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.