Music: Listen, Look and Enjoy

This is the 23^st episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. Its topic is the way how the quality of the living environment benefits from good governance.

In 1339 Ambrogio Lorenzetti completed his famous series of six paintings in the town hall of the Italian city of Siena: The Allegory of Good and Bad Government. The image above refers to the characteristics of governance: Putting the interests of citizens first, renouncing self-interest, helpfulness, and justice. These characteristics still apply.

Rooted in the community

The starting point of urban policy is a long-term vision on the development of the city that is tailored to the needs and wishes of citizens, as they become manifest within and beyond the institutional channels of representative democracy. In policies that are rooted in the community, knowledge, experiences, and actions of those involved are also addressed. Each city has a pool of experts in every field; many are prepared to commit themselves to the future of their hometown.

Participation

Governance goes beyond elections, representative bodies, following proper procedures and enforcing the law. An essential feature is that citizens can trust that the government protects their interests and that their voices are heard. The municipality of Amsterdam has access to a broad range of instruments: co-design, Initiating a referendum, subsiding local initiatives, neighbourhood law, including the ‘right to challenge’ and neighbourhood budgets. I will deal with participation in the next post.

Two-way communication

Barcelona and Madrid both use technical means to give citizens a voice and to make this voice heard in policy. Barcelona developed the platform Decidem (which means ‘We decide’ in Catalan) and Madrid made available Decide Madrid (‘Madrid decides’). Both platforms provide citizens with information about the policy, allow them to put topics on the policy agenda, start discussions, change policy proposals, and issue voting recommendations for the city council.

Madrid has developed its participatory electronic environment together with CONSUL, a Madrid-based company. CONSUL enables cities to organize citizen participation on the internet. The package is very extensive. The software and its use is free. Consul is in use in 130 cities and organizations in 33 countries and has reached some 90 million citizens worldwide.

City management

Each city offers a range of services and facilities, varying from the fire brigade, police, health services, municipal cleaning services to ‘Call and repair’ lines, enabling residents to report defects, vandalism, damage, or neglect. Nuisance has many sources: non-functioning bridges, traffic lights, behavior of fellow citizens, young and old, traffic, aircraft noise and neighbours. In many cases, the police are called upon, but they are too often unable or unwilling to intervene because other work is considered more urgent. This is detrimental to c23. Governanceitizens’ confidence in ‘politics’ and seriously detracts from the quality of the living environment.

Resilience

Cities encounter disasters and chronic problems that can take decades to resolve. Resilience is needed to cope and includes measures that reduce the consequences of chronic stress (e.g., communal violence) and – if possible – acute shocks (e.g., floods) and eliminate their occurrence through measures ‘at the source.’

For an adequate approach to disasters, the fire brigade, police, and ambulances work together and involve citizens. This cooperation must be learned and built up through practice, improvisation and trust and is not created through a hierarchical chain of command.

Follow this link below to find an overview of all articles.

This is the 22^st episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. Its topic is the way how the quality of the living environment benefits from reducing the contrast between urban and rural areas.

Photos from space show a sharp contrast between city and countryside. Urban areas are predominantly gray; rural areas turn green, yellow, and brown, but sharp contrasts are also visible within cities between densely built-up neighborhoods and parks. Even between neighborhoods there are sometimes sharp transitions.

The division between city and country

Large and medium-sized cities on the one hand and rural areas on the other are worlds apart in many respects and local government in municipalities would like to keep it that way. For a balanced development of urban and rural areas, it is much better if mutual cohesion is emphasized, that their development takes place from a single spatial vision and (administrative) organization and that there are smooth transitions between both. The biggest mistake one can made is regarding the contrast between city and country as a contradiction between city and nature. Where large-scale agriculture predominates in the rural area, the remaining nature has a hard time. Where nature-inclusive construction takes place in cities, biodiversity is visibly increasing.

The idea that urban and rural areas should interpenetrate each other is not new. At the time, in Amsterdam it was decided to retain several wedges and to build garden villages. Some of the images in the above collage show such smooth transitions between urban and rural areas: Eko Park, Sweden (top right), Abuja, Nigeria (bottom left), and Xion’an, China (bottom center). The latter two are designs by SOM, an international urban design agency that focuses on biophilic designs.

Pulling nature into the city

Marian Stuiver is program leader Green Cities of Wageningen Environmental Research at WUR. In her just-released book The Symbiotic City, she describes the need to re-embed cities in soil, water and living organisms. An interesting example is a design by two of her students, Piels and Çiftçi, for the urban expansion of Lelystad. The surrounding nature continues into the built-up area: soil and existing waterways are leading; buildings have been adapted accordingly. Passages for animals run between and under the houses (see photo collage, top left). Others speak of rewilding. In this context, there is no objection to a small part of the countryside being given a residential destination. Nature benefits!

Restoration of the rural area

The threat to nature does not come from urban expansion in the first place, but mainly from the expansion of the agricultural area. Don’t just think immediately of the clearing of tropical rain woods to produce palm oil. About half of the Dutch land area is intended for cows. Usually, most of them are stabled and the land is mainly used to produce animal feed.

The development of large-scale industrialized agriculture has led to the disappearance of most small landscape features, one of the causes of declining biodiversity. Part of the Climate Agreement on 28 June 2019 was the intention  to draw up the Aanvalsplan landschapselementen . Many over-fertilized meadows and fields that are intended to produce animal feed in the Netherlands were once valuable nature reserves. Today they value from a biodiversity point of view is restricted and they are a source of greenhouse gases. Nature restoration is therefore not primarily focusses at increasing the wooded area. Most of the land can continue to be used for agricultural and livestock farming, provided that it is operated in a nature-inclusive manner. The number of farmers will then increase rather than decrease.

Pulling the city into nature 

There are no objections against densification of the city as long this respects the green area within the city. So-called vertical forests by no means make up for the loss of greenery. Moreover, space is needed for urban agriculture and horticulture (photo collage, top center), offices, crafts, and clean industry as part of the pursuit of complete districts. Nature in the Netherlands benefits if one to two percent of the land that is currently used to produce animal feed is used for housing, embedded in a green-blue infrastructure. Some expansion and densification also apply to villages, which as a result are once again developing support for the facilities, they saw disappearing in recent decades.

Finally, I mentioned earlier that nature is more than water, soils, plants, and trees. Biophilic architects also draw nature into the built environment by incorporating analogies with natural forms into the design and using natural processes for cooling and healthy air. The ‘Zandkasteel’ in Amsterdam is still an iconic example (photo collage, bottom right).

Follow this link to find an overview of all articles.

This is the 21^th episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. Its topic is the combination of living and working in the same neighbourhood. This idea is currently high on the agenda of many city councils.

Benefits for the quality of the living environment

If there is also employment in or near the place where people live, several residents might walk to work. That will only apply to relatively few people, but urban planners think that bringing living and working closer together will also increase the liveliness of the neighborhood. But more reasons are mentioned: including cross-fertilization, sharing of spaces, the shared use of infrastructure (over time), a greater sense of security and less crime. Whether all these reasons are substantiated is doubtful.

In any case, mixed neighbourhoods contributes to widening the range of residential environments and there is certainly a group that finds this an attractive idea. The illustrations above show places were living and work will be mixed (clockwise): Deventer (Havenkwartier), The Hague (Blinckhorst), Leiden (Bioscience Park), Amersfoort (Oliemolenterrein), Amsterdam (Ravel) and Hilversum (Wybertjesfabriek).

Break with the past

Le Corbusier detested the geographical nearness of work and living. In his vision, all the daily necessities of residents of the vertical villages he had in mind had to be close to home, but the distance to work locations could not be great enough. Incidentally, very understandable because of the polluting nature of the industry in the first half of the 20th century. Nowadays, the latter is less valid. An estimated 30% of companies located on industrial sites have no negative environmental impact whatsoever. A location in a residential area therefore does not have to encounter any objections. The choice for an industrial site was mainly dictated because the land there is much cheaper. And that’s where the shoe pinches. The most important reason to look for housing locations on industrial estates is the scarcity of residential locations within the municipality and consequently their high prices. Moreover, in recent decades the surface of industrial estates has grown faster than that of residential locations, at least until a couple of years ago.

Companies are still hesitating

Companies are generally reserved about the development of housing in their immediate vicinity. Apart from the realistic expectation that the price of land will rise, they fear that this will be at the expense of space that they think they will need to grow in the future. This fear is justified: In the Netherlands 4600 hectares of potential commercial sites disappeared between 2016 and 2021. Another concern is that future ‘neighbors’ will protest against the ‘nuisance’ that is inherent to industrial sites, among others because of the traffic they attract. The degree of ‘nuisance’ will mainly depend on the scale on which the mixing will take place. If this happens at block level, the risk is higher than in case of the establishment of residential neighborhoods in a commercial environment. But as said, there is no need to fear substantial nuisance from offices, laboratories, call centers and the like. Companies also see the advantages of mixing living and working, such as more security.

Searching for attractive combinations of living and working

Project developers see demand for mixed-use spaces rising and so do prices, which is an incentive for the construction of compact multifunctional buildings, in which functions are combined. To create sufficient space for business activity in the future, they advocate reserving 30% for business space in all residential locations. The municipality of Rotterdam counters this with a ‘no net loss’ policy regarding gross floor surface for commercial spaces.

Gradually, attractive examples of mixed living and working areas emerge. Park More (from Thomas More), the entrance area of the Leiden Bioscience Park, which will consist of homes, university facilities and a hotel (photo top right). The idea is that in the future there will also be room for the storage of rainwater, the cultivation of food and the production of the estate’s own energy.

Another example, which can probably be followed in more places, is the transformation of the Havenkwartier Deventer into a mixed residential and working area, although part of the commercial activity has left and the buildings are being repurposed as industrial heritage (photo above left). The starting point is that, despite hundreds of new homes, the area will retain its industrial and commercial character, although some residents complain about the ‘smoothening’ of the area’. Living and working remains a challenging combination, partly depending on where the emphasis lies. In this respect, many eyes are focused on the substantiation of the plans of Amsterdam Havenstad.

Follow this link below to find an overview of all articles.

This is the 20^th episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. Its topic is to enable citizens having daily necessities in a walking and bicycling distance. 

During the pandemic, lockdowns prevented people from leaving their homes or moving over a longer distance. Many citizens rediscovered their own neighbourhood. They visited the parks every day, the turnover of the local shops increased, and commuters suddenly had much more time. Despite all the concerns, the pandemic contributed to a revival of a village-like sociability.

Revival of the ‘whole neighbourhood’

Revival indeed, because until the 1960s, most residents of cities in Europe, the US, Canada, and Australia did not know better than their dally needs were available within a few minutes’ walk. In the street where I was born, there were four butchers, four bakers, three greengrocers and four groceries, even though the street was not much longer than 500 meters. No single shop survived. My primary school was also on that street, and you had to be around the corner for the doctor. This type of quality of life went lost, in the USA in particular. However, urban planners never have forgotten this idea. In many cities, the pandemic has turned these memories into attainable goals, albeit still far removed from reality. Nevertheless, the idea of the ‘whole neighborhood’ gained traction in many cities. It fits into a more comprehensive planning concept, the 15-minute city.

Support for facilities

The idea is that residents can find all daily needs within an imaginary circle with an area of approximately 50 hectares. This implies a proportionate number of residents. A lower limit of 150 residents per hectare is often mentioned, considering a floor area of 40% for offices and small industry. The idea is further that most streets are car-free and provide plenty of opportunity for play and meeting.

Opportunity for social contacts

In a ‘whole neighbourhood’, residents find opportunity for shopping and meeting from morning to evening. There is a supermarket, a bakery, a butcher, a greengrocer’s shop, a drugstore, a handful of cafes and restaurants, a fitness center, a primary school, a medical center, craft workshops, offices, green spaces and a wide variety of houses. Here, people who work at home drink their morning coffee, employees meet colleagues and freelancers work at a café table during the quiet hours. Housemen and women do their daily shopping or work out in the gym, have a chat, and drink a cup of tea. People meet for lunch, dinner and socializing on the terrace or in the cafes, until closing time. A good example is the Oostpoort in Amsterdam, albeit one of the larger ones with a station and a few tram lines.

Planning model

On the map above, the boundaries of the neighborhoods with an area of approximately 50 hectares are shown in the form of circles. The circular neighborhood is a model. This principle can already play a role on the drawing board in new neighborhoods to be built. In existing neighbourhoods, drawing circles is mainly a matter of considering local data. The center of the circle will then often be placed where there are already some shops. Shops outside the intended central area can be helped to move to this area. Spaces between existing homes can be reserved for small-scale businesses, schools, small parks, communal gardens and play facilities. Once the contours have been established, densification can be implemented by choosing housing designs that align to the character of the neighbourhood. Towards the outside of the imaginary circle, the building density will decrease, except at public transport stops or where circles border the water, often an ideal place for higher buildings.

If a thoroughfare passes through the center of the circle, this street can be developed into a city street, including a public transport route. Facilities are then realized around a small square in the center of the circle and the surrounding streets.

Incidentally, space between the circles can be used for through traffic, parks, and facilities that transcend districts, for instance a swimming pool or a sports hall or an underground parking garage. Mostly, neighborhoods will merge seamlessly into each other.

It will take time before this dream comes true.

Follow this link below to find an overview of all articles.

This is the 19^th episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. This post is about increasing the independent mobility of children and the elderly, which is limited due to the dangers that traffic entails.

For safety reasons, most urban children under the age of ten are taken to school. The same goes for most other destinations nearby. It hampers children’s independent mobility, which is important for their development.

Car-free routes for pedestrians and cyclists

For security reasons, car-free connections between homes and schools, community centers, bus stops and other facilities are mandatory (photo’s top left and bottom right). Car routes, in their turn, head to neighborhood parking spaces or underground parking garages. Except for a limited number of parking spaces for disabled people.

Design rules

Model-wise, the design of a residential area consists of quadrants of approximately 200 x 200 meters in which connections are primarily intended for pedestrians and cyclists. There are routes for motorized traffic between the quadrants and there are parking facilities and bus stops at the edges. Inhabitants might decide that cars may enter the pedestrian area at walking pace to load and unload to disappear immediately afterwards. The routes for pedestrians and cyclists connect directly with the shops and other destinations in the neighborhood, based on the idea of the 15-minute city. Shops ‘ideally’ serve 9 to 16 quadrants. In practice, this mode will have many variations because of terrain characteristics, building types and aesthetic considerations.

Examples

The number of neighborhoods where cars can only park on the outskirts is growing. A classic example is ‘ecological paradise’ Vauban were 50 ‘Baugruppen’ (housing cooperatives) have provided affordable housing (photo bottom middle ). Car-free too is the former site of the Gemeentelijk waterleidingbedrijf municipal water supply company in Amsterdam – (photo bottom left). Here almost all homes have a garden, roof terrace or spacious balcony. The Merwede district in Utrecht (top middle) will have 12,000 inhabitants and for only 30% room for parking is available, and even then only on the edge of the district. Shared cars, on the other hand, will be widely available. The space between the houses is intended for pedestrians, cyclists and children playing.

More emphasis on collective green

Due to the separation of traffic types and the absence of nuisance caused by car, there are no obligatory streets, but wide foot- and cycle paths. Instead there are large lawns for playing and picnicking, vegetable gardens and playgrounds. Further space savings will be achieved by limiting the depth of the front and back gardens. Instead, large collective space appears between the residential blocks; remember the Rivierenwijk in Utrecht that I mentioned in the former post (top right). Behind the buildings, there is room for small backyards, storage sheds and possibly parking space.

Follow this link below to find an overview of all articles.

This is the 18^th episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. This message is about the limited possibilities for children to play in a green environment because of the sacrifices that are made to offer space for cars and private gardens

Almost all residential areas in the Netherlands offer too little opportunity for children to play. This post deals with this topic. But also, with changing the classic street pattern to make way for routes for pedestrians and cyclists.

Everything previously mentioned about the value of a green space applies to the living environment. The rule 3 : 30 : 300 is often used as an ideal: Three trees must be visible from every house, the canopy cover of the neighborhood is 30% and within an average distance of 300 meters there is a quarter of a hectare of green space, whether or not divided over a number of smaller parcels.

Functions of ‘green’ in neighbourhoods

The green space in the living environment must be more than a grass cover. Instead, it creates a park-like environment where people meet, it is accompanied by water features and can store water in case of superfluent rain, it limits the temperature and forms the basis for play areas for children.

Legally, communal, and private green areas are different entities; in practice, hybrid forms are becoming common. For example, a communal (inner) garden that can be closed off in the evening or public green that is cadastral property of the residents but intended for public use. In that case the residents live in a park-like environment which they might maintain and use together. Het Rivierdistrict in Utrecht is an example of this.

Play at the neighborhood level

Children want wide sidewalks and a place (at least 20 x 10 m2) close to home that is suitable for (fantasy) games and where there may also be attractive play equipment. The importance of playground equipment should not be overestimated. For many children, the ideal playground consists of heaps of coarse sand, water, climbing trees and pallets. To the local residents It undoubtedly looks messier than a field full of seesaw chickens. Good playground equipment is of course safe and encourages creative action. They can also be used for more than one purpose. You can climb on it, slide off it, play hide and seek and more. Of the simple devices, (saucer) swings and climbing frames are favorites.

A somewhat larger playground to play football and practice other sports is highly regarded. Such a space attracts many children from the surrounding streets and leads to the children playing with each other in varying combinations.

Squares

Most squares are large bare plains, which you prefer to walk around. Every neighborhood should have a square of considerable size as a place where various forms of play and exercise are concentrated. In the middle there is room for a multifunctional space – tastefully tiled or equipped with (artificial) grass – for ball games, events, music performances, markets and possibly movable benches. Ideally, the central part is somewhat lower, so that there is a slope to sit on, climb and slide down. On the edge there is room for countless activities, such as different forms of ball games, a rough part, with climbing trees, meeting places, spaces to hide, space to barbecue and walls to paint, but also catering and one or more terraces. Lighting is desirable in the evening, possibly (coloured) mood lighting. There is an opportunity for unexpected and unforeseen activities, such as a food car that comes by regularly, street musicians that come to visit, changing fairground attractions and a salsa band that comes to rehearse every week.

Such a square can possibly be integrated into a park that, apart from its value as a green space, already offers opportunities for children to play. Adding explicit game elements makes parks even more attractive.

Connecting car-free routes

Safe walking and cycling routes connect playgrounds, parks, and homes. They offer excellent opportunities to use bicycles, especially where they are connected to those of other neighbourhoods.

By seeing facilities for different age groups in conjunction, networks and nodes are created for distinctive target groups. The children’s network mainly includes play areas close to home, connected via safe paths to playgrounds in the vicinity. Facilities especially for teenagers are best located somewhat secluded, but not isolated. Essentially, they want to fit in. The teenage network also includes places where there is something to eat, but also various facilities for sports and at a certain age it includes the entire municipality.

Follow this link below to find an overview of all articles.

This is the 17^th episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. This post is about the contributions of sociability and inclusivity to the quality of the living environment.

Almost everyone who is going to move looks forward with some trepidation to who the neighbors will be. This post is about similarities and differences between residents as the basis for a sociable end inclusive neighborhood.

“Our kind of people”

The question ‘what do you hope your neighbors are’ is often answered spontaneously with ‘our kind of people’. There is a practical side to this: a family with children hopes for a family with playmates of about the same age. But also, that the neighbors are not too noisy, that they are in for a pleasant contact or for making practical arrangements, bearing in mind the principle ‘a good neighbor is better than a distant friend’. A person with poor understanding often interprets ‘our kind of people’ as people with the same income, religion, ethnic or cultural background. That doesn’t have to be the case. On the other hand, nothing is wrong if people with similar identities seeking each other’s proximity on a small scale.

All kinds of people

A certain homogeneity among the immediate neighbours, say those in the same building block, can go hand in hand with a greater variety at the neighbourhood level in terms of lifestyle, ethnic or cultural background, age, and capacity. This variety is a prerequisite for the growth of inclusiveness. Not everyone will interact with everyone, but diversity in ideas, interests and capacities can come in handy when organizing joint activities at neighborhood and district level.

Variation in living and living arrangements

The presence of a variety in lifestyles and living arrangements can be inspiring. For example, cohousing projects sometimes have facilities such as a fitness center or a restaurant that are accessible to other residents in the neighbourhood. The same applies to a cohabitation project for the elderly. But it is also conceivable that there is a project in the area for assisted living for (former) drug addicts or former homeless people. The Actieagenda Wonen “Samen werken aan goed wonen” (2021) provides examples of the new mantra ‘the inclusive neighbourhood’. It is a hopeful story in a dossier in which misery predominates. The Majella Wonen project in Utrecht appealed to me: Two post-war apartment complexes have been converted into a place where former homeless people and ‘regular’ tenants have developed a close-knit community. It benefits everyone if the residents of these types of projects are accepted in the neighborhood and invited to participate.

Consultation between neighbours

It remains important that residents as early as possible discuss agreements about how the shared part of life can be made as pleasant as possible. This is best done through varying combinations of informal neighborhood representatives who discuss current affairs with their immediate neighbours. A Whatsapp group is indispensable. 

Mixing income groups is also desirable, especially if the differences in housing and garden size are not too great. It does not work if the impression of a kind of ‘gold coast’ is created.

If functions are mixed and there are also offices and other forms of activity in a neighborhood, it is desirable that employees also integrate. This will almost happen automatically if there is a community center with catering. 

Most of what is mentioned above, cannot be planned, but a dose of goodwill on the part of all those involved contributes to the best quality of living together.

Follow the link below to find an overview of all articles.

This is the 15^th episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. This post is about one of the most serious threats to the quality of the living environment, namely the scarcity of housing, which is also unaffordable for many.

In many countries, adequate housing has become scarcer and too expensive for an increasing number of people. Unfortunately, government policy plays an important role in this. But good policy can also bring about a change. That’s what this post is about.

As in many other developed countries, for a large part of the 20th century, the Dutch government considered it as its task to provide lower and middle classes with good and affordable housing. Housing associations ensured the implementation of this policy. Add to this well-equipped neighborhood shopping centers, ample medical, social, educational and transportation facilities and a diverse population. When the housing shortage eased in the 1970s, the nation was happier than ever. That didn’t take long.

The emergence of market thinking in housing policy

During the last decades of the 20th century, the concern for housing largely shifted to the market. Parallel to this, housing corporations had to sell part of their housing stock. Mortgages were in easy reach and various tax facilities, such as the ‘jubelton’ and the mortgage interest deduction, brought an owner-occupied home within reach of many. In contrast, the waiting time for affordable rental housing increased to more than 10 years and rental housing in the liberalized zone became increasingly scarce and expensive. In Germany and Austria, providing good housing has remained a high priority for the government and waiting times are much shorter. The photo at the top left part shows the famous housing project Alt Erla in Vienna. Bottom shows left six affordable homes on the surface of one former home in an American suburb and top right is the ‘Kolenkit’, a social housing project in Amsterdam.

The explosive rise in housing costs

In order to adapt housing cost to the available budget, many people look for a house quite far away from the place where they work. Something that in turn has a negative effect on the travel costs and the time involved. Others settle in a neighborhood where the quality of life is moderate to poor or rent a too expensive house. More than a million households spend much more than the maximum desirable percentage of income (40%) on housing, utilities, and transport.

Between 2012 and 2022, the average price of a home in the Netherlands rose from €233,000 to €380,000. In Amsterdam, the price doubled from €280,000 to €560,000. Living in the city is becoming a privilege of the wealthier part of the population.

It is often assumed that around 900,000 housing units will be needed in the Netherlands by 2030, of which 80% is intended for single-person households.

An approaching change?

It seems that there is a shift going on, at least in policy thinking. The aim is to build an average of 100,000 homes per year in the coming years and to shorten the lead time between planning and realization. Achieving these intentions is uncartain because construction is being seriously delayed by the nitrogen crisis. The slow pace of new construction has once again drawn attention to the possibility of using existing houses and buildings for a significant proportion of these new housing units. More so as it is estimated that 80% of demand comes from single-person households.

The existing housing stock offers large potential for the creation of new living spaces. This potential has been investigated by, among others, the Kooperative Architecten Werkplaats in Groningen, resulting in the report Ruimte zat in de stad. The research focuses on 1800 post-war neighbourhoods, built between 1950 and 1980 with 1.8 million homes, 720,000 of which are social rental homes. The conclusion is that the division and expansion of these homes can yield 221,000 new units in the coming years. Eligible for this are single-family houses, which can be divided into two, and porch apartment blocks, which can be divided into more units per floor. Dividing up existing ground-access homes and homes in apartment blocks is technically not difficult and the costs are manageable. This applies even more if the adjustments are carried out in combination with making the relevant homes climate neutral. In addition, huge savings are made on increasingly expensive materials.

Even more interesting is to combine compaction with topping. This means the addition of one or two extra floors, so that a lift can also be added to the existing apartments. In construction terms, such an operation can be carried out by using light materials and installing an extra foundation. A project group at Delft University of Technology has designed a prototype that can be used for all 847,000 post-war porch houses, all of which need major maintenance. This prototype also ensures that the buildings in which these homes are located become energy-neutral and include facilities for socializing and play. Hence the extra wide galleries, with stairs between the floors and common areas in the plinth (image below right).

Follow this link to find an overview of all articles.

The average development of the liveability per household in residential neighborhoods in the Netherlands from 2014 (source: Leefbaarheid in Nederland, 2020)

This is the 14^th episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. This post discusses how to improve the liveability of neighbourhoods. Liveability is defined as the extent to which the living environment meets the requirements and wishes set by residents.

Differences in liveability between Dutch neighbourhoods

From the image above can be concluded that more than half of all households live in neighborhoods to be qualified as at least ‘good’. On the other hand, about 1 million households live in neighborhoods where liveability is weak or even less.

These differences are mainly caused by nuisance, insecurity, and lack of social cohesion. Locally, the quality of the houses stays behind.

The neighborhoods with a weak or poorer liveability are mainly located in the large cities. Besides the fact that many residents are unemployed and have financial problems, there is also a relatively high concentration of (mental) health problems, loneliness, abuse of alcohol and drugs and crime. However, many people with similar problems also live outside these neighbourhoods, spread across the entire city.

Integration through differentiation: limited success

The Netherlands look back on a 75 years period in which urban renewal was high on the agenda of the national and municipal government. Over the years, housing different income groups within each neighbourhood has played a major role in policy. To achieve this goal, part of the housing stock was demolished to be replaced by more expensive houses. This also happened if the structural condition of the houses involved gave no reason to demolishment.

Most studies show that the differentiation of the housing stock has rarely had a positive impact on social cohesion in a neighborhood and often even a negative one. The problems, on the other hand, were spread over a wider area.

Ensuring a liveable existence of the poor and an integrated neighbourhood-oriented approach

Reinout Kleinhans justly states: Poor neighborhoods are the location of deprivation, but by no means always the cause of it. A twofold focus is therefore required: First and foremost, tackling poverty and a structural improvement of the quality of life of people in disadvantaged positions, and furthermore an integrated neighborhood-oriented approach in places where many disadvantaged people live together.

I have already listed measures to improve the quality of life of disadvantaged groups in an earlier post that dealt with social security. I will therefore focus here on the characteristics of an integrated neighbourhood-oriented approach.

• Strengthening of the remaining social cohesion in neighborhoods by supporting bottom-up initiatives that result in new connections and feed feelings of hope and recognition.

• Improvement of the quality of the housing stock and public space where necessary to stimulate mobility within the neighborhood, instead of attracting ‘import’ from outside.

• Allowing residents to continue living in their own neighborhood in the event of necessary improvements in the housing stock.

• Abstaining from large-scale demolition to make room for better-off residents from outside the neighborhood if there are sufficient candidates from within.

• In new neighborhoods, strive for social, cultural, and ethnic diversity at neighborhood level so that children and adults can meet each other. On ‘block level’, being ‘among us’ can contribute to feeling at home, liveability, and self-confidence.

• Curative approach to nuisance-causing residents and repressive approach to subversive crime through the prominent presence of community police officers who operate right into the capillaries of neighbourhoods, without inciting aggression.

• Offering small-scale assisted living programs to people for whom independent living is still too much of a task. This also applies to housing-first for the homeless.

• Strengthening the possibilities for identification and proudness of inhabitants by establishing top-quality play and park facilities, a multifunctional cultural center with a cross-district function and the choice of beautiful architecture.

• Improving the involvement of residents of neighbourhoods by trusting them and giving them actual say, laid down in neighborhood law.

Follow the link below to find an overview of all articles.

This is the 13^th episode of a series 25 building blocks to create better streets, neighbourhoods, and cities. This post discusses the way cities can secure public space, distinguishing symptom control and a more fundamental approach.

Scope of crime

According to the World Health Organization, the risk of being confronted with physical violence significantly detracts from the quality of life. In 2000, homicides worldwide resulted in half a million deaths, nearly twice the number of people who died in a war that year, but less than 40% of fatalities on roads. Many murders are related to drug trafficking. The number of murders in the European Union that year was about 5200. Between 2008 and 2016, car thefts dropped by 36% and robberies by 24%. Both trends leveled off after 2010. However, police-recorded sexual violence in the EU shows an increase of 26% between 2013 and 2016.

Monitoring

Social safety is a precondition for the viability of public space. This applies to who works there, who lives there and who visits it. Frequently chosen solutions are the installation of cameras. Not bad, although streets without cameras run the risk of becoming less safe. Moreover, miscreants know well how to disguise their identity.

In Stratumseind, the illustrious nightlife center of Eindhoven, extensive experiments with CCTV cameras and sensors and, in addition, atmospheric lighting and scents have been executed (photo below right researcher Rinus Kanters in the control room). The city regards this experiment as a ‘living lab’ and it has continuously been evaluated. The results so far are that no clear connection has been found between this technology and the number of incidents, the feeling of safety among visitors has increased and the police are more quickly on the scene in the event of incidents.

Intensive use

Further conditions are intensive use. The more people on the street, the greater the social security, except for theft. Also ‘eyes on the street’, apartments in the space above the plinths help. More generally, transparency is of value. Transparent plinths of apartment buildings contribute to it (photo left: the Kleiburgflat, Amsterdam)

Lighting

Lighting is an important issue. It is not even so much about the fierceness of it, which entails other objections, but about the uniformity (photo above right). A particularly wrong idea is to equip lights with motion sensors, so that they only come on when a passer-by approaches. This is at the expense of the ability to keep an overview. There is no objection to slightly dimming the lighting when streets are less busy.

A decent existence

The ultimate policy to reduce crime and improve security is:

• Providing training, guidance and ‘social employment’, such as the ‘Melkert jobs’ from the 1990s, to bridge the distance to the labor market.

• Creating guaranteed jobs in the public sector for all. Not only to improve the quality of life of the unemployed, but also to perform numerous tasks that are currently left undone.

• Allocating a decent income to all adults, as long as paid work still falls short. Experiments with basic income show that this increases resilience, self-confidence and the chance of paid work.

• Providing temporary professional (psychological) assistance and guidance with household, and financial management and training on the way to full integration in society.

• The more intensively residents of a neighborhood interact with each other and keep an eye on each other’s possessions, the less crime will have a chance. Social control has always been a powerful weapon against crime.

• In anticipation of permanent housing, shelter the homeless to prevent drug-related crimes and give high priority to combating violence and burglary.

It would be naive to think that less inequality and improvements in income, jobs and housing for the poorest groups will eliminate crime altogether. Greed, thrill-seeking, boredom, membership in wrong groups, wrong connections, imitation, mental illness, and alcohol and drugs abuse are not necessarily related to poverty.

Effective prevention and policing

• protection against the relatively small group of repeat-offenders, who are responsible for most crimes, especially violent crimes.

• Close cooperation between residents and the police at neighborhood level 

• Police presence on bicycles (better than in cars),

• Detailed knowledge of the police and judiciary of and communication with youth groups that incidentally causes problems

• Sensible and proportionate use of digital resources to track down criminals.

Follow this link  to find an overview of all articles.