Building upon ideals
Speculations on the future of European Modern suburbs from the 60-70s
In recent years the debate about Dutch suburbs built in the 60s and 70s has become intenser. There seem to be two aspects of this debate. On the one side is the software, the social component: the government has made a list of problem neighbourhoods, local councils deploy street coaches to regulate public behaviour and numerous NGOs are taking care of the well-being of the inhabitants of such neighbourhoods. All these actions are well intended but are often seen as not effective enough. On the other side is the hardware component, the actions of local urban departments and developers: the restructuring of the Amsterdam Bijlmer area is a good example of such an intervention. It seems that there are two methods for working with the hardware: the cosmetic one includes keeping and renovating existing buildings without thoroughly questioning the functioning of the neighbourhood and with the tabula rasa method the original urban planning idea is replaced with a new one, erasing any traces of history or social networks. For both methods substituting the old with the new is THE solution for the problems of these areas. Unfortunately neither of the strategies addresses comprehensively problems of social cohesion, ethnical and religious polarisation, the growing importance of the private, the disappearance of the social state. There is a strong need for new proposals.
Concrete suburbs with publicly accessed open-air green are even more typical for the former communist countries of Eastern Europe. As a consequence of an ideology praising equality and progress through industrialisation the communist governments had erected numerous prefab concrete buildings, placed in public green. After the collapse of communism these neighbourhoods have become a laboratory for the transformation from a centralised system to an often wild capitalism. In the Netherlands the buildings and the open spaces around them are also often not used for what they were meant for causing a lot of dissatisfaction with these neighbourhoods. That is the reason why East European suburbs are interesting for the Dutch context. In both cases there is the issue of change: social, economical, political. In both cases the original urban planning idea has lost its relevance. A new understanding for the use of these suburbs is needed, a formula which is better tailored to today’s realities and possible future developments.
Due to the weaker state system and the total economical collapse after the fall of communism Bulgaria is one of the most suitable study cases for the above-mentioned processes. The confrontation between private interest (capitalism) and public space (communism) has led to a different way of functioning of Bulgaria’s suburbs. The new role of private property caused a new use of the suburbs, very often in strong contrast with the original socialist urban planning. Green spaces are used for parking cars or even erecting buildings, ground floor dwellings become shops, offices are opened on the 5th or 6th storeys of apartment buildings, interior or exterior adaptations of the dwellings are executed solely according to the owners will. There is almost no common ground between private and public interest anymore. This study proposes to present the processes that are taking place in the outskirts of Bulgarian cities. Even more importantly though it aims at speculating on possible future development scenarios. It will be a way to confront decision makers in various European countries with another way of thinking about the relationship private-public in the plattenbau neighbourhoods. This research tries to differ form previous ones on the topic of Modern suburbs by trespassing the analytical. After a comprehensive investigation of the existing situation proposals for uses of the suburbs that reflect better today’s reality will be made. A photographic, graphical and textual analysis will be carried out together with studies on possible future scenarios and at the end exhibitions, debates and workshops will be organised.
The research is aimed initially at students and practicing architects. But even more importantly the purpose is to reach local authorities and investors too, both in the Netherlands and in Bulgaria, hoping on possible cooperation and action. What is necessary for making change possible is a strategy of unsolicited advice, projects that could be put in the face of developers, municipalities and the end user. Then people would have something concrete to talk about, a reference point, something that can be evaluated. Innovative, speculative, even provocative ideas are needed to widen and enrich the discussions about the legacy of Modernist housing.