmermeer continues to transform and the Dutch government offers it as the main example of the Dutch urban renewal policy, not only due to the size of the operation, especially due to the comprehensive intervention, although the expense involved in both demolition and new construction is unsustainable, and hides the privatization of public land.
Between 1968 and 1975, 13,000 homes were built in 31 large blocks (300 to 500 homes each), 10 stories high and 200 to 300 meters long. (click on this text if you want to see images of the construction of the neighborhood). The apartments with access through an exterior corridor followed the prefabricated cell construction model of Park Hill in Sheffield and Toulouse-le-Mirail. About 90 percent of the area was built with high-rise buildings. The urban design followed the postulates of Le Corbusier and the CIAM: separation of functions (housing, work, leisure), large spaces between apartment blocks, the large-scale park as a landscape, garages and separation of circulation through an orthogonal system of roads. main elevated areas (three meters above ground level).
Contrary to the individualized structure of family life, the Bijlmermeer plan emphasized collectivity. The designers believed that public and social spaces would compensate for the limitations of block living. The covered paths that connect the buildings were lined with shops trying to recreate the traditional street feel. The use of common facilities was designed to create good neighborly relations and community life. The homes were, and in some sense still are, of high quality due to their spatiality, with good sanitary facilities, central heating and a storage room. Most of the housing is social for rent. The planners' intention was to attract middle-income households with children, because the city of Amsterdam already had enough housing for low-income groups.
However, shortly after its completion, problems began and multiplied in the following decades: Protests against high rents, bad behavior of some residents, negative image of the buildings in the media, and cultural heterogeneity without integration.
Added to these problems was the unfinished character of the neighborhood. Many planned ideas and facilities, such as supermarkets and spaces for sports and recreation, were not carried out due to lack of financing. Others, such as public transportation, were built too late. The Bijlmermeer became, instead of a neighborhood with an acceptable level of facilities, a satellite city of Amsterdam without good communication with its center.
Another type of problem had to do with habitability. The numerous semi-public and collective spaces, such as entrances, alleys, corridors, 13,000 ground floor storage rooms, 110 kilometers of galleries and 31 parking buildings, became uncontrollable and hidden spaces instead of welcoming places where people could meet. The management was chaotic, which was contributed to by the fact that control of the buildings was distributed among 16 different associations based in the center of Amsterdam. No one was willing to take responsibility for large public spaces that had been designed in such a way that surveillance became impossible.
A third group of problems refers to the real estate market. Supply and demand were not equal. Even during the construction of the neighborhood, demand was low. The intended inhabitants, middle-class families, preferred other towns around Amsterdam with single-family houses and gardens. Many of the new inhabitants of the Bijlmermeer moved to these areas. Socioeconomic factors, such as increased income, greater free time and mobility, led Dutch society to a process of individualization that did not fit with the collective life of the Bijlmermeer.
In 1974, the occupancy rate was 30 percent. The pressure of the real estate market brought new residents, although many of those people did not agree with high-rise buildings. The apartments remained empty in a period in which the shortage and demand for housing was a priority in national politics. The Amsterdam area was one of the least supplied real estate markets in the country, but not in the Bijlmermeer. Since the late 1970s, the gap between supply and demand was met in the neighborhood by renting to the lowest incomes, low-paid workers, needy social groups and immigrant ethnic minorities (people from Suriname). The Bijlmermeer came to be inhabited by a single social class, ethnically diverse, low-income and unemployed.
Many of the ideals of planning turned into disadvantages (click here to see more images of the neighborhood between 1974-1988). Isolation became anonymity, collective and egalitarian ideas did not achieve great popularity, the advantages of safety from traffic became disadvantages due to social insecurity, garages were hardly used, and instead of social gatherings taking place in the promenades and covered lobbies, the semi-public spaces were occupied by drug dealers and homeless people. The Bijlmermeer changed its image as an example of modernity for a place of poverty, with illegal immigrants, crime, unemployment, and drugs. Thanks to this and the negative news in the media, the image of the Bijlmermeer became worse every year. This did not help solve the occupation problem and led to a critical financial situation.
Many solutions were sought. The first was to stop building in height. Originally, another Bijlmermeer-south had been planned, now being replaced by an area of single-family homes.
During the 1980s around 25% of apartments were empty in the high-rise blocks, bringing the housing association into a critical financial situation. which destroyed the existence of sustainable social structures.
In 1983, a rehabilitation program was developed in order to adapt and improve the existing concept of spatiality. At the beginning of the 80s, the Bijlmermeer improved its communication with the arrival of the metro, and later public services were built such as sports halls, an indoor swimming pool, a police station, a mosque and a large shopping center. The management of the neighborhood is consolidated in a large association called "New Amsterdam", which integrates 15 of the 16 existing associations (one refuses to join). Rents were reduced, garages were used, improvements were made to the buildings, their entrances and surroundings, closing the covered paths to the garages, installing more elevators and security cameras, the buildings were painted in colors, the storage rooms They were closed or transformed into homes with gardens, and some homes were divided to meet the demand for homes for one or two people. Assistance was created to welcome the new inhabitants, as well as other social actions such as cooperation between the neighborhood maintenance team and the inhabitants, which were not very successful.
Urban renewal in the 90s.
Despite all efforts the area remained unpopular and the habitability problems had not been resolved. The increase in maintenance, surveillance, manpower, management, participation and control were not sufficient for the scale of the area, the individualized preferences in residence and the poor behavior of some of the inhabitants. The Bijlmermeer was not improving its position in the Amsterdam regional real estate market, and the new neighborhood association had become so deeply in debt that it was close to bankruptcy, along with its guarantor, the municipality of Amsterdam.
After years of discussion, experiments in improving maintenance, adaptations and partial solutions, it was thought that the urban concept had to change in its structure. The urban design of the Bijlmermeer was considered a mistake because it was too massive, because of its high-rise construction and especially because of the lack of differentiation in the type of housing, since only high-rent apartments were available. In response, new plans were established that, starting in 1992, included the demolition of a quarter of the homes, the sale of another quarter and the improvement of the rest, with new types of houses, including low-density housing. Although previously, the inhabitants who wanted a single-family home were forced to move from the Bijlmermeer. It was thought that this would encourage current residents to remain in their own neighborhood, as well as attract new residents. With this differentiation of types and categories of property, the renewal parties aimed to differentiate the structure of the population and stop the increase in poverty.
The improvement and variety of the urban environment were also included in the neighborhood improvement plans, increasing the functional variety with small shops and commercial firms, treating the space between blocks, and mixing motorized and non-motorized traffic by lowering the elevated roads to Ground level. Most of the 31 garages have been demolished or converted to other functions, while surface parking has been created next to the blocks.
In addition to the physical renovation, the plans were complemented with socioeconomic measures and improvements in habitability. Social improvement in the Bijlmermeer has focused on job creation, establishing an employment office, adult education, support for entrepreneurs and involvement of the unemployed in building activities. Other social interventions support multicultural activities and religious celebrations, improving security, reducing blight and vandalism, with security guards to patrol buildings and handle daily tasks. Pollution has been reduced with an underground garbage collection system.
The location of the Bijlmermeer has changed radically. In many European cities, large housing estates were planned far from the urban center, in spaces where land was cheap and available in large quantities. The Bijlmermeer was no exception to this rule, however, since the mid-eighties the creation of the metro line, the new stadium, cinemas and theaters in the Amsterdam Arena area, have made the area one of the of the most expensive offices in Holland. All of these developments have helped rebuild the image of the Bijlmermeer, provide demand for housing and create jobs at all levels, going from being an isolated satellite city to the center of a network city.
In 2001, after the first years of transformation, a public consultation was held asking residents whether the transformation should be intensified, whether more housing blocks should be demolished, renovated, sold or rehabilitated. While renovating and selling homes are the least desirable options, almost 70% of residents thought it was a good idea to demolish one or more blocks, even if they included their own home. The explanation for these results lies in the disappointment with the current situation and the problems that still exist, despite all the renovation efforts.
The survey confirms that the inhabitants blame the situation of the neighborhood on the high-rise construction model, although the fundamental explanation has to do with the advantages of the inhabitants when their house is demolished, having preference to occupy the new residences built, and if prefer to leave the Bijlmermeer, they have priority to choose vacant housing in Amsterdam according to their type of home. Furthermore, in the Bijlmermeer as in the rest of the Netherlands, those forced to move due to demolition receive a relocation remuneration. One more reason to support demolition is the great success of the new homes built in the 90s. Due to all this, the renovation of old high-rise blocks has become a much less attractive solution, although it is more expensive. And what they offer us as a renewal program has really become a transformation in which the neighborhood planned in the 70s disappears, the original population is displaced, and private builders build new homes on public land.