Urban planner Henk Hartzema sounded the alarm about urban planning in Amsterdam last week on the Transformatieplein. With lot passports and 40-40-20 regulations, everything is unnecessarily closed. He contrasts this urban planning as a counting model with an urban design that belongs to all of us, offers freedom and can withstand change.
The municipality of Amsterdam has drawn up a large number of documents for the redevelopment of Sloterdijk Zuid, today an area with industries and office buildings. The intention is that the current business park will be transformed into a mixed urban area with an emphasis on housing.
Lot passports and 40-40-20 doctrine
Very striking in the documents is the far-reaching involvement of the municipality in the interpretation of the plots. Plot passports dictate height, density, numbers of homes including distribution of homes and finally the desired additional urban program. The houses are distributed according to the 40-40-20 doctrine. The whole thing is boarded up with the allure of a new communist ten-year plan.
Urban planning as a counting model
Urban planning has been reduced to a structure of straight streets and numerical indications of the plots. Urban planning as a counting model, where quality should be created by cheerful architecture and happy coffee drinkers in the plinth.
Public space
Where did it go wrong? When did the municipality of Amsterdam stop making real urban planning? The urban development of the canal belt, Oud Zuid or the garden cities? Urban planning that first and foremost creates (public) space. Buildings, firmly on the ground, that compose the city with their volume structure and name the relationship between inside and outside in their architecture. Often no lively plinth to be seen, but parts of the city that belong to all of us, offer freedom and can withstand change.
40/40/20+10
It seems that the municipality is afraid of the free market. Perhaps that is justified. But I would think that in the good Dutch tradition of give and take, openings can be found to make the city better. Why no incentive for the plot owners? Suppose they can be challenged to give 10% percent of their plot back to society in the form of a pocket park, a sunspot and they receive 10% development space as a gift. Then 40/40/20 suddenly becomes 40/40/20+10. The city is housing, the developer is its margin, the residents are their social space. Only winners.
Buildings and greenery
It also seems that the municipality is afraid of the grand gesture. Why not look for interaction between Sloterdijk Zuid and the green zone along the railway? Why not let both qualities interact so that the greenery becomes better and living more attractive? The world is full of examples of beautiful transitions between buildings and greenery. The west side of Manhattan along the Henri Hudson River Parkway is a wonderful example of this.
Boldness and determination
“Only courage and determination are needed to make our beautiful, living, sweet city do what it can do like no other: shine!” writes the coalition agreement of GroenLinks/D66/PvdA/SP in 2018. Dare to negotiate with market parties and a determined urban planning hand is what Amsterdam is asking for!
Henk Hartzema, De Architect, 17 juni 2019
