Content uploaded by Małgorzata Mader
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Małgorzata Mader on Nov 22, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
MSc. arch. Malgorzata Mader
Institute of Architecture and Urban Planning, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Environmental
Engineering, Lodz University of Technology, Poland
Amsterdam’s Post-war Buildings Transformations in Bottom-up
Processes. The Role of Municipal Housing Policy, Architects and
Collaborative Groups of Future Residents in DIY (Klushuis)
Affordable Housing Idea.
Abstract
Due to the shortage of houses and the rise of housing market prices in Amsterdam, there is a high demand for
diversification means of getting a place to live. From the municipal policy and bottom-up engagement, the idea
of DIY emerged – the process of involving future residents in existing housing transformation process, which
would allow for low-cost apartment sale in return for self-managed renovation. The aim of the study is to
investigate the process of the investments and evaluate the results in terms of the quality of architecture, socio-
economic implications and goals of the sustainable development policy as well as defining the role of all actors
taking part in the process. The objective is to research the examples of successful cooperation between botto m-
up movements and municipal policy in order to broaden the view on options for efficient use of post-war
housing heritage. The research is based on the case study of 3 DIY processes realized between 2016 and 2022 in
Amsterdam and it shows that a well conducted process leads to high quality apartments as well as promising
social effects. Nevertheless its affordability can be questioned, therefore it should rather be treated as an
alternative for active middle-class citizens, not as social housing solution.
Keywords Bottom-up, Transformations, DIY housing, Community-led housing
Introduction
There were two waves of large-scale demolitions in the Dutch cities. The first is the cleansing related to the
post-war transformations, and the second - from the end of the 90s - the demolition of those transformations.
Fifty years old, modernist buildings and urban planning were not seen as a valuable heritage. In 2001 In
Amsterdam “Richting Parkstad 2015” plan was presented. It assumed the demolition of 10,000 houses in Nieuw
West and the construction of 17,000 new ones. A quarter of houses in the cities-gardens would be razed to the
ground. The Ministerie van Volkshuisvesting, Ruimtelijke Ordening en Milieubeheer (VROM: The Ministry of
Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment) council called to slow down the decision-making process on
demolitions. A similar voice could be heard from the residents. So-called renewal plans were verified by the
crisis of 2008. Financial shortage forced the creativity and carefulness on investors. One of the biggest housing
associations in Amsterdam- Stadgenoot changed its strategy to renovations instead of demolitions in order to
save money and at the same time to keep the promise of delivering housing in Van Tijenbuurt,
Eendrachtparkbuurt and Goeman Borgesiusbuurt neighborhoods. In exchange for low prices of apartments,
housing associations would allow future residents to finish their houses by themselves.
The research investigates the path for Collectief Particulier Opdrachtgeverschap (CPO; Collective Private
Commissioning), Mede Opdrachtgeverschap (MO; Co-Commissioning) or other participative investment model,
to conduct building transformations in Amsterdam. This city notices the highest demand for new housing in the
Netherlands as well as the fastest price growth since 2008 (Hekwolter et al; 2017). The prices of housing
ownership in December 2021 were over 20% higher than in December 2020
1
. The characteristics of
Amsterdam’s housing market and its socio-cultural background, create a prominent incubator for experimental
building processes. Do-it-yourself housing as an idea addresses the problems of neglected neighborhoods
revitalization, post-war architectural heritage and participative models in housing investments. Case studies of
those models should be taken into account while shaping revitalization alternatives for top -down investment
plans. The first part of this article outlines the socio-economic background of Dutch housing practices from the
second half of twentieth century and outlines conditions for self-organization in the housing market in the
1
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek/CBS; Statistics Netherlands (https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2022/04/house-
price-increase-20-4-percent-in-december accessed: 12 May 2022)
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
Netherlands and Amsterdam. It briefly explains the path to participation for bottom-up organizations and the
non-standard approach to housing design. In Results and Discussion it describes three successful realizations
which took place between 2012 and 2019 and tries to measure their success from the sustainable values point of
view in the qualitative case study. Finally, it evaluates the projects as a vehicle for neighborhood regeneration
practices and tries to define the role of parties in the design process.
Background for the self-organization of construction processes in revitalization.
Since the beginning of the 2000s, there has been a gradual increase in recognition of the architecture of post-war
housing estates (Blom A. et al. 2004), which were a response to the rapid increase in the population in cities and
an attempt to improve the conditions of residents of inner-city districts struggling with sanitary and social
problems. The end of the 1950s and the beginning of the 1960s were a period of debates on managing big scale
revitalization, including the problem of slums in cities.
2
In 1956, the Amsterdam Society for Urban
Revitalization
3
declared its readiness to revitalize the areas of exclusion. A year later, the Ministry of Public
Housing and Construction
4
published a book intended to oppose the massive demolition of problematic
neighborhoods. Inhabitants, fearing above all higher rental prices, began to create tenant organizations and
neighborhood committees so that municipalities would refrain from large-scale demolitions. The inhabitants
were supported by left-wing parties and youth. In 1966, Amsterdam's Provos
5
called for the doors of empty
houses to be painted white, thus inviting them to occupy them and counteract the demolition. This was a spark
to ignite the squat movement in Amsterdam. The face of the rebellion against the mass demolitions was Jan
Scjaeffer, who also opposed the city policy and the planned liquidation of the housing estate at the
Rustenburgerstraat where he lived. Despite the fact that the demolitions were stopped, Amsterdam lost
thousands of houses from the seventeen and eighteen centuries. The Dapperbuurt housing estate (Figure 1) and
the Klinkerbuurt housing estate were severely affected. The presence of land for new buildings provoked a
heated discussion on multi-family architecture in cities and its scale.
Figure 1 Left:Foeliestraat demolitions, 1971 (Cityarchive Amsterdam Right: Amsterdam Nieuw West
demolitions, 2015 (author: Rufus de Vries)
The technology allowed for the construction of taller buildings, including prefabricated structures, accelerating
the replenishment of the deficit of 260 thousand apartments
6
. Opponents of typological changes feared that
medium and high-rise buildings would be built solely to solve a quantitative problem, ignoring social and
qualitative issues. Although the choice of skyscrapers was not always made out of conviction, higher and higher
residential buildings were built throughout the Netherlands in the second half of the 1960s. In 1965, a new
Housing Act entered into force Woningwet. It further strengthened the position of housing associations by
giving them the right to the same financial support as private entities, both in the sector of social housing and
2
Krotopruiming en sanering. In the publication, the Ministry does not provide an exact definition of slums and
describes them as "a subjective concept of a residential area uninhabitable and unsuitable for reconstruction".
3
Amsterdamse Maatschappij tot stadsherstel
4
Minister van Volkshuisvesting en Bouwnijverheid
5
Counterculture movement, active in the Netherlands in 1965-1967. Provos are considered to be the European
progenitors of hippies. The social order they proposed was to be built on respect for the individual and
cooperation, which was to replace the omnipresent competition.
6
Data for 1956 according to the Economic Construction Institute
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
construction of a higher standard. Adri Duivesteijn
7
points out that it was in the post-war period in the
Netherlands that the process of creating housing was disconnected from the social needs of residents and the
role of architects in designing buildings was limited. The process was contributed by the growth of housing
cooperatives towards large-scale organizations, managed top-down and chaotically. Residents demanded
participation in the policy of housing associations, but democratization in the management of communal
resources often ran counter to public interests. In the sixth decade of the twentieth century, the post-war baby
boom generation took the lead by creating a society focused on the development, consumption and
empowerment of individuals. The conflict escalated and various groups of dissatisfied residents spoke up at
poorly attended cooperative member assemblies, trying to force the fulfillment of demands. One of the first
"administrative upheavals" took place in the Amsterdam Patrimony of the cooperative with almost 7,000 homes.
As Wouter Pieter Beekers writes about this time: “Everywhere the committees of residents sprang up like
mushrooms after the rain. They also organized themselves at the national level. In 1972, the Dutch Tenants'
Association (Nederlands Verbond van Huurdersverenigingen) was founded. A year later, the National Advocacy
for Urban Renewal (Landelijk Ombudsteam Stadsvernieuwing) was established. The government recognized
these interest groups as spokespersons for residents. awarded them a seat on the Housing Council (Raad voor
de Volkshuisvesting
8
) and subsidized their work. (Beekers,” 2012: 220)
In 1976, the Secretary issued the announced regulations on the participation of residents. He obliged housing
co-operatives to work on "external democratization" and to allow tenants to express their views on issues that
are important to them, such as rent increases and building maintenance costs. It was a form of compromise
previously criticized by some circles. A critical voice announcing grassroots activity was a young architect and
Ph.D. student at the University of Delft, Hugo Priemus. At the annual meeting of the National Housing Council
in October 1973, where the position of the corporation was discussed, Priemus criticized the fact that
institutions offer almost no space for people to express themselves in their living environment. He was in favor
of introducing housing cooperatives as an alternative to social housing (H. Priemus, 1973). His speech did not
go unnoticed and a few weeks later, the Secretary of State Schaeffer presented a bill on urban revitalization,
which was to enable the cooperation of private developers, cooperatives and residents in the so-called
stadsvernieuwingscorporatie (urban renewal corporation)
9
. Soon after, at the NCIV (Het Nederlands Christelijk
Instituut voor Volkshuisvesting: The Dutch Christian Institute for Public Housing) congress, the cooperative
introduced the term housing corporation- woningcorporatie. On the wave of urban and settlement renewal,
grassroots neighborhood movements began to take their place, reviving housing centers. There were ideas for
self-organization and participation like Hebrakens’. In 1971, more than one hundred and fifty people in
Purmerend founded the Kasko group to develop a housing estate. The houses were delivered unfinished - only
the "outer shell" was built - walls and structures, so that future residents could shape the interiors according to
their preferences. The initiative met with great interest and in 1974 resulted in the creation of Landelijke
Bouwvereniging Kasko. In the same year, in connection with the trend of owning real estate, the House Owners
Association was established
10
. At that time, a discussion about the statutory possibility of purchasing
cooperative flats was stirred up. Lawmakers tried to find a golden mean between the Scandinavian model of
perceiving tenants as potential owners and the complete lack of the possibility of privatizing apartments. An
alternative model called "security of ownership" has been proposed.
11
Co-operatives sold flats cheaply to their
tenants, but remained responsible for a large part of the maintenance and administration of buildings, for which
they were paid by buyers. The buyers and the cooperative were also supposed to share the profits in order to
counteract speculation. In the 1980s, the burden on the state with financing from public funds for numerous
cooperative investments began to be felt. Unemployment was rising, contributing to an increase in public debt.
Prime Minister Dries van Agt tried to respond to the crisis by reducing public spending and thus hitting housing
co-operatives. Gerrit Brokx, who replaced van Dam as the secretary of state, focused on further liberalization of
the housing market, including allowing rent increases, which sparked numerous protests. Some tenants resorted
to a rent strike
12
. The government's relationship with the squatters' movements worsened. In the early 1980s, at
Vondelstraat 72 in Amsterdam, the police tried to evict the squatters. There were riots during the intervention.
7
Politician, Director of the Dutch Institute of Architecture (NAI) and councilor of Almereresponsible for
spatial planning and housing. Co-author of city development plans in accordance with the principles of
sustainable development and implementation of grassroots movements at the stage of spatial planning.
8
Here: about the council of the Christian Housing Institute Nederlands Christelijk Instituut voor
Volkshuisvesting- NCIV which, along with NWR, was the largest organization supporting housing
cooperatives. The institution was established in 1970.
9
This idea turned out to be too difficult to implement in practice and this cooperation never came to fruition.
10
Dutch: Vereniging Eigen Huis
11
Dutch: beschut eigenwoningbezit
12
In a rent strike tenants do not collectively pay their rent until the landlord complies with their demands.
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
The police lost control over the situation and as a result 53 policemen were injured. The conflict escalated and
turned into a skirmish involving tanks and armored vehicles breaking through the barricades set up around the
city
13
. Participants of the protests under the slogan "Geen woning, geen kroning" (No housing, no coronation)
they manifested their opposition to the queen's coronation in the face of a conflict over places to live. The
serious clashes lasted for years, but the bottom-up voice on "the right to housing" was heard by the authorities.
In 1981, under the "Free Real Estate Act" Leegstandwet squats acquired legal status (Premius 2011). The law
provided that a building could be legally squared if it had been empty for at least one year
14
and the owner will
not provide a usage plan in a few months. From 1980 to 1985, the number of squatters grew to around 20,000,
which illustrates the movement as increasingly structured and noisy. It was during these years that the organ
was established kraakspreekuren in each district that advises people interested in renting a squat. An additional
aspect influencing housing at that time was a large migration, especially to big cities. When the quantitative
housing shortage ended, the original city dwellers were looking for a luxury that they could not find in post-war
housing estates. Over 400.000 people moved to Amsterdam from 1960 to 1985. Metropolitan settlements with
cheap cooperative housing have been inhabited by migrant families, especially from the territories of the former
Dutch colonies: Suriname and the Netherlands Antilles. In extreme cases, at the end of the 1980s, migrants
accounted for 90% of the population. In politics, the discussion on the participation of residents was
commissioned to two committees. Brokx Secretary of State commissioned a group of experts, led by NWR
director Van Velzen, to develop ideas to stimulate innovative practices in social housing, including in the area
of participation (Beekers, Van der Woude 2008: 319-321). The report resulted in the creation in 1982 of the
Committee on Stuurgroep Experimenten Volkshuisvesting (SEV; Public Housing and Experimentstwenty).
15
The Committee was entrusted with the task of stimulating innovation in terms of quality improvement, cost
savings and "increasing citizen involvement" through social experiments. The government appointed its
members, but otherwise the committee was independent. SEV initiated a series of experimental cooperative
projects. In the abandoned hospital in Groningen, it tried to create a legal form of self-government for the
inhabitants. In Amsterdam, he assisted a group of residents, who wanted to save one hundred council houses
from demolition, handing them over to collective management. The former squats formed the first Zelfbeheer
(housing groups) occurring in large numbers and most often in large cities. Tenants were allowed to manage the
property, although they did not own it. Zelfbeheer has collaborated in partnership with Woningbouwvereniging
Gelderland
16
. Thanks to SEV grants in 1985, WBVG was able to start projects in Arnhem, Nijmegen, Twello,
Wageningen and Zutphen. Groups began to form Centraal wonen, also in cooperation with housing
associations. These groups have been part of larger corporate investments. Centraal wonen assumed the sharing
of many spaces, such as a kitchen or a living room, and sometimes took the form of communes. Self-organized
multifamily housing marked its presence in Dutch neighborhoods.
Current situation
The last decade of the twentieth century became a period of privatization of the housing sector with
simultaneous attempts to stimulate affordable housing. In the cities, attempts were made to counteract
ghettoization, which became a growing problem. In 1995, a quarter of the metropolitan districts had over eighty
percent of the population of non-Dutch origin (Vogel 2005: 134; Heerma van Voss 2011: 289; Beekers 2011:
284). Social cohesion was under the pressure of linguistic problems. Moreover, the overrepresentation of
migrant groups has also resulted in a concentration of low-skilled and financially disadvantaged families in the
cities. Municipalities implemented a strategy for Mens en Milieuvriendelijk wonen en werken-,the premise of
which poorer and richer residents live and work in a mixed community. The ambition of these projects was to
create sustainable living environments, usually consisting of individual buildings around a common garden
space. In cities, MMWW was also created in the process of building adaptation, such as Plantage Doklaan
17
,
formerly functioning as a church, printing house and school, or Het WG-terrein, which was originally a hospital
complex
18
. Between 1995 and 2005, the Vinex housing program was implemented, aimed to increase the
13
Amsterdam - Verzamelde Historische Filmbeelden 1980: Ernstige rellen bij ontruiming 'De Vondel' in de
Vondelstraat, Amsterdam - oude filmbeelden (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_m3DsvlewM accessed: 13
May 2022)
14
The first entry was for six months, then it was extended to a year.
15
Oryg. Stuurgroep Experimenten Volkshuisvesting: (https://actorenregister.nationaalarchief.nl/
actororganisatie/stuurgroep-experimenten-volkshuisvesting-vrom accessed: 12 May 2022)
16
WBVG is a housing corporation established in response to the poor housing situation of young people
in the first half of the 1980s.
17
The Dokhuis Community (2017) (https://plantagedok.nl/ accessed: 15 May 2022)
18
WG Terrein Woon/Werk Vereniging (https://wg-terrein.nl/ accessed: 15 May 2022)
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
availability of housing in the face of the growing population of the Netherlands. The memorandum defined the
rules for the occupation of new areas by housing and emphasized the need to limit expansion in the suburbs by
concentrating urbanization around the existing small town centers. It was also a start for second wave of mass
demolitions (Figure 2). Developers took the lead in land purchase rights and few locations were open to
zelfbouw (Dammers et al., 2007: 6). The conditions for new investments were additionally defined by the top-
down guideline assuming 30% for affordable housing (Tummers, 2017). In 2000, another memorandum,
People, Wishes, Living (Mensen, Wensen, Wonen) confirmed that the state intends to accelerate the expansion of
the owner-occupied housing market, to reach 65 percent by 2010 . Politicians adopted a strategy of shifting
considerable responsibility for newly constructed flats onto private hands, setting a target of 30% of newly
constructed buildings in the process of zelfbouw .This legal act is also a formal beginning of Collective Private
Commisioning -construction groups, cooperatives in Dutch law. The Act of 2000 introduced the concept of CPO
(Collectief Particulier Opdrachtgeverschap), shaping the contract between actors in the construction process for
private clients in the group. The memorandum also mentions the need to build flats dedicated to specific users,
while paying attention to the ecology of construction processes.
In 2003 the Dutch economy stepped into recession and the government has worked to reduce expenses. It was
also necessary to limit municipal investments by tens of millions of dollars. Housing associations often made
mergers, saving smaller co-operatives and pooling resources, with the result that individual organizations owned
more than 10,000 homes. Corruption flourished inside many corporations. Scandals have severely damaged the
trust in housing associations, both of the government and the public. The authorities started to use solutions to
diversify the housing market. In the middle of the first decade of the 21st century, the implementation of
solutions for zelfbouw in urban planning has been provided in several municipalities. In line with the use of the
centers' absorptive capacity, buildings for renovation began to be sold off at relatively low prices. The low
purchase costs were conditional on the owners' obligation to renovate the property themselves. This idea was the
basis for the creation of klushuis- do-it-yourself housing. In 2006, the target of 30% of housing as zelfbouw has
been lowered. In 2010, housing became the responsibility of the Ministry of the Interior, which initiated the
'zelfbouw expert team" (Tummers, 2017: 156) Nevertheless current support for cooperative housing in the
Netherlands is formulated at municipal level thus it is justified to analyze projects per municipality.
Methodology
The DIY project’s analysis is a part of the author’s research on the typology of collective housing initiatives
built after 2010 in Amsterdam. Three projects were selected for this case study in order to indicate those
investments that refer to post-war architectural heritage. The framework was to select projects based on
following criteria:
1. The project was developed together with future residents in CPO, MO process, or other non-standard
models, which included future resident’s participation;
2. Investment was a transformation of the existing building which could be considered as post-war
modernist heritage;
3. The main goal of the investment was to create long-term affordable housing;
4. The project was started after 2010 and finished before 2022, so it can be considered a new approach to
housing.
The projects were analysed in qualitative case study, in two stages. The first one is a description of the process
and characteristics of the existing architecture and the second evaluates the results of the process. Process in this
paper is understood as a set of activities that occur at the time between the idea to invest as DIY group and the
finalization of the collaborative part of the project. This likewise includes the parties of the process and
outlining their role in it. In order to compare affordability, the budget summary was analysed and compared
with the average prices of houses in the same location and time. In this publication architecture is considered
through the transformation process in a participative model, so the most researched parameter of the buildings
was their adaptability- their predisposition to adapt to modern housing requirements. This implied the necessity
to analyse building parameters, existing structure, and its relationship to the environment urban-wise and social-
wise. In order to embed the projects in a broader context of bottom-up housing initiatives and refer to the result
of the building process the existing evaluation system was used. The characteristic of bottom-up housing
initiatives are aptly listed and conducted on 51 projects from Berlin in the publication called Self-made City. The
authors referred to 10 qualities that can be found among cooperative projects and could be considered as added
value in comparison to traditional architecture:
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
1. Neighbourhoods and Urban Interaction – understood as positive social (non-gated community) and spatial
integration with the close environment.
2. Shared Space, Community and Social Focus – considered within the collective group itself.
3. Long-term Affordability – answering the question of who was a target group for the specific project and how
diversified were the members of the community in terms of social and budget circumstances.
4. Open and Green spaces – taking into account shared open or green spaces created by the group or kept
because of their intervention.
5. Re-use and Re-activation – understood as a well conducted process of building adaptations
6. Hybrid Concepts (mixed use) – explained as a multipurpose space use (excluding housing)
7. Quality (re-)densification – does not apply to existing buildings transformation projects unless there were an
extra, new volume provided.
8. Custom-fit solutions for every generation – considered as solutions fitted to specific needs of the individuals
which formed a collective group.
9. Investment in Ecological Building
10. Future-oriented Solutions and Experimental Models – applies to all Klushuis CPO projects. The
participative process is considered as an experimental model.
The above mentioned qualities are referred to the analyzed examples, as they fulfill the requirements of well-
processed neighborhood regeneration. Data for the analysis was collected through project visits and interviews
and through documents published by the Municipality of Amsterdam, CPO groups and architects. Klarenstraat
case is sufficiently studied in the book DIY Klarenstraat A new perspective on the post-war social housing
block, published in 2017, as it refers to the legal and design process as well as financial and social aspects of it.
Results and Discussions
In the early 2000’s many neighbourhoods around the vibrant Amsterdam city centre were facing socio-
economic problems. Nieuw-West district divided between three housing associations, was planned to be re-
developed. The municipal designers at the Bureau Parkstad planned the procedure. In fact hundreds of rental
dwellings perished and were replaced by higher-density owner-occupied housing units. The initial plan was seen
as a promotion of homeownership at a cost of social housing (Aalbers 2004; Uitermark 2009; Hochstenbach
2016). The crisis of 2008 caused the housing delivery failure. Many investments could not be finished on time,
or be realised as promised. Far West – the fusion of De Key, Stadgenoot and Rochdale housing associations,
which was started for the purpose Nieuw-West urban development, decided to end its activity in 2010. A former
director Jacques Thielen said in response “A large-scale approach to entire neighborhoods no longer seems
appropriate. Due to postponement and waiting for better times, management and maintenance will become
more important than project development in the coming years.”
19
It came at a time when municipality of
Amsterdam started seeing the potential for zelfbouw and its neighbourhood regeneration possibilities. In 2012
two post-war, modernistic buildings were considered as candidates for CPO process regeneration: the housing
block at Klarenstraat, and Kleiburg big scale housing block in Bijlmer. Post-war areas where the cheapest to buy
an apartment and the prices per square meter stated around 1900 € and still remain as most affordable ones
within the city. Price, together with an urgent need for neighbourhood regeneration, made a good field for DIY
housing investments.
DIY Klarenstraat- Case 1
Klarenstraat house transformation is one of the first DIY processes which fulfilled the ambitions of many
disciplines around the topic of neighbourhood regeneration. The building was owned by Alliante housing
association, which was ready to sell it for a relatively low price and decided to treat it as Staalmanplein
neighborhood’s renewal experiment. The institution asked for the advice of Urbannerdam- a consultancy organ
experienced in leading experimental processes in Spangen (Rotterdam) on post-war housing blocks between
2004 and 2009. The advisors came up with an idea to divide the building by means of horizontal and vertical
openings, not necessarily following the original sectioning. They cooperated with Van Schagen architects on
spatial qualities and diversifications. It was architects who started a website where potential buyers could find
information about the process and costs of apartments. The site informed about parts that had to be done by a
professional contractor and parts to be built by residents alone as well as the sum of all necessary materials. The
19
Dutch: ,,Een grootschalige aanpak van complete wijken lijkt niet meer van deze tijd. Door uitstel en het
wachten op betere tijden worden beheer en onderhoud de komende jaren belangrijker dan projectontwikkeling.''
In Echt Amsterdams Nieuws, (https://www.at5.nl/artikelen/50621/corporatie-far-west-stopt-ermee, accessed: 15
July 2022)
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
website stated the purchase price of a common building parts (shell) of the 100 m2 apartment and what amount
was still needed to turn it into a liveable space. This information determined the ultimate financing requirement
of the whole investment. Architect Arjan Gooijer reported more expectations from the clients in comparison to
traditional processes like precise instructions to the homebuilders and so-called soft skills like encouragement
and motivation, yet still his design knowledge was crucial. The architecture transformation process was likewise
different, as future residents had freedom in determining the layout of their apartments. The Architect decided to
provide direct meetings with all the residents in concept design phase and definitive design phase. He proposed
live sketching to put together individual wishes and explain technical possibilities. Gooijer mentioned that
dialogue and live design were fruitful and he emphasized the importance of spontaneous suggestions, even
though it required more time and involvement, which needed to be included in the budget
Not showing a fin
Figure 2 Klarenstraat building. Left: Before the process (picture source: Dash, Van woning naar woning: 148
(https://journals.open.tudelft.nl/dash/article/download/5081/4633/14469, access: 05 August 2022), Right: After
the process (picture mirrored).
The Klarenstraat building was built in 1956 as a four storey housing block. It originally consisted of forty
identical 75m2 flats with loggias. The structure was made in MUWI system
20
which was stable enough to allow
for volume extensions of up to two meters balconies as well as small rooftop units. In terms of inner space
Urbannerdam with an architecture office proposed a solution that would take into account the original rhythm
provided by modular structure, but simultaneously create different spatial relationships within the existing grid.
To research the potential of the building Van Schagen collected a number of global sample plans with different
dimensions that were placed randomly in the building. In the early stage the preconditions were defined together
with the urban planning supervisor and Welstand. Clear frameworks were needed to indicate what residents
were and were not allowed to do with their apartments. The architect was aware of the framework’s importance,
as when strictly constructed, it could have blocked the creativity. The process of division between future
residents was made in the Excell sheet, as this program was accessible for every resident. The clients were
colouring cells to mark their units and by this means representing desired section. This resulted in a Tetris-like
composition (Figure 3). There was no ambition in restoration of the original design from the 1950s. Designers
were researching on façade options which would express new interior division s, but eventually the original grid
character was kept. Windows in this building were taking up 80% of the façade and due to their poor insulation
properties, they were influencing energy label significantly. To maintain appropriate sustainability values, yet
still refer to affordability of the building, Alliance decided on replacing PVC windows and renovating wooden
ones. Still, in the end all the windows were replaced. Insulation of the units was made in a way that would not
diminish the appearance of the façade. The decision was to insulate the building from the inside using floating
floors including underfloor heating, sheeted walls and insulated ceilings. The decision to dispose of the loggias
was dictated by thermal reasons, as CPO had high sustainability ambitions to receive energy label A for all the
apartments.
Those aspects improved architectural quality, making the project more expensive compared to standard Alliantie
social housing investment. Sander Gelinck (in: DIY Klarenstraat, s. 142) point out that it was approx. 100.000€
more per apartment. Therefore the project cannot be considered a financially focused development. The
earnings are located elsewhere, in neighbourhood empowerment. The building was and remains part of the same
urban tissue, and so does the community living in the building. People that got into the Klushuis investments
were young or middle-aged couples and families, among which vast majority had have lived in Amsterdam’s
20
System developed by Muijs and de Winter in 1952. Slabs were made of light reinforced concrete beams and
airbricks, walls of light concrete airbricks and columns of cast concrete in the façade. The system was very
popular in the Nethelands between 1952 and 1968 when almost 30000 homes were built this way.
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
housing neighbourhoods before the process. They wanted to stay in Amsterdam, thus improving their living
space quality within reasonable economic boundaries. The necessity for high level of involvement in the project
guaranteed that people who would take part in it had resources for further social interactions. Alliantie HA
evaluates the project as “very successful socially”, although it does not precise the demonstrable effects. What
Patricia van Ulzen (in DIY Klarenstraat, s.185-186) sees as the promising effects are deliberate integration
between other buildings facing communal garden which is a mix of social renters and owners expressed in
football plays and picking up litter or so-called burendag; neighbors’day in shared green space.
Figure 3 Klarenstraat units division. Top: oryginal one, Bottom: new division.
Broekmanhuis- Case 2
3,5 km distance from Klarenstraat in Osdorp district stands Broekmanhuis building, which was transformed in
the balanced, socially sensitive process. It was far less loud and media-oriented than Klarenstraat, therefore
deserves attention even more. This neighbourhood, which is now a part of Nieuw-West, used to be one of the
most disadvantaged areas in Amsterdam. It was urbanised after 1950’s as a part of city’s expansion plan based
on the garden city concept, developed mostly as social housing buildings. Osdorp, as we read on the official
municipality website, since the end of the 1990s, part of Osdorp has been re-developed through a process of
demolition and new construction.
21
The line of the big-scale demolition by Far West stopped two streets away
from Broekmanhuis – former elderly home and later school, which was put to sell to CPO group or MO
professional by the Municipality of Amsterdam in 2015. It was municipality’s requirement that the development
would happen collectively with the future residents. In 2012 architect’s studio Ponec de Winter together with
DiD Vastgoed- ontwikkeling developer decided to form an investment model that would financially help the
group in DIY process. With help of social designers from The Beach for Creative Innovation they managed to
form a group of people from close surroundings and people who lived in the area before and wanted to come
back. Because Broekmanhuis is a professional-led process it qualifies as MO, which is reflected in the roles and
financial responsibilities of the parties. The municipality tendered the building for fixed price and organized
selection for development plans. The founders were required to prepare the framework for the idea including
motivation, quality check, and risk estimation, which was then validated by the municipal jury. The difficulty
that occurs in almost all CPO projects is that as an investor you can be qualified to take a mortgage only after
receiving a building permit. This creates a potential risk of investing big resources in bureaucratically extended
procedure that does not guarantee reaching the goal and can last 1,5-2 years. The burden of investment and
financing risk in the first stage was taken by the developer. The project was eventually accepted by the
municipality and started as a promising, socially-oriented process. As Katja de Winter said in my interview: “It
started with an enthusiastic group, but most of the people, because they do it for the first time, have no idea
about the process and its length.” Only one couple was participating in the process from the beginning until the
end, as the rest of the participants were gradually exchanging. During the difficult moment of the ongoing
process which was a collision of dreams and real possibilities, the group hired a process manager, who pushed
forward the decision-making. The leading team was arranging group meetings as well as individual ones.
Together they managed to divide the building according to the group requirements. It resulted in a wide variety
21
Gemeente Amsterdam/ City of Amsterdam (https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/districts/nieuw-west/osdorp/
accessed: 13 July 2022)
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
of different apartments, similar to Klarenstraat Tetris-like idea. The rigid, gridal structure of the building made it
relatively uncomplicated to achieve seven different typologies of the apartments including two and three-storey
houses and L-shape flats from 55 to 130 m2 big (Figure 4).
Figure 4 Units division. Top: oryginal grid, Bottom: new division.
The building was insulated from the inside to keep the original brick façade. Each apartment is an insulated box.
The windows and were replaced with double glazing. One of the apartments is supported with photovoltaics
installation, but there was no further ambition for sustainable solutions due to the costs. Building structure, as
well as municipal rules, allowed for having one extra floor, which eventually was built locally for 10 of the
houses. Apartments on the first floor have an access to the gallery, which remained from the original project and
is now a second level, private traffic space and shared balcony. The further goal was to achieve the direct
connection of the apartments on the ground floor with the street. This decision opened the building toward
public space raising its quality. Together with the building, the group bought the terrain behind the building
which was turned into the garden consisting of 2 parts: 4 m deep private part and collective part. The shared part
is closed to the public and it is being used by the group or occasionally by other neighbours for meetings and
events.
Figure 5 Broekmanhuis. Left: Before the process, Right: After the process. Pictures source:
(https://ponecdewinter.nl/portfolio_page/broekmanhuis-amsterdam/ access: 05 July 2022)
What distinguishes Broekmanhuis from most of the CPOs is a focus on social process sensitive to the location.
The group managed to finish the project which is a natural part of the neighbourhood, not only because of the
affordable old building regeneration, but above all thanks to the people strongly related with a place and
creating opportunities for others who live outside of Broekmanhuis. The creative space of The Garage Notweg,
where there is Ponec de Winter’s office, Wildeman Station and the communal room Broekmanhuiskamer forms
a vibrant environment for local activities. Homework guidance, crafts, and games afternoons are organized
annually. Katja de Winter pointed out that the level of complexity for this project was not much higher than the
other investment models, but its greater transparency should be provided by the designers, especially on the
topic of clear distinction between what is individual and what is collective.
Kleiburg- Case 3
Kleiburg Project is different from the other analysed projects because of its architectural typology and scale.
Collaborative processes tend to provoke the question about the possibilities of scaling up models based on
participation. This project is a positive response to the fear of large investments in community-led renovation
models and became known worldwide after winning Mies van den Rohe award in 2017. The Bijlmer
neighbourhood was urbanised in the 1960s according to modernist urban planning and architectural trend. In
this worldwide known new housing estate, the CIAM segregation of functions principles were taken very far.
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
The planning consisted of twenty-four 11-floor housing blocks situated in honeycomb- shape compositions with
over 13000 apartments. They were an attractive alternative for citizens moving from impoverished Amsterdam
city centre at the time. From the 1970s, the middle class was gradually losing interest in the area often searching
for housing in low-rise neighbourhoods. In mid-70s Amsterdam was facing an immigration wave from Surinam.
Certain places in the Bijlmermeer were marked by unemployment, crime and drug nuisance. In the 1990s a
large-scale renovation operation was started. High-rise buildings were being demolished to be replaced
with smaller-scale homes, including many housing in the owner-occupied sector. During the demolition process,
the decision to keep a number of characteristic buildings in Bijlmer Museum, was made. In spite of the earlier
assumptions and protests, “Koningshoef” and “Grunder” blocks within the Bijlmer Museum had been
demolished. As an answer to bottom-up support for keeping the rest of museum intact, architect Greg Lynn
proposed a renovation project. It involved inner divisions in the building for 500 families, to create smaller
neighbourhoods. The spatial relationship change would be supported by vertical communication system
consisting of elevators, escalators, ramps and stairs installed on the façade. The idea was not treated seriously
and Rochdale asked Henk van Schagen Architecten for a renovation plan, which again appeared to be
ineffective. The estimated cost of a thorough renovation would be 70mln euros. In 2010 Rochdale Housing
Association announced the demolition of the Kleiburgflat and removed the remained inhabitants from the
building. The decision was loudly protested within the city, so Housing Association, with no other solutions,
came up with the idea to sell the building for 1€ and choose the most interesting development plan for the
building from the submitted proposals. In February 2011, eighteen parties submitted plans, after which four
parties remained, which were allowed to elaborate their plans from June 2011. The consortium 'De Flat' was
selected as a candidate with their revolutionary proposal to turn Kleiburg into a DIY flat. De Flat consortium
consisted of Hollands Licht (concept architect Martijn Blom), Kondor Wessels Vastgoed (developer Willem
Gaymans), Vireo Vastgoed (financial advisor Frank Zwetsloot) and Hendriks CPO (concept developer Hella
Hendriks). De Flat invited NL Architects, Rappange en Partners, and XVW architecture to collaborate on the
projects. Together they invented the process for Kleiburg transformation.
Figure 6 Kleiburg. Before and after renovation.
Top Left picture source: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleiburg#/media/Bestand:Kleiburg_3.JPG,
Top right picture source: https://www.parool.nl/nieuws/zuidoost-wil-flat-kleiburg-behouden~b45d3148/
(author: Jean-Pierre Jan)
This project had a very clear division between what is decided on behalf of future residents and when the self -
construction started. Contrary to all the other analysed projects in this article, Klushuis’s general building
interventions did not happen in participative design model. Firstly the apartments were stripped from the
leftovers of previous inhabitants. Secondly the façades and communal spaces were renovated. Finally, the
apartments were rebuilt by the residents according to their needs. The process of renovation was divided into 4
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
phases to coop with the scale of over 500 apartments. In phase 1: 109 homes; were prepared in, phase 2: 119
homes, in phase 3: 131 homes and in phase 4: 152 homes. The phases were planned to be started in 2013 and
finished in 2016. In every phase, certain construction interventions were proceeded. The architects uncovered
the original concrete structure, as well as brought back the original wooden railings of the galleries. They
organized vertical traffic spaces inside the building to free the façade from brutalist cylinders with elevators.
The most prominent interventions were made on the ground floor, which use to be a traffic and storage space,
separating the building from the street level. De Flat decided to turn the plinth into small commercial spaces and
double-floor studios. The goal was to minimalize the spaces that would potentially encourage criminal
behaviours. That is why the underpass at ground level was enlarged and directly connected with living spaces.
Information and selling campaign began in 2012 and thanks to its efficiency, 70% of the apartments were sold
in pre-sale. In two years all of the spaces were sold. 20% were rented houses and 80% were sold with house
ownership. 9 types of flats and studio houses on the ground floor were offered to potential buyers. The rules for
future residents were transparent and they were published online in a seven-page document. Among others, the
requirement was that dismantling and finishing of the DIY house should not take longer than 1 year which could
be challenging if the number of necessary interventions were taken into account. The apartments put on sell
were radically stripped. The installations were only in the meter box next to the entrance, meaning all the
electricity, water piping and gas were the responsibility of future residents. There was an obvious opportunity on
buying several housing units and connecting them both horizontally and vertically, so the demolition and
construction work had to be taken into account. For instance 9 apartments were connected together in a T-letter
shape combination vertically. The freedom of choice gave an opportunity for self-organizing and resulted in the
emergence of four owners associations.
The scale of the project resulted in participation that was not supervised by the idea providers. This caused
certain disconnection and allowance for individualistic focus. Due to price rise some owners took advantage of
the 2020s market and sold their apartments with significant returns or decided to rent out the spaces. The actual
value of the process in long term should be therefore investigated in further research.
Evaluation through sustainability values.
Klushuis projects analysed in this paper reflect values of sustainable development starting from lowering
ecological footprint and ending with building conscious, local societies. The cases of Klarenstraat and especially
Broekmanhuis exemplify urban interaction (1) in a non-forced way, which happens naturally not only by
original architecture re-use but most of all the participation in decision making, which allows for a deeper
understanding of local, spatial and social context. Case 2 was realised with local organisations having their
offices in the next-door building. Their idea focused on “local search” for participants and the interest was high
throughout the whole process, even though their marketing strategy was not as developed as in other analysed
cases. The social results are visible through active involvement in local undertakings. The group of
Broekmanhuis decided to invest in shared spaces within the building, which are now used for schooling (2;6).
Investing in spaces other than housing is not a common practise for CPO’s in the Netherlands. For Kleiburg
building community part of process seemed to be given away to the buyers. They could invest as a smaller
group in some shared space and there is at least one case known as “Monastry” that happened spontaneously.
Besides that restoring the usable function to the ground floor gave an opportunity to integrate better with the
environment.
All analysed projects had the ambition to become affordable houses (3), nevertheless one cannot overcome the
specifics of the market. The affordability of the analysed projects was lying mostly in the hands of the future
inhabitants. The initial price for the “shell” of the buildings in all the cases was below the market price (see
Table 1). Together with finishings in the Klarenstraat project, the inhabitants could have saved up to 68 000 €
on a 100m2 apartment, while Kleiburg clients could have overpaid up to 35 000 € for 100m2 if they had not done
the finishings with their own hands. That is widespread, especially when the architectural qualities in all the
cases are taken into account. The initial price for Bijmermeer block may be considered overestimated, also in
light of the lower price increase of this neighbourhood throughout the last years. The intention of all the projects
was to create chances for starters and people with lower income, to have own house in Amsterdam. This chance
seemed to be well used in Klarenstraat and Broekmanhuis project. Kleiburg on the other hand does not seem to
be well protected from the wealthier buyers, as since 2017 there have been suspicions about possibilities of the
speculative character of investments done in the building. De Telegraaf reported dozens of flats had been sold
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
to investors, who are renting them out for high prices
22
. That is an alarming signal which requires further
research.
Table 1. Basic Parameters of the DIY projects.
Green space (4) was a significant discussion for Broekmanhuis project in terms of ownership and collectiveness.
Along with the collective part, the “garden group” was founded by the residents. This space became a field for
social activity inclusive food production and bicycle storage. It was municipality’s requirement to keep the
garden open as a neighbourhood integration point. Less privacy but even more chances for integration were
given to Klarenstraat inhabitants, as the garden is shared by four residential buildings. The houses on the ground
floor have stripes to private garden part, as was planned for Staalmanplein neighbourhood in 2009 (van Ulzen
in: DIY Klarenstraat, s. 178) There was an ambition in the projects to integrate the houses with green to the
maximum extend. This ambition is a part of long-term municipal strategy. In Broekmanhuis the group requested
for gevel tuin: façade garden, which is installed by the city for free.
23
Besides tiny gardens founded by the city,
residents themselves find it important to keep potted plants in front of the building. In Kleiburg all the ground
floor sides of the building are publicly accessible, although it is clear which side is the quiet garden (Figure 7).
22
Muller M. (2017) Hoge huurprijzen in klusflat, De Telegraaf (https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1328082/hoge-
huurprijzen-in-klusflat accessed: 28 July 2022)
23
Gemeente Amsterdam/ City of Amsterdam (https://www.amsterdam.nl/wonen-leefomgeving/groene-
stad/geveltuin-aanvragen/ accessed: 28 July 2022)
* Data from: https://maps.amsterdam.nl/woningwaarde/?LANG=en
** Data from DIY Klerenstraat : 141
Field
Klarenstraat
Broekmanhuis
Kleiburg
Years of process
2012-2015
2015-2019
2011-2015
Amount of houses
30
24
511
Flat sizes
74-175m2
55-130m2
59-142m2
Land ownership
Ownership
Land lease per year
Land lease til.2054
Building ownership
before
Alliantie HA
Municipality of Amsterdam
Rochdale HA
Price for the building
2 260 200 €
1 600 000 €
1 €
Price per m2 for the old
house
661 €
615 €
1019-1419 €
Price per m2 with
finishing
2220 €
ca.2600 €
1700–2919 €
Average price per m2
in the starting year, in
same region of
Amsterdam (in euros, not
adjusted to inflation)
2400-2900*
1860-2480*
Ap. 1830 – 2440*
House ownership
after
Ownership
Ownership
20% rental
80% ownership
Process Manager
/facilitator/ CPO
specialist
Urbannerdam
The Beach for Creative
Innovation
Hendriks CPO
Developer
-
DiD Vastgoed-ontwikkeling
Kondor Wessels
Vastgoed
Architect
Van Schagen
Ponec de Winter
NL Architects, XVW
architectuur
10 qualities evaluation
1,4,5,8,9,10
1,2,3,4,5,6,8,10
1,5,6,8,10
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
Figure 7 Public space green. From the left: Klarenstraat, Broekmanhuis, Kleiburg paved side, Kleiburg green
side.
All 3 cases present the investment model which prevented demolition from happening in the spirit of the
maxim, attributed to Frédéric Druot, Anne Lacaton, and JeanPhilippe Vassal, “never demolish, never remove or
replace, always add, transform, and reuse!” It is especially valuable for the discussion about lowering footprint
while facing the problem of housing shortage in the cities like Amsterdam. The collaborative process allowed to
see the value in the buildings which were not interesting from a single investment point of view. Post-war
modernistic architecture in all analysed cases proves its ease for adaptation, thanks to the modularity and
structural simplicity. It creates options for intuitive divisions and both egalitarian and varied interior solutions.
Besides the thermal necessity for windows and doors replacement, façade and construction materials were
perfectly possible for re-using in all 3 cases (5). In Broekmanhuis as well as in the DIY Klarenstraat building,
original bricks were kept. As the buildings were insulated from the inside, none of them lost its original façade
rhythm of the “form-follows-function” idea. If the extra volume was added to the form, as in case 2, the
additional elements followed the modular language of the existing building. Grid structures allowed for the
implementation of Tetris-like compositions, which gave an opportunity to create verified types of housing:
multistorey houses with gardens, small, one-storey apartments, houses with double height spaces and access to
the roof terraces. These circumstances allow thinking about the transformation fitting the precise requirements
of each client (8). What is moreover interesting is that none of this creativity is visible at first glance.
Conclusions
Over the last 100 years Amsterdam remained an incubator for experimental housing, although the role of
Klushuis in shaping this image is marginal. Since 2019 there was no initiatives for DIY houses, despite the
success of this kind of investment. This success cannot be measured with money though. Some may see DIYs
were appreciated and worth the risk during the crisis and that they were treated as a sheet anchor for hopeless
cases. If not for social intervention both Kleiburg and Broekmanhuis would have been razed to the ground, and
they potential frustrated. Klushuizen as incidental interventions can be used as sparks to burn the fire of the
local interaction. These processes have a lower risk for gentrification of the area, and if they invite local
organizations and partners, they have more chances of succeeding. In the report Interventions for Integration,
the Social Cultural Planning Office mentions Klushuizen as one of the working projects to positively break
through the one-sided, socio-economic composition of deprived neighbourhoods. Nevertheless the municipality
of Amsterdam does not seem to be as interested in multiplying DIY ideas further on. Inconveniences of the
municipality as the active party can lay in financial risks of this models. In case of Broekmanhuis investment,
the city sold the building for 1.6mln € unlike to first dutch attempts to realize the 1€ policy. This shifted more
financial risk to the clients and forced support from other parties, who believed in the project and were ready to
invest. The role of the investor or developer was necessary nonetheless, because of the time gap between project
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
preparation investment and possibility for getting mortgage at the moment when the group was still forming.
The project has to have an opportunity to continue separately from the group membership stability, which
cannot be guaranteed by municipal support. Beitske Boonstra and Willemijn Lofvers (2017) mention three other
inconveniences for local governments in supporting DIY projects which they come down to the question "Who
owns the city?": the first is inconsistency of the goals of all parties participating in projects, including the
takeover of the role of the manager of public spaces by residents; the second is how the process raises the
question of who eventually should lead city renewals and transformation of architectural heritage. In the case of
Broekmanhuis, the municipality conducted a procedure exactly as in all cases of CPO projects: from the
competition for the project and process, to issuing a building permit, having control over the social renewal
plan. In the other cases, the parties selected by the owners of the buildings performed supervision over the idea,
so municipality controlled general renovation part of the project, without insight to the process of its
implementation. Third inconvenience was defined as seeing the role of municipality as one actor’, while it plays
the role of initiator, facilitator and inspector with the necessity of understanding multiple background for
interests: private, collective and financial. The same soft competence is required from the side of the architect,
who needs to accommodate diverse dreams and desires in uniform object. DIY requires managing complexity
and creating framework for spontaneous future development and it has been noticed by the industry. All the
projects analyzed in this paper were awarded with architecture prices, even though they were realized with
explicit reserve. The aesthetic pragmatism was the contextual requirement of modernistic heritage, which was
understood by the designers. Besides DIY houses’ architectural and social qualities the idea is seen as a risky
instrument for housing development. Klushuis idea, like presented in this article, is rarely multiplied. It seems to
be taken over by private investors as more market focused, casco projects - newly build structures to be filled in
by residents themselves like Casco_Lofts Hauthaven or Superlofts by Marc Koehler. Another manifestation of
DIYs' are individual apartments sold cheaper as klushuis, but in fact they are just unfinished flats with
installations and equipment deficiencies. Even though architecturally the idea may seem to be similar, the
collective participation process is taken out of the equation. Without the collectivity in architecture
transformation, there will be not much left of the promise for non-gentrified communities and neighborhood
renewals. Presented cases show how differentiated the Klushuis processes can be and still have similar,
promising trajectory, both in the field of architecture in transformation and on social level. Every project rises
awareness that housing investments happening in participative models, can be beneficial financially, with no
loss to the esthetics and spatial quality. Nevertheless DIY projects are time consuming, which increases the risk
of reducing motivation of the group and can result in dynamic changes and multiple crises. The process requires
high level of transparency and collectivity from the participants and professionals, which bodes for success to
smaller groups of about 5 to 30 families. All 3 cases were considered as a vehicle for sustainability, but not for
affordability. Its time consumption narrows target groups of future residents to those, who can actively
participate in the four-years process, but when spatial qualities like customization or diversity and social
qualities are taken into account, the DIY projects are profitable solutions both for neglected neighborhoods and
modernistic heritage. The success of Klarenstraat, Broekmanhuis and Kleiburg projects, encourages for
multiplying the idea in other cities and countries, especially due to current qualitative and quantitative housing
crisis and the necessity to create alternatives for highly competitive market dominated by developers.
References
Aalbers M.B. (2004) Promoting home ownership in a social-rented city: Policies, practices and pitfalls, Housing Studies
19|3, Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research (AISSR): 483-495
Beekers, W. P. (2012) Het bewoonbare land: Geschiedenis van de volkshuisvestingsbeweging in Nederland, PhD Thesis,
BOOM
Beekers W.P,Van der Woude (2008) Niet bij steen alleen : Patrimonium Amsterdam: van sociale vereniging tot sociale
onderneming 1876-2003: 319-321.
Blom A, Jansen B, van der Heiden M. (2004) De typologie van de vroeg-naoorlogse woonwijken, ZEIST Commissioned by
the Reconstruction Project Team of the National Service for the Preservation of Monuments
Boonstra B. Lofvers W. (2017) Rotterdam: Do-It-Yourself Assemblages in Urban Regeneration, disP - The Planning
Review, 53:1, 6-17, DOI: 10.1080/02513625.2017.1316499
Dammers, E, Pálsdóttir, H., Van den Broek, L., Klemm, W., Tisma, A., & Bijlsma, L. (2007) Particulier opdrachtgeverschap
in de woningbouw, Rotterdam/Den Haag: NAi Uitgevers/Ruimtelijk Planbureau
Gelinck S, Gooijer A, van Hulten F, van Rossem V, Schravesande M, van Ulzen P. (2017) DIY Klarenstraat. Zelfbouw en
de herontdekking van de portiekflat/ A new perspective on the post-war social housing block, Jap Sam Books,
Heijningen, Netherlands, ISBN 978-94-90322-66-3
XXIX International Seminar on Urban Form
ISUF2022: Urban Redevelopment and Revitalisation. A Multidisciplinary Perspective
6th June – 11th September 2022, Łódź - Kraków
Groeneveld N. (2018); Co-housing in Amsterdam: analysis of practice and performance of architect- led collective private
commissioning from a resident perspective, Master Thesis, Radboud University Nijmegen
Hochstenbach C. (2016) State-led Gentrification and the Changing Geography of Market-oriented Housing Policies, Project:
Inequality in the gentrifying European city, Housing, Theory and Society 34(4):1-21,
DOI:10.1080/14036096.2016.1271825
Priemus H. (1973) Woningcorporaties en de socialisatie van het woningbestand in: Woningraad 33: 440-455
Premius H. (2011) Squatters and municipal policies to reduce vacancy; evidence from The Netherlands, Delft University of
Technology
Ring K. (2013) Self-Made City: Self-Initiated Urban Living and Architectural Interventions, JOVIS: 28-46
Tummers L. (2017) Learning from co-housing initiatives. Between Passivhaus engineers and active inhabitants, PhD Thesis,
Delft University of Technology
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek/ CBS; Statistics Netherlands (https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2022/04/house-price-
increase-20-4-percent-in-december accessed: 12 May 2022)
Gemeente Amsterdam (https://www.amsterdam.nl/wonen-leefomgeving/groene-stad/geveltuin-aanvragen/ accessed )
(https://www.amsterdam.nl/en/districts/nieuw-west/osdorp/ accessed )
Hekwolter M. et al (2017); The housing market in major Dutch Cities, De Nederlandsche Bank N.V
(https://www.dnb.nl/media/ykmhc2el/201705_nr_1_-2017-_the_housing_market_in_major_dutch_cities.pdf accessed:
22 July 2022)
Muller M. (2017) Hoge huurprijzen in klusflat, De Telegraaf (https://www.telegraaf.nl/nieuws/1328082/hoge-huurprijzen-
in-klusflat accessed: 28 July 2022)
de Winter P. (2015) New business: Klussen in de Klarenstraat, Published in ArchitectuurNL no. 6,
(https://www.architectuur.nl/ondernemen/new-business-klussen-in-de-klarenstraat/ accessed: 04 August 2022)
