Type :
Photography, Writing
Year :
2025
In what ways did social norms of the interwar period, including the emphasis on health, community, and efficiency, manifest themselves physically within Rotterdam’s Architecture?
Many social housing projects built in 20th-century Rotterdam physically embodied evolving societal priorities, reflecting norms related to health, community, efficiency, and modernity. The 20th century saw a growing awareness of the links between housing conditions and public health. For instance, the small dwellings in the Van Eesteren neighbourhood could not sustain a healthy living for the average working family of around 8-10 people. The response to these conditions manifested in revolutionary design principles that prioritized what modernist architects called the essential elements of healthy living – light, air, and space. For instance, the Van Nelle Factory, completed in 1931, was designed as a "daylight factory" that demonstrated how architecture could advance both industrial processes and human well-being. This led to the incorporation of features such as large glass windows for natural light, white facades symbolizing cleanliness, and ample green spaces for recreation, community engagement, and fresh air.
Residential projects all over Rotterdam also purposefully employed the architectural language of openness and transparency, with communal gardens, balconies, and porches becoming commonplace features meant to support mental and physical well-being. One such residential development is the Justus van Effen Complex in Spagen, which has creative elements like the "street in the sky"—elevated walkways connecting residences meant to promote a feeling of community. The welfare state's emphasis on family life and the welfare of the group was further reinforced by playgrounds, parks, and common courtyards. One of the main goals of the paternalistic housing provision for the working class was to educate the common man.
Pedestrian-focused developments like the Lijnbaan shopping street, Europe’s first pedestrian shopping promenade designed by Van den Broek & Bakema, encouraged positive social interactions as shopping was viewed as economically productive and community-centered. This radical shift in the way people shopped was morally uplifting, particularly after the severe bombing damage from the war.
Something that both the Justus van Effen complex and Lijnbaan share is the efficient nature of their construction and uniform programs; after all, lots of buildings needed to be built after the war – and built fast. The efficiency imperative drove the adoption of industrial manufacturing principles in housing construction. The Bergpolderflat, completed in 1934, featured the radical use of steel skeleton construction and prefabricated elements. We saw that the building featured identical housing units on nine floors, accessible via galleries. Additionally, the efficient "stamp" or "stempel" system originated in earlier Rotterdam projects like the Omoord neighbourhood and Pendrecht, where architect Lotte Stam-Beese implemented the concept of wooneenheid (residential clusters) as a fundamental organizational unit. Each stamp consisted of approximately 80 homes arranged in a standardized configuration that could be replicated across neighborhoods like individual stamps on paper. Her systematic approach allowed for rapid construction while maintaining social diversity through the integration of different building heights and housing types within each cluster. Thus, Rotterdam truly became a testing ground for innovative construction systems designed to maximize efficiency, yet account for the health of the community.
To this day, health, community, and efficiency are crucial aspects of living in Rotterdam. Much of the social housing we visited, such as the Bergpolderflat, Ommord neighborhoods, and Justus van Effen Complex, is inhabited and in outstanding condition. Recent developments like the Markthal suggest that Rotterdam continues to incorporate new approaches to sustainable and community-centered development, exemplified by the Markthal’s mixed-use development that mingles commercial and residential spaces. Nonetheless, as the Netherlands faces new housing crises, the lessons learned from this remarkable period of reconstruction remain highly relevant for balancing the imperative need of rapid housing production with quality living conditions.
How has the perception of social housing, such as housing from the Spangen area, changed over time since they were first designed? What political, social, or economic shifts influenced such perceptions?
The shift in public perception of social housing in Rotterdam's Spangen neighborhood is an interesting example of how architectural idealism, economic realities, and social change interact over time. The Spangen neighborhood began as a communal living experiment but now stands as a multifaceted representation of social issues and architectural legacy. Spangen was initially intended to be a progressive response to the housing demands of the growing working class in Rotterdam. The Justus van Effen complex, which Michiel Brinkman designed in 1919, reflected the progressive principles of social housing in the early 20th century. The complex, featuring hundreds of dwellings arranged around courtyards with innovative "streets in the sky" (bovenstraten), was conceived to foster community while providing dignified housing for Rotterdam's working class. The architectural design prioritized both functionality and social interaction, with features like public bathhouses, communal gardens, and elevated walkways that connected residents and facilitated neighborhood life. Because such social housing provided an efficient solution to the imperative housing shortage at the time, the 1920s generally saw social housing as something economically and socially uplifting.
The 1970s were a fundamental turning point in the perception of social housing, coinciding with broader economic and social upheavals that transformed Dutch society. The 1973 oil embargo triggered a severe economic crisis that would reshape the Netherlands’ social and political landscape. The embargo focused international attention on the Netherlands, but also exposed the vulnerabilities of the Dutch economy and its dependence on energy imports. The economic crisis had profound implications for social housing. By the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Dutch economy had deteriorated dramatically, leaving it in a state of crisis by 1982. The decline of Rotterdam’s industrial base in the 1970s led to rising unemployment, social fragmentation, and neglect of the built environment. During this time, the Spangen area became infamously known for its widespread poverty and unemployment, the influx of ethnic minorities, crime, homelessness, and drug trade. The once-progressive architectural features began to be seen differently – even ground-floor spaces originally designed for storage became sites for illicit activities.
Alas, the 1970s saw the decline of post-war optimism and overall industrial power, which had sustained support for ambitious social programs. The belief that the future would be better, which had characterized the post-war reconstruction period, was replaced by uncertainty regarding social progress. Large-scale social housing projects lost support as a result of this change in societal psychology, which also ended up stigmatizing them. In terms of public opinion, Spangen's development illustrates the shift from optimism about the welfare state as a whole to uncertainty.
Today, we’re seeing new appreciation for Spangen's architectural significance. The 2010-2012 restoration of the Justus van Effen complex restored the quality of architecture and brought it up to par with current standards of comfort and energy efficiency. According to local guides and scholars, resident satisfaction has increased in the recent decade. Upon visiting the Justus van Effen complex, I found that the property was not only well-maintained, but residents could also enjoy comfortable living, scenic canals, recreational trails, and customizable porches. The changes to public perception, in the case of Spangen, have truly been a telling example of how shifts in society, be it economic, social, or political, can alter the way people interact and experience Dutch social housing.