Actors, Agents and Attendants II: Research Platform II

Report

by Ilse van Rijn

The second research platform, which is part of our preparations for the two-day symposium Social Housing - Housing the Social (November 4 and 5, 2011) further investigated SKOR’s fields of activity. Since the first Research Platform (May 13, 2011), concerns about the consequences and implications of the declining welfare state have increased dramatically. The intention of this second research platform is to understand the potential of self-constructed and self-organised initiatives. Bottom-up initiatives are plentiful in housing and art. The question, however, is whether they can structurally contribute to society. Can the alternative models for the creation of dwellings or art projects be regarded as valid, now that the government - formerly responsible for and providing the structures needed for their development - is in retreat? How can these alternative approaches be combined with existing financial structures?

Hans Vermeulen of DUS Architects, which he founded in 2004 with Hedwig Heinsman and Martine de Wit, presented their activities as building Public Architecture. DUS Architects aims to influence the public domain by using 1:1 scale models in the public sphere, by developing and defining rules using gaming and social media (process design), and by re-evaluating existing structures (programming). They consider the ‘architect curator’ as their model, as someone who, in the words of Hans Ulrich Obrist, is ‘involved with the creation, production, realisation, and promotion of ephemeral situations’. DUS Architect’s Momentary Manifesto for Public Architecture defines rules, such as:
1. Do (design by doing is architectural beta-testing); 
4. Cook (food is social construction material);
9. Put everyone around one table, despite the different intentions of the parties involved.

Of the projects being executed by DUS Architects, Vermeulen mentioned the Bucky Bar (a collaborative project with Studio for Unsolicited Architecture, 2010), a spontaneously built temporary public building that inspired a street party. This project emphasised the potential social impact, rather than architectural sustainability. The principle to ‘create a public, [to] communicate with the people you are building for’ (rule number 5 of the aforementioned manifesto), is also part of another project in which 150 dwellings had to be transformed in the Dutch city of Nieuwegein (2006 - December 2011). What began as an architectural project, came to question the way in which the community was socially organised. DUS Architects restructured the existing buildings and developed different typologies for living together. By doing this, they met the various needs of the residents. Another of DUS Architects’ projects involved transposing to the Dutch situation another three ‘rules’ identified from their research into building, its forms, and how it is legislated in Istanbul. Whereas the Dutch approach to construction is formal and organised from the top down, in Istanbul, Vermeulen encountered rule number 1, Gecekondu, i.e., migratory homes built in a single night. A community of more than 2.000 inhabitants could form a separate municipality within the city of Istanbul and gain proper rights with regard to city services and infrastructure (rule number 2, Negotiation). In 1983 a law guaranteed the wide-scale legalisation of these informal structures (rule number 3, Densification). The actual Istanbul situation is less ideal than it appears to be. For example, because the individuals are not backed by law, the dwellings can be removed without delay if other building projects arise. Thus, one can hardly speak of the tolerance or the sanctioning of the Gecekondu (Fulya Erdemci, SKOR). DUS Architects used these three rules as guidelines, though, for developing a project under the banner of “Play don’t plan. Change the rules and conditions”. They constructed a temporary building in one night out of so-called Turkentassen (the Dutch word for the ubiquitous hardwearing chequered RWB bags). People were invited to use the structure, and occupants were asked for ‘something’ in return for the accommodation (the first occupant offered plants). A vibrant temporary community arose.

For De Wierden neighbourhood in the city of Almere, DUS Architects developed a master plan in collaboration with the municipality, and housing corporations Ymere and De Alliantie. This plan is best described as ‘expanding the envelopes of individual houses’. To cater to the various functions and family situations, 150.000 standard dwellings, which were built in the 1980s, were renovated and modified (the example being the Elemental project in Chile). The occupants became co-creators and were kept up-to-date for the duration of its development, something that seldom happens.

DUS Architects is part of OPEN COOP: ‘a machine that can chew any problem dealing with the really wicked issues in the city’. OPEN COOP is an interdisciplinary collaboration of six companies occupying premises at Overhoeks, the former Shell terrain in Amsterdam. OPEN COOP functions as a cooperative model for knowledge-based industries. The formerly empty building in which OPEN COOP is housed, has been re-programmed and spatially re-organised into a beta business model. It functions as an immediate site analysis, an architectural test case, and a social condenser. OPEN COOP makes a profit from using space and knowledge in an effective way. The site can be used for parties and exhibitions, for example, and the cooperative model can serve as a test case for the city. DUS Architects’ credo is: “DO, it starts today!”

Gieneke Pieterse, from Eva de Klerk’s consultancy, presented the studio’s work at H-spot in Heesterveld, a temporary location for culture and entrepreneurship in the Amsterdam-Bijlmer area. The blocks of housing, designed in the 1970s by Dutch architect Frans van Gool, are being developed using a bottom-up approach. The dilapidated buildings are being reused and a common area is being created where people can meet, work and live. It is considered a ‘broedplaats’, a breeding ground for cultural entrepreneurs. It has 80 entrepreneurs and 50 new tenants. One third of the occupants are the original Bijlmer tenants, one third consists of international students, and one third comes from outside of the Bijlmer. All tenants are given temporary contracts, and the length of their stay might be extended. Due to the experimental phase in which H-spot finds itself, evaluation criteria to measure the success of the project still need to be formulated. Among the temporary facilities, created by and for the tenants, is a restaurant, a hairdressing salon, a studio for an Artist in Residence, and a shop. The new colourful facade creates a strong unique identity for the housing blocks. A model home, constructed with the occupants, functions as a research site for determining what an H-apartment should consist of and look like. The public space surrounding H-spot is being redeveloped with the tenants in the so-called Open Space Activism Marathon. The H-society is an active entrepreneurial association responsible for selecting the new tenants, for maintenance (financed by Ymere), managing and programming H75, for the coaching of the entrepreneurs (Face-to-Face project), and for the contact with Ymere housing corporation.

Marian van der Waals, from Van der Waals/Zeinstra architectural bureau, elaborated on her experiences with the search for alternative forms of living environments for elderly people by introducing two projects, Akropolis Amsterdam and Wouw-wonen. Akropolis Amsterdam is a residential project based on a humanistic approach for people aged 50 and over. It consists of between 150 and 250 units in a combination of living and working spaces. It contains a common area, as well as public services. Wouw-wonen is a project set up by ‘wise elderly women’ of 50 years and older, who are searching for an empty building that would be suitable for a maximum of 50 spaces. The aim is to combine several types of accommodation and to provide services and work spaces.

Generally, it can be said that dwellings for people aged 50 and over, are mainly rented houses, in all rental sectors. This is the first time that the idea of a collective private commissioner has been suggested. The participants want to be involved with the project, which leads to the question of who is going to realise it. The project was initiated by activists who do not necessarily live there.

Van der Waals’ project in Galgenstraat in Amsterdam (1990) is an exemplary project from the past, showing alternative models of organisation for creating living spaces for the elderly. It was an urban renewal project for rent-controlled accommodation, and a housing corporation was a partner. The residents chose the architect, and a team was formed to design the building. The same goes for Van der Waals’ project in the Spaarndammerstraat (1994). However, the design team for this consisted not only of the inhabitants, the architect, and a housing corporation, but also included the municipality. A housing corporation developed the project on the Prinseneilandgracht (1995), which consisted of owner-occupied properties. A flexible approach to designing the houses was required, and different types of spaces were to be included. By contrast, a real estate developer and housing corporations commissioned the urban renewal project at the Buyskade (1998). It involved owner-occupied properties, as well as social housing, and combined living and working spaces. The ways in which the spaces would be used were investigated. ‘Een Vrolijke Oude Dag’ (2003) is a group of lesbian women aged 50 and over, who intend to select the types of care they ultimately might need, and who hope to find 60 spaces in a former industrial building, for example. Social housing and owner-occupied properties should be combined. Also the possibility to either work in or only live in the spaces, common areas, and a shop should be included. Health care must be available 24/7.

Van der Waals concluded by stating that Akropolis Amsterdam is searching for investors and coalition partners, such as pension funds, project developers, and housing corporations. They are investigating the possibility of combining their housing with that of art or medical students, and are looking for a location. Wouw Amsterdam hopes to find a location for their 60 dwellings within the Amsterdam city ring, which is close to public transport and shops. The individual units should measure more than 60 square metres. Until now, vacant office buildings have mostly been too expensive, and furthermore most of them are located beyond the city ring.

The main points within the three presentations were that self-construction and self-organisation are still in an experimental phase. There is no clear model for either one of them. Furthermore, self-construction and self-organisation are not as autonomous as we imagine them to be. They are always linked to, tolerated by, or financed by established institutions, such as housing corporations, the government, or the municipality (Chris Keulemans).

If one wants to identify keywords to encapsulate self-organisation and self-construction, the first four would be: collectivity, activism, adapting to the market, and realism, i.e., the desire to adapt to the situation (Fulya Erdemci). The balance between power and control in the presented projects is significant (Andrea Phillips). These two aspects have to be redistributed to deal with the problems concerning self-organisation and self-construction that are encountered in projects.

Then there is the question of how we can deal with the eventual power shift caused by the economic crisis. Do the roles of the actors in the field have to be completely reformulated? Do we want to function (semi-)independently of the former stakeholders of power and control? Do we need a temporary solution (Huib Haye van der Werf)?

Several positions regarding these questions can be distilled from the discussion. One of these formulates the need to be aware of our position as artists, who are expected to be able to self-organise, to be flexible, and to deal with temporary situations (Ernst van den Hemel). We need a strategy to establish contact with and talk to politicians and investors in order to get them involved. However, housing the social also - or mainly - concerns those who are not strong, healthy or smart enough to act (Andrea Phillips). We should also resist our own opportunism, and not only act with our own interests in mind. Artists should not have to solve problems that are not theirs (Nils van Beek). And housing the social is not only related to the economy, which inextricably ties us to capital: it deals with the so-called soft links, a working ethos, as seen in OPEN COOP (Christian Ernsten).

The symposium Social Housing - Housing the Social further examines the manner in which government’s approach can be helped or pushed to become one of social inclusion, rather than exclusion. Art can play a positive role in this process (Fulya Erdemci). Nevertheless, the counterargument maintains that art itself is a problem (Andrea Phillips). The government's co-option of art has died. Let's, for once, forget about art. Let's not start a gallery in an empty lot. Let's retreat!

Organisers Fulya Erdemci, Andrea Phillips, assisted by Vesna Madzoski
Presenters Hans Vermeulen (DUS Architects), Gieneke Pieterse (Eva de Klerk), Marian van der Waals (Van der Waals/Zeinstra architectural bureau)
Moderator Chris Keulemans
Expert panel Andrea Phillips (Goldsmiths London), Fulya Erdemci (SKOR), Markus Miessen (Studio Miessen), Christian Ernsten (Partizan Publik), Huib Haye van der Werf (SKOR), Nils van Beek (SKOR), de Appel Curatorial Programme, Michelle Franke (intern SKOR), Laura Pardo (intern SKOR), Vesna Madzoski (SKOR), Ernst van den Hemel (philosopher and activist, University of Amsterdam)