| 1. |
- Van Toorn, Roemer, 1960-
(författare)
-
No More Dreams? : The Passion for Reality in Recent Dutch Architecture . . . and Its Limitations
- 2003
-
Ingår i: Architecture in the Netherlands 2002/03. - Rotterdam : NAi Publishers. - 9789056622916 - 9056622919
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- It was once not considered foolish to dream great dreams. Imagining a new, better world energized thinkers and spurred their resistance to the status quo. Now utopian dreams are rare. Instead of chasing after elusive ideals, we prefer to surf the turbulent waves of free market global capitalism. In our wildly prosperous First World—brimful of computerized production, technological and genetic applications, and commercial and cultural entertainment—reality can seem more exciting than dreams. Some even maintain that the ideals we strove for in the past have now become reality: according to Third Way politics, the neoliberal economic engine simply needs a bit of fine-tuning; late capitalism is the only game in town: although social rights and a measure of equality are needed, globalism can only be accommodated.1According to this free market fundamentalism, utopian attempts to change society lead to dictatorships. Not only conservatives think this. Neo-Marxists Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri argue that the organization of resistance in the margins is no longer necessary now that resistance is active in the very heart of society.2 They believe that late capitalism is so complex and dynamic that it is capable of switching automatically from an alienating equilibrium of control into a potentiality for multiple freedoms. Everything is changing much faster than we ever imagined it could. Until the 1980s, mainstream cultural institutions condemned the transgressive operations of the avant-garde, whereas today they support and favor trangressive works, because they gain publicity from scandal. Time and time again, global capitalism has shown itself capable of transforming its initial limitations into challenges that culminate in new investments. One important consequence of this is that earlier forms of social criticism and social engagement are outmoded. Thus many reflective architects believe that it no longer makes any sense to spend time constructing new ideologies or criticizing “the system.” Instead, they draw inspiration from the perpetual mutations of late capitalism.3
|
|
| 2. |
- Van Toorn, Roemer, 1960-
(författare)
-
Autonomous Architecture Against Splintering Urbanism : NFI from Claus and Kaan & Parkrand De Nijl Architecten
- 2004
-
Ingår i: Architecture in the Netherlands 2003/04. - Rotterdam : NAi Publishers. - 9789056623708 - 9056622919
-
Bokkapitel (refereegranskat)abstract
- A lot of Dutch architecture, such as that of OMA, MVRDV, NOX and UN Studio, is heavily influenced by carefully charted data flows. The architects are not so much interested in form as in organization of content. Not standstill – such as making a point – but permanent movement that can develop along a line, is what it is all about. In opposition to this we find architects who believe in the autonomous power of form which can persist independently of the time-dependent programme. According to the proponents of autonomous architecture, the enigmatic form that arises from the organization of content is incapable of resisting the homogenizing ravages of privatization, lifestyle architecture, the proliferation of brain parks, the overdose of iconography, in short the ‘Ikea revolution’ currently taking place in the Dutch landscape. Strong form, such as developed by De Nijl and Claus en Kaan, demonstrates how powerful forms are resisting splintering urbanism.1Instead of inventing yet another new fashion in the battle for consumer’s attention, De Nijl investigates how architecture can embody and represent the collective memory of the city. It is not the changing life of individual use or of the programme, but how the permanent elements of architectural language can render the city legible that is of overriding importance for De Nijl. How does De Nijl arrive at a durable urban framework in the face of a constantly changing programme? In the Parkrand housing development in Osdorp, the freely divisible floor plans made possible by loadbearing facades ensure plenty of scope for programmatic mutations. But the design approach that really counts for De Nijl is that of the scale, type and the rhythm of volumes and spaces. ‘Typological analysis,’ says Henk Engel of De Nijl, ‘uses the fact that the recognisability and communicative powers of forms are based on the (historical) experiences shared within a culture, creating a common background.’2 The existing city furnishes the designer with material from which a certain typological composition can be developed. De Nijl honours the ideal of the open city embodied in the Van Eesteren’s General Extension Plan for Amsterdam (AUP, 1935) by adjusting the dimensions, scale and detailing of its six tower blocks to fit in with the Zuidwest Kwadrant redevelopment area in Osdorp. Unlike the windows in a residential area of freestanding houses, the prefabricated window panels in De Nijl’s housing scheme have no autonomous meaning. Because of the use of a single prefab element for the whole project, the windows do not stand out from the surface of the urban volume but are a seamless part of it. This application of the prefabricated panel emphasizes the fact that architecture at the level of the detail can be part of the whole, that it is in the service of the collective expression that determines the city in Osdorp. This treatment of the volume not only ensures that the project conforms to the ideal image of post-war housing, but also reveals in all honesty the true face of economical industrialized housing construction. To satisfy the demand for a distinction between private and public spaces, De Nijl introduces a typology that does not appear in the modern city à la Van Eesteren. Rather than planting the towers in an anonymous sea of green, they are arranged in pairs on a U-shaped base that opens towards the park and closes towards the street behind. This courtyard-like typology introduces a new idea of community into the AUP. The diffuse character of the open rows of housing in this urban area is enhanced by combining an open layout with the ground-level occupation of the closed city. Instead of caving in to the forces that fragment the city, De Nijl raises the idea of the modern city in the AUP to a higher plane.
|
|
