rotterdam post-war reconstruction and the lijnbaan case
Post on 27-Nov-2015
50 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ROTTERDAM POST-WAR RECONSTRUCTION AND THE LIJNBAAN CASE
Exercise 1 | History and Theory of the XXth Century Architecture and Urbanism | Politecnico di Milano
VASCO HORTA | November 2013
On the afternoon of the 14th of May, 1940, german Luftwaffe erased Rotterdam XIXth century old
town, victimizing more than 800 people and destroying over 25000 homes. It didn’t take more than six
years before the approval of the ultimate modernist Basic-plan (1946), by the urban planner Cornelis
Van Traa. Taking advantage of a completely expropriated city center by the city council, with renewed
infrastructures, the new urban design discarded almost every still standing building, regardless of its
historical value [A].
A new city, completely drawn from scratch and prepared for sparkling economic progress, industry and
prompt transportation, was demanded. In fact, in the 1940’s, the mechanization of the port and
industrial development urged modern movement planners to struggle to improve car circulation in the
pre-war inner city and transform it in an industrial city [Laar, 2000]. However, only the war devastation
would let them carry out their plans. That is the reason why, during the discussions, city council would
consider Van Traa draft a “liberation plan”. [Wagenaar, 1993] The utopia of a welfare state, based on
swift economic growth was not compatible with an old, inefficient and narrow urban fabric, unprepared
for cars circulation, and a dysfunctional mixed-use city. Highways, bridges and tunnels would connect a
new metropolis, divided into 3 types of districts, according to the I CIAM (1928)1 statement of urbanism
primary functions: dwelling, working and recreation2 [B]. Traffic was welcome in a renewed industrial
city and would connect its world class port with Europe, as, in the meanwhile, cars became symbols of
modern civilization, new objects of ritualization, the ” great gizmo” of the modern man3 [C].
Van Traa plan resulted of a belief in urban planning as tool for social and economic progress. One year
after the approval of the Rotterdam plan, modern architects in VI CIAM (1947) would write in
“Reaffirmation of the Aims of CIAM” that urbanism must “(…) work for the creation of physical
environment that will satisfy man’s emotional and material needs and stimulate his spiritual growth” and
they would add that “To achieve an environment of this quality, we [urban planners] must combine
social idealism, scientific planning and fullest use of available building techniques”. Indeed, it was the
believe in an prosper future, provided by industry and commerce, that justified a strict, “scientific”,
separation of city functions, connected by fast lanes, in the pursuit of the efficiency of the city as
productive unit. The city center, transformed in an open-air shopping mall would attain modern man’s
material and spiritual needs of consumption. The reconstruction process will witness urban planners’
1 Compilation from History and Theory of the XXth Century Architecture and Urbanism lectures. 2 Kiefhoek housing project (1933), also in Rotterdam, designed by J. J. P. Oud, is one early example of a housing
district, where commerce and services are concentrated in two quarters, separated from the residential cluster. 3 BANHAM, Reyner, Design by Choice, Londres, Academy Editions, 1981.
outright neutrality before the concerns of architecture. In fact, I CIAM Declaration of La Sarraz (1928)
would frame urbanism concerns only on the realm of functional occupation of land, traffic organization
and legislations. In this sense, Basic-plan will outline a street grid, design infrastructures and impose
functional uses, leaving building design for market tendencies and real estate investors to decide. A
similar historical example of public-private shared roles in urban development is Manhattan, which will
be theorized by Rem Koolhaas in “Delirious New York” (1978)4. In the American case, the combination
of a rigid regular grid and total freedom of design inside each lot will result in a flexible, thrilling and
enjoyable private city, regardless of being subordinated to real estate speculation. Rotterdam’s case is
also similar to Manhattan in what concerns permissive building regulations and displacement of
traditional public spaces in favor of private domain, as we will demonstrate following. Also, new
legislation will permit high-rise building enterprises and densification in the name of economic
development [Laar, 2000].
Named Lijnbaan (ropewalk), because of an old rope factory, Rotterdam’s main street was devastated in
the 1940 bombings. A new urban design by architects Van Der Broek and Jacob Bakema made tabula
rasa of the destroyed fabric, raising a cluster commercial sector, next to a cultural sector and an
administrative sector. With stores in ground floors and housing and offices in the towers above,
Lijnbaan is a plain example of the outcome of Van Traa’s plan. Modern, geometrical, with glass surfaces
and neon signs announcing each store, this urban ensemble is symbol of a culture of consumption,
economic prosperity and welfare [D]. Three years after the Rotterdam plan Sert, Léger and Giedion, in
“Nine Points on Monumentality” (1943)5, state that “Monuments are human landmarks which men have
created as symbols for their ideals, for their aims, and for their actions”. We could affirm that, according
the authors theory, Lijnbaan absence of a traditional monumental composition (squares, public buildings,
museums, etc.) could be justified by the society’s difficulty to create monuments, due to the lack of a
“unifying consciousness and unifying culture”. However, the Modern man revises himself in a culture
fostered by the products and images offered by the Modern metropolis. Indeed, Lijnbaan asserts its
monumentality in the spectacle of consumption, in the meaning rendered by Guy Debord in “Society of
Spectacle” (1967)6. Lijnbaan has no squares. Its center is a street with pedestrian traffic and in which
movement is always suggested, in a consistent transcript of the macro city designed for cars.
From the 1960’s until today, Rotterdam has been targeted with criticism. The welfare utopia was
discredited and the citizens were no longer satisfied with their rationalist city. The lack of livability in an
austere clustered and, in a way, nihilist city was the core of the post-modern criticism. A private city
without identity symbols, as in Lijnbaan, which center was full of globalized chain stores, no monuments
and no traces of history, could no longer serve the spiritual needs of its citizens.
4 KOOLHAAS, Rem (1978), Delirious New York: A Retroactive Manifesto for Manhattan, New York:
Monacelli Press. 5 SERT, J. L.M, LÉGER, F., GIEDION, S (1943), Nine Points on Monumentality
(www.ub.edu/escult/doctorat/html/lecturas/sert1.pdf, on 20/10/12). 6 DEBORD, Guy (2000), Society of Spectacle, London: Black and Red.
top related