Rumoer 58: Built Environment| BouT | TU Delft

periodical for the Building Technologist

PRAKTIJKVERENIGING

BOUT

student association for building technology

58. Built Environment & Technology

www.octatube.nl

Brouwer en Karthaus winnen W.H. Gispen Award

Architect Jan Brouwer heeft in combinatie met industrieel ontwerper Chris Karthaus de eerste W.H. Gispen Award gewonnen met het ontwerp van de stoel Chalu. De jury, onder leiding van ontwerper Richard Hutten, bekroonde het ontwerp unaniem als beste uit de 110 inzendingen. Het ontwerp van de kuipstoel Chalu zal worden opgenomen in de collectie Gispen Today.

De W.H. Gispen Award is een initiatief van Dutch Originals. Dit label brengt de klassiek geworden ontwerpen van W.H. Gispen uit onder de naam Gispen Classics en voert een collectie met de naam Gispen Today, waarbij hedendaagse toonaangevende ontwerpers - geïnspireerd op de rijke ontwerptraditie van W.H. Gispen - nieuwe producten ontwerpen.

•

•

•

•

Jan Brouwer +31 6 51 31 62 50 Chris Karthaus +31 6 46 32 70 21 info@brouhaus.nl www.brouhaus.nl www.brouwerarchitect.nl

Cabinet 02.West.090 Faculty of Architecture Julianalaan 134 2628BL Delft The Netherlands PRAKTIJKVERENIGING

BOUT

student association for building technology

+31 (0)15 278 1292 www.praktijkverenigingbout.nl rumoer@praktijkverenigingbout.nl

Colofon

RUMOER 58 September 2014 20th year of publication Praktijkvereniging BouT Room 02.West.090 Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft Julianalaan 134 2628 BL Delft The Netherlands

RUMOER is a periodical from Praktijkvereniging BouT, student and practice association for Building Technology (AE+T), Faculty of Architecture, TU Delft (Delft University of Technology). This magazine is spread among members and relations.

Circulation The RUMOER appears 3 times a year, 150 printed copies circulation. Digital versions are available online at: www.PraktijkverenigingBouT.nl

tel: +31 (0)15 278 1292 fax: +31 (0)15 278 4178 www.PraktijkverenigingBouT.nl rumoer@PraktijkverenigingBouT.nl

Membership Amounts per academic year (subject to change): € 10,- Students € 20,- PhD Students and alumni € 30,- Academic Staff € 80,- Companies

Printing Sieca Repro, Delft

Single copies Available at Praktijkvereniging BouT for € 7,50.

ISSN number 1567-7699 Credits Edited by:

Text editing:

Cover design:

Koen Fischer Reinier Scholten Jelmer Niesten Marc Nicolaï Koen Fischer Reinier Scholten Jelmer Niesten Marc Nicolaï Koen Fischer

Sponsors Praktijkvereniging BouT is still looking for (main) sponsors. Sponsors make activities possible such as study trips, symposia, lectures and much more.

There is also a possibility of advertising in the RUMOER: Black & White, full page € 100,Black & White, full page, 3x (once in every edition througout one year) € 250,Full color, full page € 200,-

Cover image:

Former Church Bolsward by Jelle de Jong Architecten (Image courtesy by Arthur Blonk)

Copy Files for publication can be delivered to BouT in .doc or .indd, pictures are preferred in .png or .jpg format.

Disclaimer The redaction does not take any responsibility of the photos and texts that are displayed in the magazine. Images may not be used in other media without permission of the maker. The redaction keeps the right to shorten or refuse publication without prior notification.

Contents

Editorial

5

From the board

6

Challenges in Architectural Conservation by Wido Quist

8

An Interview with Robert Winkel

14

All but table and bed separated by Kees van der Hoeven

Photo Essay by Jelle de Jong Architekten

18

To hide the effort, that’s the trick by Muriel Huisman

36

The Feasibility of Successful Repurposing by Hans van Heesweek

42

An Interview with Janneke Bierman

46

Visitting Building Holland by Marc Nicolaï

52

26

Editorial

This first Rumoer in our lustrum year is dedicated to the old and the new. The technical combination between the old and the new to be precise. In this edition we have gathered a fine selection of articles, interviews and even a photo essay. The opening article is written by Wido Quist, assistant professor at the Delft University of Technology. The article describes the relationship between RMIT, the architectural track at the TUDelft which focusses on the reuse of exciting buildings, and ‘our’ department of Building Technology.

This issue of Rumoer brings you some interesting project descriptions as well. Kees van der Hoeven tells how he made a house from an old military canteen for himself and his wife. Recently a few museums in the Netherlands were renovated, extended and improved. Two architects write about “their” museum. Muriel Huisman, architect at Cruz y Ortiz Arquitectos, describes how much effort it takes not to show the effort that is put in the renovated Rijksmuseum. In his article, Hans van Heeswijk explains how he brought a 17th-century monument back to its former glory to house the much appreciated Hermitage.

For this Rumoer we interviewed two architects to give you an idea about how these architects work and think. Robert Winkel from Mei Architects and Planners explains why a mistake can make a building beautiful and how they sometimes intend on making mistakes. Janneke Bierman from Bierman Henket architecten will show us how she designed the bloblike extension for “De Fundatie” museum.

As a visual treat, Kees de Haan of Jelle de Jong Architekten, gathered some beautiful photographs of their projects which show the combination between the old and new exactly visualizing the topic of this Rumoer.

Koen Fischer 5

From the Board Written by: Pasquale Maya, Daniël, Maaike & Koen

The beginning of the new academic year 2014-2015. A special year for BouT that is for it is our 20th anniversary. Twenty years ago, september 1994, BouT was founded by then BT teacher Jan Brouwer (who still is a big supporter of BouT) to promote the role of the building technologist because he (and more often she) is often seen as an insignificant player in the whole process of building. Twenty years later this image has been improved but many people are still unaware of the qualities of the building technologist. For this our role is not redundant yet. We keep on going strong for the initial goals.

As we’re used to we’ll also continuing our efforts to support your study by arranging exciting excursions and interesting lecturers and enrich your student life with sparkling drinks and sizzling barbecues. At this moment we’re planning two special events for you. You can look forward to our study trip to Berlin and a real symposium organized by and for building technologists.

As an extra event this year one of our committees is planning a study trip to Berlin this fall.

This summer we had a little change in the setup of the board. Tyrza Lichthart has left BouT as Chairman, Pasquale van Dijk will be the new Chairman and at the same time she will still be responsible for Educational Affairs.

As there’s a lot to do in and around BouT, we are always on the look for new enthusiastic people who want to join BouT. We have various committees which you can join or help the whole year through, ones a year a new board is formed to replace all of the former board members. So if your are interested don’t hesitate to contact us.

We are looking forward to the next twenty years of BouT! What aBouT you?

6

ST

A

GE ?

Solar Sedum® is een jong Nederlands bedrijf op gebied van intergratie PV en groen. Zij biedt stagiaires de volgende mogelijkheden: • Onderzoek verkoeling panelen • Ontwerpen configuraties • Productontwikkeling • Marketing & Verkoop technieken • Werkervaring op daken Kom leren in de praktijk, daar schiet je mee op!

Ben je geïnteresseerd? Mail je CV en motivatie naar matthijs@solarsedum.nl Binnen de komende weken worden de eerste testopstellingen geplaatst.

Solar Sedum® werkt samen met Zinco, Optigroen, SemperGreen, VU Amsterdam, TU Delft, HS Rotterdam, Wageningen UR, New Energie Docks en De Dakdokters

7

Challenges in Architectural Conservation

Written by: Wido Quist

The professional and academic field of Cultural Heritage is a broad and international field including amongst others social studies, historical studies, architecture, archaeology, building materials and design. This contribution focusses on built (architectural) heritage in the Netherlands. Due to the relatively high building density and the abundance of empty space in the Netherlands, it was already stated in the nineteen eighties that it is not the task of the future to build the new, but to adapt the existing. Of course, the existing Dutch building stock does not only consists of so called Architectural Heritage but also of a large number of buildings of a lower importance. Since the beginning of the new millennium it could be observed that the term ‘heritage’ became interpreted wider and the debate on and the preservation of historical values was not limited anymore to buildings with an official listed monumental status. Governmental policies, commercial investments in real estate and the perception of existing buildings by the general audience started to change slowly, but it was not until the financial crisis of 2007-2008 that most people realized that the future of real estate development – in the broad sense - lies in ‘the existing’.

This contribution focusses on the recent and future challenges in conservation of the existing building stock, 8

Figure 1: New methods of exploring the tolerance for change in historical buildings need to be developed. What is the (maximum) load a building can take?

For example: looking from a cultural historical and architectural point of view, is this former ‘werkplaatsengebouw’ in Rotterdam by Van de Broek en Bakema capable of carrying the intervention on top of the building?

Dr.ir. W.J. (Wido) Quist was educated in architecture and building technology and now works as assistant professor at the Delft University of Technology. As a student he was chairman of the fifth BouT-board (1998-1999). Wido defended his PhD-thesis - on the replacement of white Belgian sandy limestone - early 2011. His research interests contain among others history of conservation, 20th century building materials and natural stone. He is involved in education of master students in architecture with a focus on building conservation, research methodology and renovation of postwar apartment buildings. Among others he was vice chairman of the 10th International Docomomo Conference in 2008 in Rotterdam, is board member of Docomomo Netherlands and WTA NL-VL as well as member of the advisory committee of bi-annual Flemish-Dutch symposium on Natural Stone. More information: http//www.widoquist.nl.

whether it is listed or not. Considering the terminology used it is clear that this field is very broad. Without defining them the following terms are frequently used: restoration, renovation, modification, intervention, transformation, rehabilitation, retrofitting, conservation, preservation, alteration and conversion. In Dutch we are most familiar with the words ‘restauratie’ and ‘interventie’, in which ‘restauratie’ is mainly used in the context of old, historical, valuable and therefor to be preserved buildings and ‘interventie’ in the context of the more common buildings of lower cultural and architectural importance. In this contribution I would like to speak about ‘conservation’ as it is defined in “The Burra Charter: The Australia ICOMOS Charter for Places of Cultural Significance, 2013”, regardless whether the monumental value of the building concerned is considered high or low: “Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its cultural significance. In which cultural significance means aesthetic, historic, scientific, social or spiritual value for past, present or future generations. Cultural significance is embodied in the place itself, its fabric, setting, use, associations, meanings, records, related places and related objects.”

Context at TU Delft The section RMIT of the department of Architectural Engineering + Technology is a teaching and research unit of the Faculty of Architecture of Delft University of Technology (TU Delft). The focus of the section is on the integrated Restoration, Modification, Intervention and Transformation of sites with (sometimes hidden) culturalhistorical value from the urban to the detail level. As part of the RMIT-methodology in research and design, it is stated that many answers for the future lie in the past, so talking about future developments in conservation is talking about history. See also the inaugural speeches of the different professors at RMIT and their predecessors.

Since the late nineteen sixties a working group, focussing on ‘restauratie’, exists at the Faculty of Architecture of TU Delft. A group of people saw the importance of setting ‘restauratie’ as an academic discipline. In 1973 prof. C.L. (Coen) Temminck Groll was appointed chair of ‘Restauratie’. From 1987 onwards the chair was taken by prof. F.W. (Frits) van Voorden. In its early years staff of the chair were involved in many on-site investigations into the building archaeology of specific buildings and sites and later a focus on mutual overseas Dutch Heritage and 9

on a larger urban context could be observed. Although the chair was part of the department of Architecture, education was broad and ranged from international excursions through construction history to building materials and design. Within the Technology department of the Faculty of Architecture a chair on Renovation and Maintenance Techniques was created in 1988. This chair was taken by prof. J. (Joop) van Stigt.

After the retirement of prof. Van Stigt in 1999, the sudden death of prof. Van Voorden in 2000 and an interim period under the guidance of prof. H.J. (Hubert-Jan) Henket, the department of RMIT was established by prof. J. (Jo) Coenen in 2004. In his inaugural speech in 2006 he explained ‘the art of blending’, not only referring to the integration of ‘old’ and ‘new’, but also referring to the integration of the disciplines of Urbanism, Architecture and Technology in the new department. Current chairs at RMIT are taken

by prof. P. (Paul) Meurs, prof.dr. M.C. (Marieke) Kuipers and prof. R.P.J. (Rob) van Hees; the position of Coenen is vacant.

This short history illustrates the historical connection of architecture and technology when acting in architectural conservation and the future of the conservation-discipline lies in an even stronger connection between architecture and technology, backed up by historical and cultural knowledge. In my opinion, the most important (technology related) challenges in architectural conservation lie in: ·

Developing methodologies and parameters supporting heritage valuation;

·

Making the existing building stock more sustainable;

·

Finding integrated strategies for temporary use;

·

Developing knowledge on compatible and re-treatable conservation techniques;

·

Developing knowledge on twentieth century (building) materials.

Heritage valuation

Figure 2: Although smaller in scale, compared to recent decennia, traditional conservation campaigns like here at St. Johns’ cathedral in ‘s-Hertogenbosch will always be necessary to preserve the most valuable (parts of our) Architectural Heritage. The biggest challenge will be to keep on educating craftsmen and to continue working with the concepts of ‘compatibility’ and ‘re-treatability’ in mind.

10

The shift from traditional preservation to future oriented adaptation has consequences for our approach of historic buildings, whether they are listed or not. On the one hand it is the question what this shift means for conservation theory but on the other hand it has a strong architectural and technological component because it calls upon the possibilities for change of a building or complex. New parameters such as ‘cultural carrying capacity’ and ‘compatibility’ (see Kuipers & Quist, 2013) as well as new approaches, such as preliminary studies of possible

interventions instead of repressive permit strategies seem to offer a lot. The fields of BuildingTechnology, Architecture and Cultural Heritage should go hand in hand to determine the possibilities taking into account its historical and current performance in many aspects and its tolerance for change to accommodate future performance.

Sustainability Western Europe in general and the Netherlands in particular has a huge amount of twentieth century buildings of which many do not comply with the current and future needs for comfort and environmental sustainability. Demolition and replacement would have a very high embedded energy load and would destroy valuable historically grown urban contexts. Therefore it is necessary to develop strategies that not only aim at reduction of fossil energy use and making appealing architecture but also at respecting and probably enhancing the cultural historical values of the buildings concerned. Although in many ways comparable, the twentieth century building stock is not homogeneous when it comes to its architectural, technological and cultural historical values. This implies the translation and adaptation of generic concepts on sustainability to the need of individual buildings and complexes, based on valuations. Tailor made (technological) designs, based on general products is where the future lies.

Temporary use Large scale restoration and redevelopment of existing buildings and complexes seems to have become history as the financial means for investments are not available anymore. This not only raises the question to rethink real estate development strategies, but also many questions regarding daily maintenance and conservation of the

Figure 3: BK-city is an example of ‘temporary use’ turned into ‘permanent’ use. To stay in the building permanently, a project to enlarge the comfort and reduce the energy load is being executed. During the initial conversion and the second refurbishment a lot of choices regarding materials, colours, repairs, replacements, breakthroughs, etc. have been made that interact or conflict with the monumentality of the original building. It would be of great value to study the interventions in retrospect to learn more about the advantages and pitfalls of converting for ‘temporary use’.

11

physical matter. Development for temporary use is an instrument that is promoted by the government. In its essence there is no difference between adapting buildings for temporary future use or for permanent future use. In the end one never knows beforehand how long ‘temporary’ will be or how long ‘permanent’ will last. The biggest risk for the architectural heritage concerned, when developed for temporary use, is the possible use of non-durable and/ or non-compatible materials and techniques that allow or initiates degradation of the existing; obstructing future preservation. Temporary use without proper investments in (daily) maintenance can also harm the existing in such a way that degradation beyond repair is the consequence.

Predicting and monitoring future decay and predicting the possible decrease of traditional heritage values compared to the creation of new values by adding a new historical layer to the building by giving it a temporary use will become an interesting research theme in the near future.

Compatibility and re-treatability The terms compatibility and re-treatability were developed in reaction to the ‘classical’ and in many cases impossible to achieve reversibility of interventions in architectural heritage. Compatibility can be defined as: every intervention should not harm the existing and be as durable as possible.

The term re-treatability refers to the possibility to reexecute the same intervention to prolong the service-life of the construction concerned. Both concepts need to be elaborated especially when not only looking at material properties, but also taking architectural and historical aspects into account.

12

Modern materials Up until now only fragmentary research has been done in the Netherlands into twentieth century building materials like thin plated natural stone, aluminium, plastics, fibreboards and concrete. Opposite to the lack of comprehensive research there is a lot of hands-on experience in the professional field of (conservation) architecture, engineering and execution. To know about modern building materials is to bring knowledge of different stakeholders together.

Concluding remarks This contribution on architectural conservation was not meant to make a clear statement or to point at specific architectural or technological developments, but it tried to explore the mutual topics between the RMIT-discipline and the BuildingTechnology-discipline. It is mainly described from an academic point of view, but when looking at specific cases in the professional field of conservation -also described in this Rumoer issue-, it becomes clear that both disciplines share a lot. I hope that the topics described can set a professional and academic research agenda for the near future that includes both Building Technologists and RMIT-architects.

References C.L. Temminck Groll, Een introductie voor de restauratie.

Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 1973.

F.W. van Voorden, Het einde van de restauratie-koorts.

Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 1988.

J. van Stigt, Een nieuwe bouwopgave. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 1988.

R.P.J. van Hees, De restauratie voorbij. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 2004.

J. Coenen, De kunst van de versmelting. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 2006 P. Meurs, Bouwen aan een weerbarstige stad. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 2007.

M.C. Kuipers, Het architectonisch geheugen. Inaugurele rede TU Delft, 2009.xxx M.C. Kuipers & W.J. Quist (red.), Culturele Draagkracht.

Op zoek naar de tolerantie voor verandering bij gebouwd erfgoed, Delft 2013.

13

An Interview with Robert Winkel Architect at Mei architects and planners

“De Fabriek” Written by Koen Fischer & Jelmer Niesten

Do you have a strategy when approaching a new project?

It is of the utmost importance that you start loving the building you work on. And to love something, you have to know it. An important aspect is the history of the building; in which circumstances it was built or previously transformed. Often historical buildings have not been built at once and are made up of different parts. You’ll find many existing elements that make the building unique and may need to be replaced. It’s important you understand the technology and materials behind these elements.

The building method can tell you right away in which period each part was built. Like the way modernists after the 20’s use concrete that isn’t plastered to keep it ‘honest’ as a material. That way you can unravel the techniques used and also divide the building into different time layers. You can find what makes the building special to you and use this to start telling its story to others.

And if you don’t fall in love with the building?

Most of the time I know quite soon if a project is right for us or not. We tend to look for projects with something special. Either because of the building itself, or because of the ambitions of the client. If both the building and the client don’t inspire us then we see that as a reason not to take on the project.

How was this strategy used at “De Fabriek”?

Figure 1. The office of Mei architects, Schiecentrale 4B

14

In “De Fabriek” located in Delfshaven I immediately saw the different layers of time. First small houses appeared on the side of the dike over several years, built out of masonry and timber. Later on, in the 30’s, a factory hall was built on the space between the houses and the water, with a main load bearing structure of steel.

Robert Winkel founded Mei architects and planners in 2003 and is the office’s energetic leader. He is ambitious and enterprising both inside and outside the office.

Robert has a love of the craftsmanship involved in treating and finishing materials, as reflected in his solid understanding of (industrial) production processes. This is illustrated by details such as the screen of woven stainless steel applied to the Schiecentrale 4B building and the panels of the Kabouter garage.

He also designs and makes his own leather shoes, and loves to make his own traditional sausage, which he then places to dry in a storage unit, made of composite materials developed by Mei, located opposite his home on the gallery on the top floor of the Schiecentrale 4B building.

people; especially so when we found that those windows could be opened in a specific way to get rid of steam. This reflected on the historical use as an industrial steaming and painting facility.

The location of “De Fabriek” at the “Mathenesserdijk” was also just right. This dike has had a turbulent history as the main road between Schiedam en Rotterdam until 1900. The traditional ribbon development alongside is easily noticeable. The turbulent history as well as the time layers intrigue me. The building is named “De Fabriek” but when we found it, it looked more like a maze due to all the different buildings connected to each other.

What’s the next step in the design process?

Figure 2. “De Fabriek“ building

When you make adjustments to a building you have to be aware of the load bearing structure and its stability, but you must also realize what kind of emotions the materials can induce in people. In this building we found timber window frames on one side and steel window frames on the other side, facing the water. These steel window frames were something special and really impressed

From this point on it’s all about strategy. Everybody wants to have a design for free. They want us to make a quick sketch to give to the contractor and continue without us.

This time the project developer tried to sell the project including us as the architect to the contractor. Only after convincing the contractor we wouldn’t be just another price tag but could actually help save money the contractor agreed.

15

During the reconstruction that followed we made design decisions in accordance with our sketch design and the wishes of the contractor. Every day we had to walk through the building and see what we could find and what to do with it. This makes for an interesting job and left little time to think about the situations that arose; we had to make quick decisions.

How did you deal with parts of the building that were too dilapidated for re-use?

The funny thing about the whole idea behind the vide is that we came up with it because a part of the building was rotten and partly collapsed. This part used to be where several small courtyards provided the houses with light and air. So we kept the hole we found in the old building to bring some quality to the new.

How did you connect the new parts to the old?

It really was a day to day effort. Every day we used to see what we found in the old building and had to find a solution right away. For example we couldn’t stir the soil.

Therefore it was impossible to dig a hole for the elevator shaft. However the floor height in the basement was quite high so we could think about raising the floor and thereby creating a base for the elevator.

Another example is the structure. The little houses gained their stability from the front and rear facades. When we had to take away the rear facade we had to think about how to support the houses. To solve this we came up with a construction that functions similarly to a walker for the elderly. These kind of practical things, the decisions we had to make on site, are characteristic for the design of „De Fabriek”.

In technical terms, what were the hardest problems to solve?

We didn’t want to add any vents to the building, but the building codes stipulate a minimal ventilation requirement.

However by studying the regulations closely we found that natural ventilation is permitted when applied above 1.8 meters. We were very lucky to find that the typical industrial windows in the building could meet this regulation. This left a need for heating during cold seasons.

Regrettably we weren’t able to apply a closed system with heat recovery due to the low budget.

Figure 3. “De Fabriek“ before the re-development

16

Due to the vide we ended up with a fire compartment that was twice the size of what the regulations would allow.

But again by reading the regulations very closely we found a clause that spoke about dealing with fire regulations from a different perspective. With this we were able to convince

the fire department that our building was easily escapable during a fire by using the old routes through the building.

For all these cases we needed to be smart, fast and sly. As an architect knowing the rules and regulations is indispensable in the building process. Everybody can make a nice sketch but only a few have the knowledge and knowhow to make a sketch into reality.

What materials are used in ”De Fabriek”?

We used a lot of prefabricated products. For example the glass roof is originally used in greenhouses. The handrails for staircases and the vide are a standard product we customized slightly. But generally we use a lot of glass, steel and plaster. Generally it isn’t our highest priority but as it happens these are all cradle to cradle materials.

How do the old and new meet in „De Fabriek”?

This is exactly what „De Fabriek” is all about. The old structure is partly peeled so we could combine it with the new structure. The new structure connects everything together: the old steel construction, the old houses and the vide. The new structure is not a piece of art. That was never the purpose. It had to function. Clean details aren’t my priority. Sometimes it has to be beautiful and sometimes it just needs to do its job. These rough details form the character of the building. We even try to make little mistakes on purpose.

What detail are you most proud of?

It’s a specific element that connects the old and new steel structures. (Figure 4) The old part is built by hand and therefore irregular and crooked. It’s an impossible task to get accurate measurements on it. Due to this the

Figure 4. Connecting the old and new doesn’t always fit exactly.

new steel structure doesn’t fit exactly. To connect the two parts we had to weld on some crooked beams. Some people see this as a mistake but we see it as a symbol of the fact you can’t control everything when working on exciting buildings. Besides, no one really notices this “fault”. Only those who know of it, see it.

17

To what extent is The Factory a typical project for your office?

How important is restoration now and in the future?

Most important in our designs is creating communities and bringing people together. We try to do so with all of our projects, making places where people can see and meet each other. Also our style of collaboration with different experts and advisers is typical for our office. We try to learn from them instead of simply using their knowledge.

And of course we try to be smart, fast and sly with every design.

I don’t know if this is our task for the future but I think it is very important for every architect and engineer to experience at least one restoration. So much can be learned from old buildings and technologies. Not only is it interesting to figure out how people used to build in the past but even more interesting is why they built that way.

With this knowledge you gain more understanding of the contemporary building techniques. I can’t predict the future nor say what the task for architects will be in five or ten years. Most important is to stay flexible.

Figure 5. Connection between old and new in “De Fabriek“

18

Figure 6. Interior of “De Fabriek“

19

All but table and bed separated

Written by: Kees van der Hoeven

“As I park the car at the Institute in the forest, a man comes up to me who calls me by my name. The world is full of readers, they make themselves known at unusual moments and places. He wants me to see his house. I walk along up the hill, past the woodwards house, through the gate, that is where he is building his house. He’s an architect and did the design. It’s an extraordinary house, he says, his wife and he both get their identical half.

He met her twenty one years ago, a god’s send, but they didn’t want to live together. When he recently asked her to marry him she said “Yes”, under the condition that he’d design her a house in which they would only share table and bed.

He designed a house that mirrors itself. They both have an office, living room, library, toilet, bathroom and front door in exact mirror symmetry. A house for passing each others life elegantly, which reflects my own matrimonial ambition. Only the view and the daylight that falls through the canopy is different. When we went downhill again, a truck happens to enter the street. The driver is from Emmen. He’s bringing twenty eight doors for the mirror house.”

Twenty eight doors - Short story by Tommy Wieringa

20

For twenty years architect Kees van der Hoeven (62) and psychologist Josette Keegstra (63) had a LAT (Living Apart Together) relationship. She lived in an apartment in Amsterdam and he rented an old canteen in a forest near Wassenaar for thirty years. Recently they bought the little canteen and got the leasehold for the land. With that canteen as a take-off they built their ideal live and work house.

Design and organization Our new house came to be by renovating and expanding the existing property. This former canteen is a little rectangular shaped building with double wythe masonry walls and a tarred flat roof. It was too small to house two, so after purchasing we decided to design a plan for expansion. The current zoning allowed an increase of fifteen percent of the built area and a extra floor as attic. Because both of us lived on our own for so long, we chose for a concept in which we would both have an equal amount of usable space. All rooms and utilities would be doubly built and we'd only share the live-in kitchen and the bedroom. Our design therefore defines three zones: in the middle the live-in kitchen adjacent to a patio, the stairs and the bedroom; then on opposing sides both of our own habitats; and on the upper floor a terrace with an adjoining library for each.

Despite the patio being an outside space, for the rules it still counted as built surface and therefore we had to renounce the patio. The approved design contains a living space on the East side with its own entrance, hall, storage and toilet. The other living space with the same contents lies on the West side of the building. The planned half round libraries were included under a slated roof on the upper

floor, all according to the rules. Eventually these became two separate roofs, each with two slanted sides. The side walls of the roofs are slightly crooked to allow light and sight through two narrow windows. The entrance halls, the bathrooms and the bedroom were all included in a building permit free zone.

Foundation and floors Due to financial means we became our own contractor during the construction, which partly because of limited budget was realized with traditional building techniques such as timber framing. I'm a fairly capable handyman and had been working before on the realisation of a temporary home for the duration of the construction period. During the construction we lived in a rebuilt shipping container that was expanded with a bathroom and toilet and with a bedstead and terrace were built onto. The lodging also served as on site office.

A demolition firm known from earlier renovations did the deconstruction of the existing building for us, maintaining three masonry outer walls and the existing concrete floor.

Next I assembled all the PVC drains for the plumbing and connected them to the main sewage. Both sons of the demolition boss helped me with the foundations for 21

Figure 1. The patched remaining walls after demolition.

Figure 2.

the expansions at the front and back. After laying the limestone bricks we placed the concrete reversed T beams and the polystyrene filling for the new floors, after which the pressure layer was poured through a concrete pump that was fed by a mobile concrete mixer. On the existing concrete floor we first placed 12 centimeter high pressure polyurethane insulation before we poured a new concrete floor on top and flattened it out with a vibrating board.

waterproof and pre-grounded multiplex plate.

Walls, roofs and upper floor The three masonry walls were patched up and expanded where necessary by two befriended masons. After hardening the basis of the wooden frames where wedge bolted to the concrete floors, after which the sides on each end of the heightened floors were insulated with side planks. The first inner window frames were assembled and fitted so they could be included in the to be assembled walls. These were divided into two kinds, the non bearing interior walls with posts of 75 mm and the load bearing interior and exterior walls with posts of 120 mm. In consultation with the engineer the exact place and the number of single or double beams was already determined.

In the carcass phase the beams were clad with 12 mm 22

Together with my son I placed timber beams (220 x 70mm) on the double upper beams of the wooden frame walls and the masonry walls. Most of them 60 centimetres centre to centre for the flat roofs and in some places such as the library floors, because of the larger weight of the books, every 35 centimetres. We also laid four crookedly placed laminated beams of 30 cm in height as supports for the crooked side walls of the roofs. The beams supporting the roof terrace are placed exactly one beam hight lower than the other beams for accessibility. For the roofs and floors we used 18 mm underlayment

Roof and outer facade.

After adjusting the load bearing window frames around the roof terrace we could start on the two roofs. In this case only the outer wall of the staircase was rectangular, all other walls stood slightly crooked or where build at an angle, making the positioning a challenge. The roofs were both clad in a smooth triangular roof, that connected to the roof of the staircase. Hereafter all the roofs were insulated with polyurethane foam that was delivered in

Figure 3. Laying the reversed T beams and plystyrene filling for the floors.

Figure 4. Installing the new wooden frame walls.

Figure 5. Crooked beams to support crooked walls.

Figure 6. Wooden frame walls on the uper floor

Figure 7. View on the load bearing window frames.

Figure 8. Cladding of the building.

23

pre-cut slopes. Followed by the roofers placing a double bitumen roofing finish.

We thought long about the choice of material for the outer facade. Almost all materials turn green because of the forrest surroundings, which is why we chose corrugated aluminum sheet that could be easily cleaned. The facade sheets were, together with the eaves and z-shaped cornerporfiles, pressed from one silver gray muffled roll of 1 millimeter thick. The two existing masonry cavity walls on both sides of the house were clad in 80mm thick plates of glass wool. Then all outer walls were clad in vapor permeable foil as waterproof layer. The new timber frame walls are internally insulated with 120 mm environmentally friendly glass wool and are aligned with the masonry in such a way the facade appears flat.

Installations and finishing

In resolution The described period which took over two years was even for an older architect still quite educative. Therefore I recommend everyone - even if only once in your life - to build a design for yourself. Dimensioning, materialization, work order, space for ducts, implementation technique; they all become issues - partly because of that personal experience - that you start dealing with more precisely in your future designs.

In the meantime my wife and I have been living in our ‘mirror house’ in the woods for about two years with great pleasure. The separate living spaces turn out to be a big success and the house has been getting a lot of attention.

Mostly women find the concept interesting: “Never having the toilet seat raised on your own toilet, boss of your own TV-remote.” It’s wonderful as an architect to be able to literally give shape to the space of your life.

After the previously mentioned sewage we also assembled most of the other installations, like the flexible plastic heating pipes, the copper gas and water pipes and the round metal ducts for the mechanical ventilation. The electrical installation and telephone, data, security and fire alarm we had installed.

Finally we finished the house on the inside: all ceilings where clad with plaster boards on wooden battens, all walls where first clad with 10mm OSB boards and also finished with plaster boards. All walls and ceilings were leveled with a layer of plaster and painted white except for one wall in each room which was painted red. The red colour was chosen to repress the green reflection from the surrounding forest. The floors are covered with a light oak parquet flooring; obviously only after the concrete floor was leveled with a flat cement screed.

24

Figure 9. Assembly of the facade.

Figure 10. The completed building.

Image courtesy by: Sonia Mangiapane

Figure 11. West side of the building.

Image courtesy by: Sonia Mangiapane

25

Jelle de Jong Architekten Photo Essay

Written/Illstrations chosen by: Kees de Haan

Farmhouse Renovation of an old farmhouse into a residential bulding.

Image courtesy by: Arthur Blonk

26

Jelle de jong started in 1987 as an independant architect in Lemmer. The current architectural company consists of Jelle de Jong, Wytze Bouma and Kees de Haan. They are designing new buildings as well as complete renovation projects.

“An old building deserves respect. Initially it exists of cherishing the original and characteristic elements of the building.

However respect can also be assigned to appropriate interventions which react on the nature of the building. We try to preserve as much as we can but we also make interventions where needed. The created tension is a fascinating dialogue between the old and the new.”

Former Church Bolsward.

Restoration of an old burned down town church to preserve the remaining walls and windows.

Nominated for “Best building of the year 2008” by the Dutch architects association BNA.

Image courtesy by: Arthur Blonk

27

Renovation of a old farmhouse A new house is built inside the old barn of the farmhouse. The new volume and the barn do never touch each other than on the floor. Inside the house you are able to see the old barn everywhere but it will be different from each perspective.

This renovation project was nominated for “Best building of the year 2014� by the BNA.

28

Image courtesy by: Thijs Wolzak Fotografie

29

Traditional Villa Renovation of an old traditional villa into an office building.

Image courtesy by: Arthur Blonk

30

Storage building, Leeuwarden Renovation of an old storage building into a residential building.

Nominated for Best building of the year 2012 by the BNA Nominated for the Golden Phoenix award 2012

Image courtesy by: Arthur Blonk

31

Farmhouse Renovation of an old farmhouse into a residential building.

Image courtesy by: Arthur Blonk

32

Farmhouse Renovation of an old farmhouse into a residential building.

Image courtesy by: Arthur Blonk

33

De Factorij, Franeker Renovation of an old grain storage building into an office building.

Image courtesy by: Arthur Blonk

34

35

To hide the effort, that’s the trick The mechanisms of the work of art must remain hidden

Written by: Muriel Huisman

In a lecture given by Jo Coenen on the VAWR Congress in The Hague on the 27th of May 2014, he brought the audience back to the year 2000 when he – as Rijksbouwmeesterroamed across Europe in search of appropriate architects to participate in the Design Contest for the New Rijksmuseum. He shared an interesting observation with the audience: in the Netherlands the approach to old buildings seemed to be split into two separate fields, namely that of the restoration architect and of the ‘new construction’ architect. Meanwhile in the Netherlands the skill to treat old buildings seemed to be split in two fields of expertise namely the restoration architect and the ‘new construction’ architect, the profession below the revers showed a rather integrated attitude once it came to dealing with existing buildings. Meanwhile in the Netherlands the renown renovation architects often showed monuments’s unnatural quaint extensts, Jo Coenen got inspired by the almost accidental, but naturral renovation projects that he met along his ramble in the south of Europe in which the old and new are presented in a blended new reality.

He got to know Cruz y Ortiz Arquitectos by visiting their Baluarte Project in Cadiz: a former fortress converted to Maritime Museum.

36

The reference The conversion of the former fortress enhanced a new order on the rather chaotic placement of the original buildings around the courtyard, making it adequate for its new role as museum, by a simple operation of a series of irreversible covered walkways, linking all different parts and levels of the buildings. These galleries facilitate a route through the whole exhibition in one single visit over which visitors can move freely and sheltered, without losing contact with the garden. The gallery as a figurative superposition - being less abstract due to the cornice - provides a synergy between the old and new.

This Cadiz‘ project realized in 1989 and ‘spotted‘ by Jo, shows some fundamental principles of the architecture made by Cruz u Ortiz

Principles One of these principles is that we believe that architecture should be resistant to time. The kind of architecture, that is used as a tool to express the spirit of the time, will eventually become obsolete. Our aim is to reach this

Since 2001 Muriel Huisman is an architect of Cruz y Ortiz Arquitectos and since 2012 the director. She has been on the Project Architect of the New Rijksmuseum since 2005 and currently runs both the office as well as several Dutch projects.

From the moment that architecture caught her interest she was intrigued by “how buildings were made.”

The approach of the studio doesn’t merely comprise an architectural statement, but goes beyond the level of caressing each detail in the building. Design decisions are well-considered and meticulously taken. Her interest in the technical part of the construction helps her out in the task of converting the very first sketch into a real functional building; that’s a working area in which she feels comfortable.

Considering her equal capacities in the field of alpha and beta (ed: arts and sciences), she is very well able to employ both interests and expertise within the international work that Cruz y Ortiz develops.

timelessness by means of a synergetic approach of the project. Only by means of a natural concurrence of shape, construction, use and technique, the synergetic character of architecture is utilized to the maximum and the effect of the collaboration major to what each individual party could have achieved. For us, the meaning of synthesis is that none of the building components take a narrative role in explaining their origins, neither be dominant in the experience of the space. Comparatively in a structure that spans a great distance it is easy to resort to narrative, with an entire deployment that explains how each element

Figure 1. Maritime Museum, Baluarte Candelaria, Cádiz.

functions. A non-narrative approach only transmits the feeling of being under a large span structure, without explaining its roots and principles. We desire to transmit that sensation, but never evidently. It is a transparency question: the mechanisms of the art work must remain hidden.

Renovations When it comes to the intervention in existing buildings -monumental or not- these departure points are even more relevant.

From our point of view, acting on existing buildings requires an attitude of availability: to put oneself at the service of a building, which already exists and for a number of reasons cannot stay unaltered. An intervention of a historical building is thus started by determining its strengths, its features and its potentials and respecting this heritage, later to be translated in a shape or gesture that resolves the design challenge. Cruz y Ortiz prefers one single intervention above many random ones: doing rather less than more. To choose singularity above a literal sum of random partial solutions is specifically of high importance

37

in a historical building, where both the users and the building should breathe an unambiguous realm.

Observing exemplary projects in the field of renovation, there always seems the temptation to use mechanisms of juxtaposition or contrasts, one either does a restoration job where one builds the way the old building was built or one follows mechanisms such as rendering anything new in white and leaving the old in stone like narrative. It’s difficult to be 100% non-narrative, but there is a difference between giving clues and the obsessive kind of narration that obliges the users to constantly read. We have a strong desire not to contaminate buildings with a story. To us narration is the opposite of direct sensation and mystery.

In architecture to narrate is to tell an unnecessary story, since the sensation should manifest itself directly.

Figure 2. One of the galleries of the Rijksmuseum

38

Considering the works of Cruz y Ortiz, the renovation projects have gained an important terrain within the total scope of our work. From the museum in Cadiz (1989), several public offices in Seville (1987, 1992, 1995), to the railwaystation in Basel (2004), continued by explorative steps in the Netherlands from which the designs of the University Library in Amsterdam (2004) and the Atelier building (2007) stem, we materialised our acquired experience in our most recent renovation: the new Rijksmuseum (2013).

Rijksmuseum Although the Rijksmuseum has kept its former use, one could speak of an adaptive re-use: it’s the kind of project in which the old, crammed and leaking original building complied all but any norm or regulation of a 21st century’s museum. To give a good example: the once highly needed daylight in the museum would now only harm the art.

This crucial conservation of the historical function within its set monumental boundaries, in combination with the highest demands in terms of preservation of the art and the building, might have been one of the biggest challenges during the design.

Our goal was to first determine the main features to be preserved, as result of an intensive study of the project, its context and ambitious program, the current state of the building, its history and urban setting. Placing all these contextual aspects in perspective, our solution has led to an almost singular intervention, capable to resolve most design challenges: the gesture of the new central entrance, which formed the new public space in the heart of the building. The proposal provides a fresh approach to the formerly neglected – and not executed – sketch design of Cuypers himself, in which he proposed an alternative

Figure 3. Central hall of the museum and the chandelier

entrance through the courtyard. Taking into account our initial lack of knowledge of this sketch, the device ‘further with Cuypers,’ was surprisingly further interpreted, beyond our own intentions.

From that crucial decision on, other lost features– like the symmetry – were recovered and even complemented by a new one, such as the twisted symmetry for all our interventions in the courtyard. Additionally, we provided the museum with two contemporary iconic elements, nowadays reflecting the museum’s new centre: the chandeliers with their originally artistic and later functional roots that have brought human scale, light and acoustics together. The shadows of the baffles engage with the minimalistic striping on the acoustic wall claddings of the embracing old facades. It is exactly these kinds of decisions - witnessing an existing virtue and bringing it to a new interpretation - that bridge the gap between the highly decorative Cuypers and the sober contemporary architectural intervention of Cruz y Ortiz. It’s as if the

Figure 4. Details form the chandelier

present qualities of the encountered heritage have formed the basis, to which a contemporary layer in time is added, merging with the ones that lay beyond in a most selfevident and uncomplicated way. The new intervention has appeared, let’s say, as if it has always been there. To do so, we used craftsmanship techniques that have proven to be resistant to time.

Throughout the full scope of the work, one of the easiest merits of course has been to go back to Cuypers before going further with him. All adaptations perpetrated in the past century, hiding most of the original features such as the vaulted spaces, had to be removed. Willing to dismantle all these additions, the reallocation question raised for the implementation of all climate provisions. To be respectful to the building, climate zones were sought close to the floors they were supposed to provide air to. This was relatively easily achievable in the upper area directly under

39

courtyard we chose a limestone from Portugal in a hue that belongs to the original building. In the galleries the energetic leakage had to be reduced by insulation. Those areas required a holistic approach to avoid the damage on the tableaux in the facades, necessitating a need to balance energy efficiency with damp breathability whilst - most importantly - maintaining the characteristics of all cornices and arches on the interior of the facades.

Again a material loyal to the building has been chosen: an insulation board made from calcium silicate with a micro porous, mineral and therefore capillary capacity. In both diversified areas, the way that the materials are detailed and its tectonics express a contemporary monumentality.

In doing so, the solemnity of the sober detailing doesn’t compete with the traditional architecture but rather coexists.

Figure 5. One of the galleries of the Rijksmuseum

the roof. For the lit galleries this was a different matter. For these areas the solution was found underground, around the building, invisible to the visitor’s eye. Inspired by the walled-in ducts of Cuypers the further vertical transport of air was accomplished by newly incorporated ducts in the over dimensioned thick exterior walls.

In both areas, the courtyard and the galleries, our new detailing was possibly most complicated by exactly not using the ‘clear cut’ as demarcation between the old and new. The exact way to blend two different areas requires a specific solution for each different situation. In all cases the newly applied materials are loyal to the existing ones and could eventually age simultaneously. For the 40

Without any deliberate intention to be innovative, it’s curious that in De Architect of April 2013, Pieter Bedaux describes the intervention as innovative for the following reasons: “…the strategy to go further with the existent, without indicating a clear border between old and new, is against prevalent understanding about restoration in our culture. Usually design resources as contrast and juxtaposition are recruited for later adaptations. It is an interesting paradox that righteously the search for continuity can be called innovative…”

For us, one of the lessons learned in dealing with historic buildings of this magnitude is to always believe in the potentials and not consider them as restrictions. It’s the capacity and patience to observe solutions of the former architecture and add a contemporary layer in time that speaks in a similar language. As such the old and new can blend naturally and age simultaneously, making it durable for a long future.

Figure 6. Detail window opening

41

The Feasibility of Successful Repurposing

Written by: Hans van Heeswijk In the coming decades, the construction industry will increasingly focus on renovation and repurposing. This will apply not only to important monuments such as the Hermitage in Amsterdam and the Mauritshuis in The Hague, but also to some much-hated post-war developments, including the large number of high-rise housing developments which can be found in every major Dutch city, or the many vacant office buildings abandoned over the past 30 years throughout the country. For these too, renovation and transformation to new functions offer numerous opportunities.

What is important with such buildings is to address them comprehensively in order to make them suitable for the next decades.

When you look at such a building as a whole, and not only from the point of view of the most urgent technical interventions needed, there are plenty of possibilities.

There are still a lot of cold feet when it comes to the task of reallocating existing buildings. Old structures are regarded as unsustainable, their construction is seen as an obstacle to a new spatial organisation, and contemporary installations will surely not fit them. But none of this is true. In most cases, repurposing is actually much easier than it looks. What’s more, nothing is as surprising and rewarding as giving an existing building a new life. And if you manage to create a surprising, unexpected spatial quality there, the results can be a lot more interesting than those possible with a new construction project. Although as the designer of a new building you can work out your own ideas from the very first sketch, the surprise and satisfaction 42

can be many times greater when transforming or renovating an existing building. And the process does not have to be any more expensive or more complicated than that involved in a new construction. In fact, it is the very limitations of an existing building that present its most rewarding challenge. And that reward is perhaps even greater than in cases where you can control everything, to some extent, as an architect. There are however a few conditions for success.

Renovation or repurposing begins with organisation and cleaning up. Often, older buildings have already been rebuilt and renovated many times over – and in most cases, becoming neither more beautiful nor more useful in the process. The goal should be to try to make the original logic of the building clear and useable once more. That does not mean that a property should simply be restored to its original state. Often, both large and small changes are desirable to make a building suitable for a new, contemporary use.

The Hermitage in Amsterdam serves as a good example. The museum is housed in a 17th-century monument of Dutch Classicism that was formerly a nursing home called Amstelhof. The outdated nursing home has been transformed into a museum that has drawn an audience of millions since its reopening. Over the years, the building had been completely built in with lots of small interventions, meaning that the original structure, so characteristic of Dutch Classicism, was no longer recognisable.

The first step in the design process was to take a new broom

Hans van Heeswijk MSc graduated from Delft University of Technology in 1980. He won the Archiprix in 1980. He then worked for architect Aldo van Eyck for a number of years. He founded his own practice Hans van Heeswijk Architects in Amsterdam in 1985.

Hans van Heeswijk Architects has widespread experience with the design of museums and the restoration of monumental buildings. Clarity and light are prominent features of the designs, as is illustrated by the Hermitage Amsterdam museum, completed in 2009. Before that, the practice transformed De Beyerd Museum in Breda into MOTI, Museum of the Image. With the recent re-opening of the Mauritshuis extension an important new museum has been added to his oeuvre. Current projects include the new Museum MORE for Modern Realistic Art in Gorssel and a new entrance building for the Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam. to all these renovations and sweep the old building clean again.

Subsequently, one of the major new interventions was to create long sightlines, so that the logic of the museum layout is clear to visitors at a glance. The structure of the old building, used for this purpose, is visible once more, now strengthened, for example, by the addition of voids with wide staircases in the corners so that abundant natural light can penetrate deep into the building.

It is therefore important to start with a thorough analysis of the historic structure, its architecture and construction. Which elements of the building do we need to be careful with, because they are valuable, and which are indifferent? Try to use the logic the original building already contains as much as possible. You must first understand the structure, before you can make a start on it.

Once you have the basic information about these features, the

Figure 1. The Hermitage Museum in Amsterdam is a 17th century building on the outside and a 21st century building on the inside.

Image courtesy by: Luuk Kramer

43

design process may begin with cleaning up and restoring: it should be realised that the process is more about cleaning up and organising than actual designing.

Not every building is suitable for every function. After an analysis of the building, it is possible to tell whether the requested function is appropriate or not. So it requires a flexible approach to ideas, as they may turn out to be simply unfeasible. Especially in the case of a monument, the new function should be fitted in in such a way that the building remains re-usable in the long term. The new function is really just another snapshot. We assume that the monument will remain for many years to come, so the new function must be so flexibly applied that the building remains useable for any future changes in function.

To achieve this flexibility in a monument, it is important that it has sufficient space to absorb its new function. The historic structure should remain recognisable. Avoid an overly specific format in corridors and rooms. Try to keep spaces open and routes simple and comprehensible. Again, the format should be logical and clear. Users and visitors must be able to find their own way around. Open sightlines and maximum daylight in a building help enormously with that.

Above all, the building has to be big enough. The jacket should not be too tight. This means that the programme cannot be too large, and that it should be understood that a programme is usually a snapshot of a need. This need should be able to change, grow or shrink, without the need for immediate rebuilding again. In this connexion, there should be a clear separation between the shell and the interior, which also makes for flexible use, and so for a sustainable building. Use durable and solid materials in a timeless design. In this way the building will last for a long time without quickly becoming dated, obsolete or worn out.

In order to continue to understand the building - with the added new function - it is important to keep the historic spatial quality intact. This can be achieved by executing all the necessary new building elements in contemporary materials and forms.

Contrast between old and new is essential, and easy to achieve in historic buildings. If a monument needs to be expanded, the 44

Figure 2. Hermitage Amsterdam. In order to keep a building light and open, some elements like staircases can be designed as big open pieces of furniture. They give the building a very spatial quality.

Image courtesy by: Luuk Kramer

most successful approach to doing so is to use an understated, yet contemporary, architecture. As a result, the monument becomes more monumental, and there is never any question of what is ‘really’ old and what is new. Also, in an expansion of architectural contrast in a monument there is rarely a ‘clash’ between old and new.

Daylight is another important aspect, both in new constructions and in renovation or redevelopment projects. The generous entry of natural light is highly important in architecture. It is a fact that people instinctively feel more comfortable when there is plenty of daylight. But in addition, light is extremely important in giving a building transparency. A transparent building reveals what’s happening inside it, and gives its visitors and users a view of the surroundings. The building communicates, as it were, with its environment, and therefore fits in better with it. In order to make a building inviting and transparent, it is necessary to allow plenty of light to penetrate it, and then from different angles.

Attention should meanwhile be given to the fact that there is an important difference between daylight and sunlight. You

Figure 3. Hermitage Amsterdam. Long views with lots of daylight coming in at the end of the view can make a building clear and inviting.

Image courtesy by: Luuk Kramer

want the first of these in your building, but the second only to a limited extent. Once you get too much heat in a building, you have to take all sorts of expensive and often energy-consuming steps to reduce it.

Requirements regarding facilities and climatic installations in a programme sometimes tend to be stacked on top of each other and thereby create an impossible situation. Try to enforce reasonableness and in a monument design an installation which is in proportion to the architectural reality.

Sustainability is currently a major issue in the construction industry. But it does not follow that major steps are necessarily being made in that direction. The often larger initial costs of sustainable solutions remain, for many players in the construction

chain, a (too) high threshold. This would seem to be a fallacy, since in many cases a higher investment during the construction process leads to huge cost savings over the longer term. That certainly applies to renovation and conversion projects. Besides low maintenance and energy-efficient qualities, they can also lead to a certain mental durability.

Using these principles, a huge number of existing buildings can regain a viability that will be able to last for decades. Add to this the fact that an existing, often monumental building has its own character, and to a large extent determines the quality of the place where it stands, and it is clear that repurposing is not only feasible, but can also be a highly rewarding option.

45

An Interview with Janneke Bierman

Architect at Bierman Henket Architecten

Museum “De Fundatie” Written by Reinier Scholten & Koen Fischer

Do you use a specific type of strategy when you start with a new project or building?

No we don’t have a specific strategy for that. Of course it is logical to start with looking at the assignment and the context of that assignment. Every project is different in that way. At our firm we have a lot of different projects so there isn’t a singular solution. If you start working on existing buildings that need to be renovated or refurbished, the context and the history of the building and the site will get more attention in comparison with a building in an open field. The context will then give you more grip on the project as we always have respect for the history of the project location. The history is as important a starting point for the transformation of the building as the assignment of the client.

Did your task as an architect change during the last years, regarding renovation projects?

The renovation project used to be a project where the client exactly knew what he wanted and in what way. But we noticed that there is an increasing amount of design tasks where the client doesn’t know what to do with an 46

Figure 1. Street level view of the original museum building.

existing building. So we have to look at all the redevelopment possibilities of that building in order to help the client find a suitable solution for his problem. In this case the client knew he wanted an extension but didn’t know how to solve that problem.

Janneke Bierman (1970) is an architect and the Director of Bierman Henket architecten. She is ultimately responsible for all projects and for the organisation of the bureau.

She graduated cum laude at the Civil Engineering Faculty of the Eindhoven University of Technology in 1995, with a design for the central market in Bamako, Mali. She won the Archiprix in 1996 with this design. She worked for FBW architecten in Tanzania and Architecten Werkgroep Tilburg as the designer of various urban plans and housing projects.

In 2000 Janneke Bierman joined Hubert-Jan Henket as an architect and, since 2010, she has been Director of Bierman Henket architecten.

Concerning the context, do you give extra attention to the history or the construction techniques?

Yes we do. In the middle of an old town you will look at the spatial and historical characteristics and how to make a connection to them. Sometimes this will be in contrast and sometimes you try to blend in to create harmony. On the other hand if your project is located in nature then the context imposes different demands and opportunities.

expensive so we concluded the roof was the only real solution. The municipality accepted this solution right away which is a rare occurrence. Most of the times these kinds of solutions are hard to explain, but in this project everyone accepted it from the start which helped get things going a lot faster.

What was the main influence in the design of museum ‘De Fundatie’?

Our client, Museum De Fundatie and the city council of Zwolle, wanted something special for the city so this was a specific task. The location of the building is at the edge of the old city centre in a completely symmetrical 19th century courthouse. Inside the courthouse there was no room for an extension so we needed to expand outwards.

The analysis and sketching gave us the possibilities of going underground or to the roof in order to maintain the symmetry of the building. Building underground was too

Figure 2. Plan of the original museum building.

47

Was the possible shape of the new roof extensively researched or did you quickly arrive at the spherical shape?

The shape of the extension which we call an “eye-shape” was a solution Hubert-Jan Henket came up with after some sketching. Most of the design process of this shape was about refining the ratio of this volume and the technical feasibility. What took us long to figure out was the opening in the eye: a large window allowing a view over the inner city of Zwolle. This was difficult to realise in the elliptical volume of the extension. A lot of research was needed to make it affordable. It isn’t a perfect sphere, but oval in shape making the segments more complicated. The window looks out to the north, over the city, so in terms of building physics we had to make sure the amount of light entering through was just right.

Figure 5. Visualization of the new addition.

How is the extension structurally supported?

Figure 4. The options considered for the expansion.

48

After on site research by the structural engineer and the contractor, it was concluded that the walls of the old courthouse were not strong enough to support the extension. In order to solve this problem we put it on its own supporting system by using eight steel columns that puncture through the old building to be supported by their own, new foundation. On top of these eight columns a steel table structure was created on which the steel skeleton for the façade was placed. The columns are not visible any more in the existing building, because they are integrated in the finishing of the walls. The difficulty arose from the stability. The existing building was supposed to provide it, but in practice this turned out to be insufficient. So we added some extra structure to provide the necessary stability.

As a result of this structure the extension seems to be floating on top of the existing building. Was this your intention?

Yes because we didn’t want the two parts of the buildings to join together because they both have a different support structure. In order to join these two structures we needed a dilatation so we integrated this in ring of windows which explicitly shows the difference between the old and the new. We have also chosen for a steel structure to make a rational construction in line with the shape of the extension.

How is the climate system integrated in the extension?

The extension does have its own climate system but the central hallway is an open connection between the extension and the existing building. So it was a struggle to make them work together. We had the advantage that the climate system in the old building was already performing very well due to an earlier renovation. The climate system in the eye-shaped extension is controlled by inducing the air through nozzles in the floor and extracting it through vents in the walls.

How did you solve the problems with the shape of the façade and the square tiles?

From the start of the project we were working with the Dutch ceramic company Koninklijke Tichelaar Makkum.

They helped us with creating the mock-ups and studies on the colour and size of the tiles. We tested a lot of different types of ceramics, finishing and glues to find the perfect solution for our project. The tiles are square with a triangular shape on top of them. This tile is completely hollow in order to put them on a curved surface. One of our requirements of the tiles was the aging process as we didn’t want it to age in a colour changing way like copper.

During the process of the façade we kept increasing the size of the mock-ups and we found out we needed to have some “support” tiles which were able to fill in gaps between the tiles. We also hired a professional and highly experienced tile layer in order to attach the tiles onto the façade. We divided the façade in sections and gave the tile layer only some instructions in how to put the tiles at some points in a section. The rest of the tiles were put in place by the creativity of the tile layer himself. Of

What are the façade panels made of?

The façade is made of wooden HSB-panels covered with EPDM foil to ensure water tightness of the façade. The final finishing consists of 3D ceramic tiles, glued to the EPDM foil. Creating the grid for these tiles was a very challenging task. We even asked a mathematician to help us create a grid for the façade. But due to the threedimensional elliptical shape this was not possible.

Figure 6. The tiles of the new roof.

49

course we created renderings with a pattern, but due to this randomness in the direction of the tiles it was still a question whether it would actually look like the renderings.

In the end it turned out perfect.

What detail are you most proud of in this building?

I really love the combination of the tiles in the faรงade and the transition with the glass pane to the existing building.

This contrasting detail is in my opinion a very well conducted part of the building. The building has changed use a couple of times already during its existence.

Do you think this is still possible with the current extension?

With the two open floors (500 m2 each), we created multipurpose exhibition floors. But we did design the extension to make it function as a museum, so all the lighting and ventilation are designed for this specific functioning. Due to the conditions of the museum and the demand for something unique, the extension is designed to look like a museum, making the feasibility of a different use uncertain.

Do you see Museum de Fundatie as a reference project for you or for other architects?

Of course this is a very unique and explicit design. But if we would have had a similar assignment in a different context, we would have reacted to this specific context and its needs and possibilities. As I mentioned before, every location and every assignment is different and asks for different solutions.

How did you solve the problems with the fact that the old building is a historic monument?

Because we were communicating openly with the municipality, neighbours and citizens from the beginning, we hardly had any problems with this. Under the motto preservation through development the customary debates and public inquiry procedures were considerably shortened.

We also tested all our mock-ups at the location itself, so people involved were able to comment and we used this feedback in the design process. Planning permission was granted in record time, the city of Zwolle is proud of this iconic extension.

Figure 7. Detail of the new roof structure.

50

How important will restoration and redesign be in the future?

I think that in the future there will be an increasing amount of restoration and transformation projects. But we also need to accept that demolishing is a possibility. In our company we already changed our focus more to interior design as a part of the renovation projects. If there is no room to make adjustments on the exterior of the building, the design challenge will be in the interior. And this will include new research and technologies.

Figure 8. Interior view of the new addition

Figure 9. The museum with its new addition.

51

Visiting “Building Holland“ Written by: Marc Nicolaï

From the 6th to the 8th of May the yearly event “Building Holland” was held in the Amsterdam RAI congress centre.

According to their website (buildingholland.nl) it’s “the knowledge and meeting platform” where visitors can catch up on the latest developments in “het nieuwe bouwen” (literally: the new building) with lectures and workshops; and also a way to get connected with people from the industry.

On the 7th of May a group of students from BouT visited the event. Thanks to the NS we weren’t able to join the day’s program until lunchtime. When we arrived we handed in our vouchers and got an official visitor pass with our names and ‘TUDelft’ printed on them. Having this hang around our necks made us feel a bit more official and helped us overcome the feeling of being a bunch of out of place students among the professionals.

The decor immediately conveyed that the promoted “new building” should be thought of as “green building” as the hall was lavishly dressed up in green decor elements, carpets and plants. Even the lay-out of the brochure containing the daily program was green. This green theme was also evident in the presentations. The first one we visited was about achieving an ‘Outstanding’ rating for the BREEAM certification of a project. (See BREEAM.nl for more information.) This story by architect Machiel Hopman (Consort Architects) and Rob Quak (Dura Vermeer) about the Lely industrial campus in Maassluis gave an interesting insight into managing a project with environmental goals in mind and the realities they were faced with. For instance: when you decide to extensively sort your construction trash into separate containers, you will have to police 52

Machiel Hopman (right) and Rob Quak (left) giving their presentation.

your workforce to make sure they actually adhere to the separation policy because construction workers aren’t always as motivated to comply. Overall it meant a lot of coordination with the different actors in the process, biweekly meetings with subcontractors and also a lot of data compiling to determine the amount and type of energy used for every part of the building process.

Aside from the lectures there were also many stands where companies and organisations were promoting their products, name and/or goal. This meant we could see a lot of new products that are currently on the market and got to talk to different organisations about their involvement in the building world, such as the Dutch Green Building Council.

Overall this was a big step away from the theoretical university bubble most of us students live in and an interesting encounter with the current building practice.

This experience made it very clear that the world most of us architecture and building technology students will enter is a dynamic world in which many different entities have to interact to achieve their goals.