Densification by High-Rise?
Summary
The pressure on the Amsterdam housing market is extensive. In order not to affect too much of the green areas outside the city boundaries, the solution is sought in densification. Post-war city districts are seen by the municipality as a possible suitable place for this densification. But how should you densify these neighborhoods? Densification seems to be achievable by both low and high-rise buildings. The position taken in this social discussion can be placed under a certain discourse, which is a way of speaking and a set of concepts or ideas. These different discourses on the role of high-rise buildings are being researched in this study. But not every post-war city district is the same. For this research, a small homogeneous post-war urban district, the Kolenkitbuurt, and a large homogeneous post-war urban district, the Bijlmer, have been chosen for this study. The discourses concerning the role of high-rise buildings therefore appear to differ greatly in these neighborhoods. The Bijlmer was built in the past with the pro-high-rise discourse of Dutch architect Siegfried Nassuth as leading discourse. Due to the failure of the neighborhood, and the many problems that this neighborhood has experienced, negative storylines arose about this high-rise, and these negative storylines reflected thereafter in the policy, namely the demolition of many high-rise apartments and the replacement with low-rise building typologies. In the Kolenkit there has never been a substantial role for high-rise in the past, and the dominant discourse also seems to hold on to this low-and midrise, to maintain the ‘human dimension’ in the neighbourhood. Partly due to the power positions of a certain housing corporation and the municipality in this neighborhood, their discourse coalition became clearly reflected in the built environment. These discourses can therefore certainly be seen in the built environment, and can be explained on the basis of existing power relationships.